I have to say that after Sandy Hook, I was open to consideration of some type of gun control measure. I was shocked, as all were, at the violence on children. It struck a very sensitive chord in me.
In the heat of the first calls for gun control I found this Harvard Law Study on whether gun restrictions are effective at controlling violence. It is a well written, cogent study that brought me around. Here it is: Harvard Study
What I see as damaging to our debate is the use of inflammatory language and calls of anarchy. I don't think anyone in the gun control crowd will be swayed when we start off with proclamations that this is going to lead to a Stalinistic or Nazi-like state. Perhaps it would, but given the nature of our Republic, it isn't really likely.
I'm hoping that this post is along the lines of what Dave is looking for, providing information that can be used in civil discourse on why gun control, however well intended, isn't likely to lead to the result of reduced violence.
The links below will get you an email address or snail mail address for the senate & congress.
I think the more pro-firearm messages they get the better. When I send messages to senators or congressmen (women) outside of my state I never get an answer so they may just delete them.
Please note this post is an example of what I don't want on this thread. It is comprised mainly of opinion and deemed by me to be not informational.
Unfortunately after reviewing my options I can’t move this post without effecting the posts that follow. Therefore; I will leave it here for now to serve as the example cited…my only other option would be to edit or delete it. Thank you, Dave Weber
Yes writing letters and sending emails to your congressmen is a fine idea but I do one better. I live withing 35 miles of the Federal Building in Bismarck where our two senators and one representative have offices. I visit each office in person. True the senators and representative most likely won't be there but their secretaries are. By going in person you are showing real concern on the issue to these people and in my case I usually get a real letter from my congressman. What happens when you walk in the door is the secretary greets you an asks how he/she may help. Be very polite. She takes your name and address and writes down your views on the issue. Then you should watch how your congressman votes. You can see it in the Congressional Record. Now if they vote in accordance with your views you should go back to their office and personally thank them for voting your way. You will be surprised how many miles you get out of a thank you.
Continued from another thread. Whilst agreeing whole hearted with Mr Eales, I think he may have got a date and fact wrong. I believe the first pistol / revolver regulations were brought in in 1917 following the Russian revolution. The upper class, amongst them the politicians were worried about something similar in the UK so passed a law making in necessary to get a licence for the above. Of course anyone who could afford one was of that class so all licences were granted, there was a minimal charge I believe, sorry for being a pedant, I did like that Thomas Jefferson quote, never heard it before, best, Mike.
Mike whilst I may be slightly out in date, the Gun Licence was available to anyone with Fifteen Shillings (About 3.00 US Dollars at that time) Even a relatively poor man could afford that. My Grandfather could, and he was a Poacher way back then, (aside from his day job). The local Policeman (Bobby) knew he was a poacher, but could never catch him at it.
He would hear my Grandfathers 0.410 go off, but when he went to investigate he only found my grandfather walking along the road. Unknown the the Policeman, my ancestor had metal biscuit boxes buried in nearly every field in the local area, and when he shot a Pheasant, Rabbit or Hare they were put into these tins for collection after dark. Had the Policeman looked closely at my Grandfathers walking Stick, he would have found that it was in fact, a walking stick shotgun. (Sneaky). However,the Policeman didn't lose out. The day before Christmas each year grandpa would hang a couple of Pheasants on the door knocker of the Policemans house. lol. He never did get caught. lol. Things were a lot different in 1900.
I am blessed to live in the State of Arizona where "Gun" control isn't a real issue Jan Brewer,Our Governor, is a staunch supporter of the RTKABAS.(see attached) However I would strongly recommend that even those in States not so blessed that you contact your Governor and voice your opinion. IMO: Most governors are political beings and tend to go where the wind is blowing. Jim
Statement From the NRA Regarding Today's White House Task Force Meeting
Fairfax, Va. The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.
We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.
This post will be a brief summary here as this is past history and therefore somewhat irrelevant now:
An "Assault" Weapons ban was proposed and passed by a Democrat controlled Congress and signed by a Democrat President. This goal was part of and is still part of the Democrat platform and was instituted by the radical left wing of the Democratic party personified by the likes of Dianne Feinstein. The intent with this law was to take the first step towards total firearms registration and ultimately firearms confiscation. It had a Sunset clause and expired in 2004 while Bush was President and ther wern't enough votes in Congress to re-institute the ban. There is NO credible information to indicate this ban had any influence in reducing the crime rate whatsoever in the 10 years it was in effect.
The approach the radical left Democrats are now taking is go for it all. What will be proposed to Congress is the registration of most firearms deemed "not suitable for sporting purposes",** a ban on any further manufacture of such weapons and the requirement that all such registered weapons be turned in for destruction upon the death of the current owner. We'll know more in a few weeks. Jim
**My understanding is this registration required list contains several hundred firearms and also(Double Gun only owners please note) includes any firearm with a bore diameter greater than .50.
To the best of my knowledge the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban was never challenged at the Federal level as a 2nd Amendment right violation. This was probably because of it's limited scope. I am NOT a lawyer and perhaps someone with a legal background here can provide more information. The same has been true of the original NFA law of 1934 which required the registration of machine guns or the 1986 law which banned the further manufacture sale of machine guns to individuals. The latter two laws did have an effect. You could have bought an M16 full auto rifle from Colt prior to 1986 for a few hundred dollars plus the $200 registration fee. The same registered M16 (pre 1986) would now cost you around $20,000. Here's an example of the basic law of supply and demand.
I have an update here from further research:
"The Supreme Court reversed the District Court and held that the NFA provision (criminalizing possession of certain firearms) was not violative of the Second Amendment's restriction and therefore was not unconstitutional." This update is from the 1938 Supreme Court case. The defendent's name was Miller and he was found to be in possession of a sawed off shotgun(Barrels less than 18"). I suspect this ruling may be the reason the original "Assault" weapons ban was never challenged. Jim
Ruger has set up a site that will send a form letter to YOUR elected officials. Yeah, I know, you should write your own. This is quick and painless. You will need to allow pop-ups for this to work:
Having just gone through this here in Illinois, I can say that most will not read the email, they will maintain a count. From their perspective, they are counting votes for their own re-election.
Also, please send a more personal message in addition to this.
Below please find the letter I wrote to my congressmen shorty after the Newtown tragedy. Feel fee to use it as a template for a letter or email to contact your congressmen. IMO: The chances of it being read are better if it's short and to the point. Jim
Dear Congressman_____________ or Dear Senator____________
I think we are all well aware that the leftist gun grabbers will make every attempt to capitalize on the Newtown Conn. tragedy to severely curtail or take away entirely our 2nd Amendment rights. We are also well aware that this tragedy was carried out by a mentally unbalanced individual as was the case with previous tragedies such as Columbine and Virginia Tech. This may be a good opportunity to return to the previous policy of institionalizing mentally ill people so they don't pose this kind of danger to society but that perhaps is another matter. I would ask for your support in strongly opposing any legislation that fundamentally impacts our 2nd Amendment rights. I would also recommend you consider introducing legislation to permit properly trained teachers to be armed on school property such as has been successfully done with airline pilots to deter further incidents by madmen.
This link(below) will make a good educational read for those on this forum who are not familiar with the deception regarding "assault weapons" which has been claimed by the gun grabbers and publicised by the 'mainstream news media" for years. Jim
Update: It is being widely reported that Obama will issue 19 "Executive Orders" tomorrow regarding firearms. This if it happens totally bypasses Congress. Jim
Update: It is being widely reported that Obama will issue 19 "Executive Orders" tomorrow regarding firearms. This if it happens totally bypasses Congress. Jim
Not to be outdone by Feinstein and others exploitation of a tragedy he will surround himself with children while doing it !
"Obama plans to surround himself with children during gun control announcement"
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced this afternoon that President Obama will unveil a “concrete package” of gun control proposals including assault weapons bans, high capacity ammunition magazine bans, and closing loopholes on background checks.
Carney said that the president will be joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as children who wrote to the president after the Newtown shootings.
“They will be joined by children around the country expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents,” Carney confirmed.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and law enforcement personnel and certain gun clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a gun containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a gun made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and law enforcement personnel and certain gun clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a gun containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a gun made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round.
Statement of Purpose:
To reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes.
My letter to Mr. Meyer:
Sen. Meyer,
I must respectfully share with you my concern and surprise after reading SB 122. As a law abiding citizen, and a responsible gun owner, I find your bill to be reactionary and punitive. To outlaw all firearms, but single shot firearms, is render an end to hunting, sport shooting (skeet, sporting clays, trap shooting, target shooting) and a citizens ability to defend his or her self or family. To introduce a law that would effectively make tens of thousands of Connecticut citizens criminals is short sighted and an example of the basest of political pandering. The horrific events at Sandy Hook need to be dealt with in an effective and comprehensive manner, not in a reactionary, knee jerk reaction. Not to mention that your proposed law flies on the face of the US Constitution, which as a lawyer you should understand.
I considered you a reasoned and prudent lawmaker (for whom I've cast a ballot)....until I read SB 122. I hereby withdraw my support from you in future races, as well as pledge to work to elect any other candidate that chooses to run against you. I will encourage my family, friends and acquaintances to do likewise.
THAT is just amazing! It is as if this year's flu virus has mutated into some sort of an infection that causes anyone elected to public office to turn into a gun grabbing idiot!
THAT is just amazing! It is as if this year's flu virus has mutated into some sort of an infection that causes anyone elected to public office to turn into a gun grabbing idiot!
X2 lots of RINO's out there !
I posted this in the "move it" basement but its pertinent here as well.
Whats most troubling,along with the useless attacks on the gun/mag is that they have completely ignored any solution to help protect children,armed guards.The latest polls agree,even the Dems (52% favor it.
In new polling conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News, there appears to be far more support for arming people in schools than you might think.
First, a majority (55 percent) of Americans in the poll support the idea of putting an armed guard in every school in the country, including 65 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 52 percent of Democrats.
Dave: These statistics wil be ignored by the majority of the so-called "mainstream news media". Their goal is the complete disarming of private citizens in this Country and anything posted contrary to this goal will either be ignored or dismissed as the statements of extrememists. You can't convert to socialism in this Country with an armed populace who can resist so disarmnament as a first step is the primary goal at this time. Jim
Dave: These statistics wil be ignored by the majority of the so-called "mainstream news media". Their goal is the complete disarming of private citizens in this Country and anything posted contrary to this goal will either be ignored or dismissed as the statements of extrememists. You can't convert to socialism in this Country with an armed populace who can resist so disarmnament as a first step is the primary goal at this time. Jim
and ignored on here,"as long as its not "my" guns"
back to the basement,sorry to intrude being part to the "evil" 10-who have taken over the board,maybe they will stop before the doubles get banned,no need to worry
Doubles WILL be banned, at least in CT, if the proposed ban on firearms capable of firing more than one round without reloading is passed. Some have thought for too long that it couldn't happen here or it wouldn't happen to their guns. Well...it's happening right now. We'd better get together with the black rifle boys or we're all going to hang together.....and soon!
NRA annual memberships are now being offered for $25.00 per year. That's $10.00 off. Membership will include a magazine subscription and $7500.00 Arms Insurance and more.
It will also send a strong message to Politicians that America is not ready to give up the Second Amendment.
If you've ever thought about joining or let an old membership lapse, there is no better time to join.
If you never considered joining, this just might be a good time to give it a try... while you still can.
Ed Meese: Obama Risks 'Impeachment' With Executive Order on Guns Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III declares in an exclusive Newsmax TV interview that President Barack Obama could easily be impeached if he bypassed Congress and enacted gun-control legislation by executive order — a step Obama said he was "confident" was "within his authority." But Meese, who served under President Reagan, says it would not be legal or constitutional: "If he tried to override the Second Amendment in any way, it would be an impeachable offense." Read the Full Story and See the Video — Go Here Now
The first exposes the holes in the federal database used for background checks, due to many states failing to provide the necessary records. Background records lacking
The second is an opinion piece by a former DC prosecutor (who claims to dislike guns) detailing how the DC ban was a total failure, even before it was overturned in Heller. DC Ban Failed to Curb Gun Violence
Another op-ed piece looks at the mental health initiatives proposed in CO, which are being largely ignored by the press in their haste to focus on gun-control initiatives only. HIckenlooper's Gun Control
Here is an excerpt from a 1/13 Boston Globe editorial. Perhaps the stupidest proposal I have heard yet, and Exh. A for why people who don't use or own firearms should not be proposing ideas for gun control legislation:
Quote:
In Massachusetts, in addition to clearing a federal background check to buy a gun, owners also must have a license issued by local police. Those licenses should be public information, as a similar type of permit required for pistols in New York already is. In New York, that data allowed a newspaper in White Plains to publish its much-discussed map of local pistol-permit holders. Making the information public gives residents a clearer idea about the extent of gun ownership in their community, and alerts them to potential safety risks — for instance, if a gun permit were granted to someone with a history of domestic violence. In Massachusetts, because decisions about who receives a license are made on the local level, publicizing them would also serve as a check on favoritism or other improper actions by police. Gun advocates worry that opening the names of license-holders to scrutiny would provide thieves with a shopping list, or stigmatize gun owners, but those concerns need to take a back seat to public safety and accountability.
I tend to view this in a different light. By publishing the address of those that own firearms aren't they also telling the criminal element which homes DON'T have firearms? It has been well substainted in past studies that criminals tend to avoid home with firearms because they don't want to be shot. But then,one would have to possess common sense,to recognize this fact. Jim
It has been well substainted in past studies that criminals tend to avoid home with firearms because they don't want to be shot. But then,one would have to possess common sense,to recognize this fact. Jim
Jim could you give me a link to those studies or the authors' names. I was unable to Google them out. That information would be useful to me in discussions on other forums.
I want to be very clear up front that this post is not intended to start an abortion debate - these numbers are offered only for a comparison to the White House's political rhetoric. I recognize that many members feel strongly about the abortion issue, but please do not let this thread get diverted into an abortion debate. I am posting these statistics to offer some context for the White House’s strategy of framing the gun-control debate as protecting our children from “assault weapons,” “high capacity rifles” and the like. Despite that rhetoric, here is what the Administration is willing to tolerate when they support a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
• In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI). • In 2009, the highest number of reported abortions occurred in New York (119,996) - 713 abortions per 1,000 live births in NYC. • In 2009, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC). • 45% of abortions were performed on women with one or more prior abortions (CDC). • At current rates, nearly one-third of American women will have an abortion (AGI). • Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF). • One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF).
At least in MA and NY, it is far easier and faster to have an abortion than to obtain a license to own a firearm.
For the record, I am pro-choice (though not necessarily pro-abortion), so I am not posting this information to advance a hidden pro-life agenda.
Mike: This was years ago and based on interview results with convicted felons who were in prison. As I remember it; they pretty much universally stated they would avoid houses where the residents were known to be armed. I'll see what I can come up with in print for you. Jim
The new NY law requires all transfers go through a licensed dealer. Lots of people have heard about this and many democrats think it is a good idea. What I have not heard in the press but found when reading the law is that the law limits the fee a dealer can charge for a transfer to $10(page 8 line 50-52 of the law). I don’t know a dealer that would do a transfer for $10.
I don’t know a dealer that would do a transfer for $10.
In Mass., they are proposing a $25 fee cap I believe. I guess if no dealer will agree to transfer for that fee, the government will just mandate it - seems like that is standard solution these days.
Quote: "Sound wisdom. It is well known on Calguns that the liberal anti-gun politicians troll that site to get ideas for the next ban. No kidding. My guess is the same thing may be happening on other gun forums given all the liberal trolls I find on Breitbart and Foxnation or the Daily Caller. "
I copied this post off another forum I frequent because I believe it's just as true here as there. The other thing anti-gunners do is monitor the gun related forums even when they're not successful in getting firearms regulation threads suppressed due to "politics". Jim
Obama to John Lott; "I don't believe people should be able to own guns."
Barack Obama reportedly said, "I don't think people should be able to own guns." In my correspondence with Lott, he stood by his story.
And there's little reason to doubt Lott's account, especially when you take Obama's history of anti-gun legislation into account.
Consider these examples: 1. In a 1998 questionnaire for the Illinois state legislature, Obama said he wanted to "ban the sale or transfer of all sorts of semi-automatic weapons."
2. From 1998-2001 Obama was on the board of the Joyce Foundation, the "major funder for gun-control research" at that time. (note so has Valerie Jarrett,one of his most trusted advisers who claimed "pay back time" after they win. Jarret "After we win its pay back time" )
3. Obama opposes concealed carry and always has (every state but Illinois disagrees with him).
4. Obama only sees two "legitimate" purposes for guns: "hunting and target shooting." This means using guns for self defense is not legitimate. And this goes a long way in explaining Obama's past support of laws banning the use of guns for self-defense in Illinois, even in one's own home.
Anybody seen this? Apparently they want to incite resistance. They continue to fan the flames. In fact, it's starting to look like the lines have been drawn and the pre-belligerency border exercises have begun. Best to make sure everything is Froglubed and packed properly in case it starts to spill over. Know exactly who your friends are too.
Drill Characterizes “Disgruntled” Second Amendment Advocates as Terrorists Ohio exercise centers around WMD plot
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com January 18, 2013
A safety exercise involving police, national guard and emergency management officials in Portsmouth, Ohio was centered around the premise that individuals “disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment” plotted to use weapons of mass destruction to terrorize the local community.
The exercise, which took place yesterday, was run by the Ohio Army National Guard 52nd Civil Support Unit, Scioto County first responders as well as local law enforcement.
“The make-believe scenario is timely,” reports WSAZ News Channel 3, “Two school employees who are disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, plot to use chemical, biological and radiological agents against members of the local community.”
The drill revolved around the scenario of the two pro-second amendment advocates killing a teacher before setting up a chemical lab to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Portsmouth Fire Chief Bill Raison said the exercise was necessary due to the threat of domestic terrorism.
“Most people think it’s not very likely. But we forget that there’s a lot of domestic terrorism. There’s organizations and things that go on within the United States that can be every bit as devastating as the international terrorism is. The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist event. So we need to understand that those kinds of potential are here on a domestic level. And then also I think we need to remember that we’re not exempt from international terrorism. In fact, if I wanted to terrorize this country I would terrorize small town America,” Raison told the Portsmouth Daily Times.
The portrayal of pro-second amendment advocates as violent terrorists is sure to raise some eyebrows amidst a national debate about gun control following the Sandy Hook school massacre.
However, as we have exhaustively documented in the past, this is by no means the first time that Americans with constitutionalist political views have been demonized as dangerous radicals by both federal and state authorities in the context of so-called safety drills.
A 2009 New York Times report detailed how Homeland Security was training boy scouts to take on and disarm “disgruntled veterans” who are described as “terrorists”.
A number of drills have also been focused around the scenario of homeschooling parents turning into violent terrorists, including an exercise for the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District in 2004 which depicted a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools bombing a school bus full of children.
Alex Jones has documented foreign troops being trained on U.S. soil to deal with “insurgents” since the late 1990′s as part of “urban warfare drills”.
In March 2009 we broke the story of the infamous MIAC report, leaked to us by two concerned Missouri police officers. The report listed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and equates them with radical race hate groups and terrorists.
A study released last year funded by the Department of Homeland Security also characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Friday, January 18, 2013 at 5:52 am
There will be a campaign conducted by the current administration in conjunction with the liberal controlled "mainstream news media" this year to portray responsible firearms owners and users in the worst possible light. They have been sitting and waiting for just such an event as the tragedy that occurred in Newtown to get gun registation and ultimately confiscation moving again. The don't care about facts. They don't care about the nutjobs that are loose in our society. They don't want armed guards in schools which is hypocritical as one can get looking at their own personal situations with their own children. The just want intermin regulations until they can "pick them all up" per Dianne Feinstein. We have to continue with a logical,measured and supportable response to the unconstitutional actions in such States as New York and Conn. We cannot drop down to their level and resort to exaggerations and outright lies. I think we can and will prevail in the end but we have the toughest fight of our lives facing us. Jim
While I never liked Clinton I'll give him credit for having more smarts and common sense** the the current occupant of the White House. Oh and if I understood what he said it's that those of us who want to preserve the 2nd Amendment are all hillbillies, who live out in the boondocks, and have no other interests besides hunting*** and fishing. We've also have apparently been brainwaished by the NRA and others who think ALL of our Constitional rights are important.
** Of course as we all know his "common sense" went out the window if he had an interesting female in his presence!! *** Twenty years later and he still doesn't get it. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting.
I am also pleased to hear him state that he had "many sleepless nights" after the 1994 mid-term elections!!
I came across this....still looking for other places that back this up...
So they finally had to come out and admit it, now that the Coroner has released some info along with Police. An AR-15 Rifle or the so-called "Assault Weapon" was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a Rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports right after the shooting, that Police found the AR-15 Rifle in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The Rifle was not used. The Shooter went into the school with 4 handguns. Not an Assault Rifle as the media has charged. I remember in the intitial hours of this shooting, the Police said they found the Rifle in the car. But the News Media had a Pre-Planned Attack already waiting, to ban so-called assault weapons and jumped on that line of reporting, knowing it was a lie. Including people like Piers Morgan who said the shooter used an AR-15 that shoots hundreds of rounds per minute, as if it were a machine gun. Could it be that the Democrat Liberals and the Media were pushing for the new law, hoping they could do it, before the Coroner released the info. I'm betting on it.
A Google search yields virtually no news updates on the investigation in the past 2-3 weeks. Apparently, there will some update this Thursday. Sandy Hook Investigation Update
It is beyond irresponsible that all of these anti-gun legislative proposals are being rushed out in response to an incident the investigation of which is far from complete.
Quick note to everyone: Tune into Hannity right now. He has obtained a list of what was wanted by the Liberals but NOT included in the New York State gun ban. This IMO could prove interestiing. Jim
Update: Here is a copy of the "secret" New York State list:
The list of Democratic gun control proposals included:
Confiscation of assault weapons
Confiscation of 10 round magazine clips
A statewide database of all guns
Continue the process of publishing gun owners names and addresses
Labeling of all semi-automatic shotguns with pistol grips or more than five round capacity as assault weapons
Limit magazine round to five and confiscate banned magazines
Prevent citizens from owning more than two magazines
Prevent citizens from buying more than one gun per month
Re-license all current pistol permit holders
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
Pistol permits would be issued by the state and not local law enforcement
Licensing of ammunition dealers
All New York guns would be micro-stamped
All guns would have to be kept locked inside the home
Same reason that we don't hear about the hundreds of Mexicans who have been shot by drug cartel members firing semi-automatic "assault type" weapons that were intentionally and very illegally walked across the border during Operation Fast and Furious.
This administration doesn't care about children or adult victims of massacres perpetrated by mentally ill criminals, and they don't care about Mexicans and U.S Border Patrol Agents being shot and killed. They have a plan to incrementally take away every gun from law abiding citizens. They don't give a fat rat's ass about the Constitution.
The more gun owners who wake up to this fact and let their Congressmen and Senators know that they will not tolerate even a little bit of gun control, the better our chances of sending these rats back into their holes. The ball is in our court.
In addition to trying to convince others on this site who are already convinced that guns are in the crosshairs (no pun intended)... why don't you guys actually DO something?
I've already bestowed three "gift memberships" to the NRA on others who also find this crap appalling. And will keep doing so.
In addition to trying to convince others on this site who are already convinced that guns are in the crosshairs (no pun intended)... why don't you guys actually DO something?
I've already bestowed three "gift memberships" to the NRA on others who also find this crap appalling. And will keep doing so.
Got $35 handy to help keep your rights?
Great idea. Another way to help - this is a link to the webpage for making contributions to the NRA:
Quote: "why don't you guys actually DO something?"
Very early on here I published an email I had sent to my elected officials and asked others to do the same.
Additionally Ruger has an online facility so that anyone can notify their elected officials the they don't want any more gun laws.This is easily done in a 3 step process that only takes seconds.
JOIN THE NRA!!
This time none of us can afford to sit back and let others or the NRA take control of this situation. We ALL have to get involved. Jim
BTW: If you think the "mainstream news media" will publicise that abomination of gun regulations that were proposed by the extreme liberals in New York but not adopted you have another think coming.
This news report was from very early on and the Conn police state it's in error. The perp. went into the school with an AR15 and two pistols NOT 4. However we do know that the gun recovered from his car trunk was a shotgun and NOT an AR15 as was also reported. However; The police still have not released any information as to which guns were used in this slaughter. Jim
The little SOB went into the school, killed a bunch of kids, and gave Democrats a perfect excuse to destroy your Second Amendment rights!
The issue NOW is to quite bitching about the media, stop trying to "convince the choir," and start supporting the only organization that has a snowball's chance in hell of stopping some of this: NRA.
Of course it only me, but I think that 237 angels can dance on the head of a pin...
As I said earlier, right now, a gift membership or new membership in the NRA is only $25.00 instead of the normal $35.00 for an annual membership. That will get you a magazine subscription and $7500.00 in free firearms insurance, plus a ton of information that you won't get from the Liberal media. Legislators will see the surge in membership and think twice about jeopardizing their jobs at re-election time.
Obama waited until after he no longer had to worry about re-election to roll out his life-long anti-gun vision. But he has no problems with asking Senators and Congressmen to risk their jobs to do his bidding. Your representatives need to be reminded that he is throwing them under the bus. They need to see that the NRA will be driving that bus and we will be on it.
Flanked by other anti-gun liberal lawmakers, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, Feinstein announced the introduction of the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”
“The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time,” Feinstein revealed, according to the Washington Free Beacon. “Therefore, there is no sunset on this bill.”
The legislation being pushed by Feinstein — who has long history of calling for gun bans — would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of certain firearms.
Meanwhile, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin made it clear he doesn’t think it matters whether Feinstein’s legislation violates Second Amendment rights.
“This isn’t an issue of simply Constitution, it’s an issue of conscious,” Durbin said. "We need responsible hunters and sportsman to step up and join us."
Feinstein and some members here use the words "weapons" and "firearms" interchangeably. It may appear to be splitting hairs but I believe it strengthens antis to use "weapons" because the general public tends to associate the word with military. Does the shooting sports fraternity think of its pistols, rifles and shotguns as weapons other than emergencies for personal security? It it does not, should we be using the word weapon with "assault" rifles front and centre of the controversy?
The is NO such thing as an "assault weapon" other than in a generic sense. The Liberal anti's coined the term to confuse the general public into believing they were talking about assault rifles such as the M16 which are select fire capable when they were really talking about AR15s which are semi-auto only. An "assault weapon" could be anything from a shotgun,to baseball bat to a hammer as anyone found guilty of illegally using one knows since the were charged and convicted of Assault. To be specific an AR15 semi-automic only rifle would fall into the "assault weapon" category they are NOT assault rifles. Jim
We're on the same page, Jim. It's the word I'm questioning. I'm listening to TV as I write that "these are weapons to kill people" and I hear distinguished retired generals say they're made for the battlefield. Not nomenclature to help, to my thinking.
Just for the edification of the ill-educated, the term "assault rifle" was coined by one Adolf Hitler... only in German it's "sturm gewher." Most notably represented by the German Gewehr 43.
Thus, nobody should be going into the root of the term "assault rifle" at this time.
The word "weapon" is generally accepted as an implement of assault against another human. But what's wrong with that? My M-1911 is most certainly a weapon if some individual decides to assault me. Otherwise, it's just a "firearm."
King: In my experience;Just because someone's been in the military or the police for that matter doesn't mean there a firearms expert. I had a police officer acquaintance over awhile back from the Scottsdale PD which carries Glock 23s. When I asked him what he thought of the 40 Smith&Wesson(cartridge) he kept repeatedly stating "No we carry Glocks". It took awhile to convince him his Glock was indeed chambered in 40S&W! Ergo: The anti's have successfully muddied the waters and used the term "assault weapon" successfully to their advantage.
Bilious Bob: You are correct but neither the anti's or the "mainstream news media" care to straighten out the distinction. Jim
Jim, agree, the debate gets worse and worse. "The Girls" promoting NRA side with Piers on CNN last night started off great but ended on shaky ground agreeing with qualified banning and saying assault rifles were for killing rabbits. Did I hear that accurately? I'd love to know how they got on the show. Newt Gingrich did well in spite of the "interview" being more Piers than Gingrich.
Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.
"Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel," the Washington Times reports.
Just to repeat, gov officials are exempt AND,according to Dick Durbin "IT DOES NOT MATTER IF FEINSTEINS REGISTRATION VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT"
If that doesn't scare the crap out of and fence sitters nothing will
If anyone has a picture of this please post it. This I've got to see.
"Gun Control Backer Obama Says He Shoots Skeet at Retreat By Mike Dorning - Jan 26, 2013 11:00 PM CT
President Barack Obama, who is seeking a ban on assault weapons, says he shoots skeet “all the time” at Camp David and respects the nation’s hunting tradition.
Obama told The New Republic magazine that at the presidential retreat in Maryland’s wooded Catoctin Mountains “we do skeet shooting all the time.”
“Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there” to shoot skeet, Obama said in an interview published in the magazine’s Feb. 11 issue. Obama, the father of two daughters, mentioned his interest in skeet shooting in response to a question on whether he had ever fired a gun. The president has made 26 trips to the retreat during his presidency."
Oh, you can bet they'll concoct a photo of Obama shooting skeet very soon, just as the Democrats did when John Kerry was running for president. They do this to convince stupid Democrats that life-long extreme anti-gunners are not a threat to gun rights. Sadly, this type of propaganda works on a lot of voters. This is the same mentality that we see when folks let a known pedophile near their kids.
Obama told professor John Lott at the University of Chicago that Americans should not be allowed to own guns. That pretty much covers everything that we shoot. Be sure to remind your Congressmen and Senators that Obama did not pursue his anti-gun agenda when he faced re-election, but he now has no problem throwing them under the bus.
Seattle police gun buy back turns into an ad hoc gun show. Apparently police were just offering $100 gift cards when gun dealers and collectors showed up with cash. There was nothing the police could do since private buying is perfectly legal. Click on the below link for more information. Jim
Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin has released documentation showing rejected Democratic proposals for the NY SAFE Act. They included these:
Confiscation of all firearms arbitrarily redefined as “assault weapons” Labeling semi-automatic shotguns as “assault weapons” if they can hold more than five rounds or have a pistol-grip stock Confiscation of 10-round magazines Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine to five; magazines of greater capacity to be confiscated Limiting number of magazines in possession to two Mandatory microstamping of all guns in NY state Statewide database of all guns Limiting guns purchases to one per month Allowing a pistol permit database to be released to the public Relicensing of all pistol permit owners Renewal of all pistol permits every five years
Dave K, watching from afar, members' messages seem to me as reflecting greater confidence that the votes or public opinion aren't there to do what had been anticipated. What's your view, please?
I'm curious also about mention in your message concerning relicensing of all pistol permit owners. Is there a federal or state or legislated gunshop registry of pistol owners?
Good quote, too bad we can't turn into an oath for legislators to take a la Grover Norquist:
Quote:
It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty.
Have you not contacted your Senator/House member because you are 100% positive they are with us on defeating challenges to 2nt amendment rights? Even if you are 200% positive, please contact them anyway. I think the advice I was given years ago about running for elective office applies: "You know your grandma is going to vote for you, but she still wants to be asked"
It's a truthful and common sense statement, that quote. Only problem is that publics often are motivated more by fear and security than liberty, allowing government breaches of constitutional rights every day.
Here's a sensible addition to the debate from Republican Jim Baker and Democrat John Dingell, both steeped in our love of firearms and hunting. It's an Op-Ed in the 30 January edition of the New York Times.
Regards ---------------------------------------
OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS Bipartisan Hunting Buddies By JAMES A. BAKER III and JOHN D. DINGELL Published: January 29, 2013
WE are as different as North and South. One of us, John Dingell, is a liberal Michigan Democrat and the other, Jim Baker, is a conservative Texas Republican. We met during the Reagan administration and have often found ourselves on opposite sides of political battles. We have the bruises to show for them.
We do, however, share some beliefs. One is a strong love of guns and the outdoors and, just as important, a respect for both. Since we were boys, some of our best times have come with rifles or shotguns in our hands, especially when hunting with our fathers. Jim hunted ducks in the wetlands of southeast Texas and elk in the Rocky Mountains. John hunted small game along the banks of the Detroit River and Lake Erie. As adults, we have hunted together, using our common bond to bridge our differences.
We’re also united by outrage over the rampage killings in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., and other despicable episodes of gun violence. At the same time, we believe the Second Amendment provides Americans with an important freedom that makes our country special.
But the harsh truth is that too many Americans are dying from gun-related shootings — more than 30,000 each year and more than one million since 1960. Gun violence now rivals traffic accidents as the leading cause of death by injury in the United States. Quite simply, gun violence threatens to overwhelm us.
Americans are grappling for strategies to make sure that the horror that occurred in Newtown isn’t repeated. The White House has made suggestions, and many governors have offered theirs. The National Rifle Association has spelled out its proposals.
With the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled today to hold the first congressional hearings on gun violence since the Newtown tragedy, we offer four general guidelines for a national dialogue on sensible solutions to this deadly malady. First, any legislation that is suggested should be broad-gauged. There is no one single cause of gun violence and no single solution. That will mean determining if there is any reason for weapons to have magazines that hold 30 rounds or more. It will mean assessing whether armor-piercing bullets — opposed by police chiefs around the country — should be legal. And it will mean considering strengthening background checks. Gun advocates will say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. And of course we must examine the long-term effects on our children of violent movies, television shows and video games. We must address gaps in our mental health system that leave potential killers unidentified and untreated, and this will require more financial resources. And we must strive to make our schools and public gathering places safer, perhaps through federal financing so local police forces can hire additional officers, as was done when the 1994 assault weapons ban was passed.
Second, any approach demands bipartisan support. This is not important just because of our divided government. Absent wide support, any laws passed now might well be rescinded once the partisan balance of power inevitably shifts. A broad-based approach could also help guarantee that any legislation would survive a constitutional challenge. That means that both gun-rights activists and the entertainment industry will have to moderate their positions.
Third, common sense should prevail. We must get away from a mind-set that has owners of firearms worried that “they are going to take our guns away.” The Second Amendment guarantees that won’t happen. Our nation has regulated various kinds of arms throughout history, and done so without violating the Second Amendment. We have, for example, restricted ownership of fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers.
Finally, each of us should look into our own heart to consider what type of nation we want to be. From members of the National Rifle Association to the most passionate gun-control advocates, no one wants to live in a country where innocent children are killed indiscriminately. This is a problem for all Americans — not just the government — and we all must be part of the solution.
That’s why we think parents should spend less time leaving their children alone playing shoot-’em-up video games and more time with them doing activities they both enjoy. This includes taking children into the country to hunt and to gain, as we did as boys, a love for the abundance and beauty of nature as well as a respect for the responsible and legitimate use of guns. -------------------------------------- James A. Baker III was secretary of the Treasury from 1985 to 1988 and secretary of state from 1989 to 1992. Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, is the dean of the House and currently the longest-serving member of Congress. A version of this op-ed appeared in print on January 30, 2013, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Bipartisan Hunting Buddies.
Frankly I like Newts article a good bit better,the Second Amendment has very little to do with "hunting" and a lot to do with protecting the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.Note no mention of "gun free zones"( a common location for every one of these tragedy's where the killers can attak unarmed people) in the Baker letter only "any reason to own a 30rd mag"(when all of these cowardly killers bring multiple weapons and mags)in Bakers just "compromise "
By: Newt Gingrich 1/30/2013 07:30 AM
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) produced an impressive display of rifles in her Capitol Hill office last week.
They looked quite menacing despite exhibiting virtually no functional differences when compared with dozens of other popular rifles.
The weapons Sen. Feinstein discussed are already banned in Washington, where she staged her event, as well as in many other cities such as Chicago.
And yet these laws have done little to stop violent crime in these places, because the overwhelming majority of gun murders are committed with standard handguns.
The FBI does not keep statistics on homicides involving what the left calls “assault weapons,” a term invented to convince the public that the guns referred to are machine guns. The Bureau does, however, report that rifles were used in just 3.7 percent of gun homicides in 2011. (“Assault weapons” are typically rifles.)
But more than 70 percent of gun homicides involve handguns.
So when banning a fraction of rifles, which are used in a small fraction of murders, fails to stop the violence, the left will predictably rediscover that it is necessary to put more restrictions on handguns — which several cities attempted to ban outright, with no positive results, before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.
CNN’s Piers Morgan more or less conceded this desire when I was on his show last week when he was unable to draw a distinction between his rationale for banning “assault weapons” and the left’s historically documented urge to ban handguns.
We are correct to fear incrementalism when the burden of proof in the debate shifts from legislators convincing the people that a law can accomplish its proper aim, to the people having to persuade legislators that they should be permitted to keep certain weapons.
The left has grown fond of asking why Americans need more than 10 bullets in a magazine, or why we need the particular guns they call “assault weapons.”
But they don’t ask themselves the inverse of that question: Do mass shooters “need” high capacity magazines, or rifles with certain cosmetic styling, in order to commit their crimes?
Of course not. The deadliest mass shooter in U.S. history, who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007, used two handguns and a backpack full of 10 round magazines.
One of the Columbine shooters carried 13 10 round magazines with him.
There is no evidence that reloading frequency makes a significant difference in mass shootings as long as those you’re attacking are unarmed.
Appearing on a Sunday show last weekend, we were asked what if, hypothetically, the Connecticut shooter had walked into the school “with a baseball bat”?
Notice that we were not asked, “What if a school security guard had only had a gun?” (Incidentally, according to the FBI, blunt objects like baseball bats killed 50 percent more people in 2011 than did rifles.)
Feeling the need to “do something” after a tragedy like the one that occurred at Sandy Hook is certainly understandable. But we shouldn’t pass laws that punish law-abiding citizens, fail to deter or prevent crime, and do nothing to make us safer.
If we can win this debate, maybe the left will get around to asking why so many people are shooting each other in Chicago and Los Angeles, rather than obsessing over which particular guns they’re using to do it.
Apparently the left wing news media has gone from tacit approval of voter fraud to altering 2nd Amendment related video to support their anti-gun agenda. Jim
The Special Operations Forces Report (SOFREP) called our attention to a 2,929-word letter signed by more than 1,000 Green Berets in support of protecting the Second Amendment and explaining why “all Americans should be concerned” about doing so themselves.
“As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines,” the letter reads. “Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such ‘high capacity magazines’ would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are ‘in common use’.”
They also point out in the Columbine shootings, gunman Eric Harris used a firearm in compliance with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that used 10-round capacity magazines.
“[...] Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath.”
The letter states that it is “politically expedient” to pass more gun control laws in light of recent events in the name of protecting children, but “is the problem really guns?” That’s the million dollar question isn’t it?
Poll: 67% of Americans Don't Believe Gun Ban Would Prevent Sandy Hook
According to a new Reason-Rupe poll released today, just 27% of Americans believe that an assault weapons ban would have helped prevent the tragedy at Sandy Hook in Newtown, CT. 67% of Americans believe that the ban, which expired in 2004, would not have prevented the tragic shooting. Overall, the poll finds Americans far more skeptical of gun control laws than the Democrats and media assume.
It should be noted that the Reason poll has a heavy Democrat tilt. 36% of respondents identify with the Democrat party, while only 22% identify as Republicans. Also, a majority of respondents, 54%, are not gun owners.
The Democrats have tried to paint supporters of gun rights as a "fringe" element of the public. The American public clearly does not agree with this assessment. The left, in its zeal for gun control, has run far further down-field than the American public on this issue. If they pursue this course, they will likely face severe headwinds going into 2014 elections
I for one well remember these Korean merchants he refers to in Watts,CA who, armed with primarily AR15s, stood off hordes of rioters who wanted to burn their buildings to the ground.
They keep saying they want to keep "assault weapons off the streets" while going after semi auto's.It seems gun running in Fast and Furious is not the only problem in this administration :
You've probably heard the old joke about how the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store not a federal agency, but the latest ATF screw up in Wisconsin proves they aren't even capable of doing that properly. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
A store calling itself Fearless Distributing opened early last year on an out-of-the-way street in Milwaukee's Riverwest neighborhood, offering designer clothes, athletic shoes, jewelry and drug paraphernalia.
Those working behind the counter, however, weren't interested in selling anything.
They were undercover agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives running a storefront sting aimed at busting criminal operations in the city by purchasing drugs and guns from felons.
But the effort to date has not snared any major dealers or taken down a gang. Instead, it resulted in a string of mistakes and failures, including an ATF military-style machine gun landing on the streets of Milwaukee and the agency having $35,000 in merchandise stolen from its store, a Journal Sentinel investigation has found.
When the 10-month operation was shut down after the burglary, agents and Milwaukee police officers who participated in the sting cleared out the store but left behind a sensitive document that listed names, vehicles and phone numbers of undercover agents.
CBS and the NFL Team Up to destroy your Second Amendment Rights.
The "Sandy Hook Children's Chorus" is scheduled to sing during the big pre-game show. It's an orchestrated set-up.
That's the Super Bowl. The single, most watched event on TV. And these little wretches will be out there playing on the entire audience's heartstrings.
And that audience of MILLIONS will want to ban your guns. Doubles included.
Me? I'll be watching a Bruce Willis movie instead.
The governor lost support from voters across the political spectrum. Gun owners were particularly upset with him; 50 percent said they disapproved of his job performance
So, 50% of NY gun owners still approve of his job performance?
Good source of useful information and statistics: GOAL facts
Conclusion from Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence, published in The Harvard Journal of Law and Policy vol. 30 at 649
Quote:
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:
If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.
Hitting the Anti's in their Pocketbooks. I was just made aware of this development. Perhaps members from Pennsylvania can expand upon it:(Read Below)
A Boycott by vendors starting this weekend at one of the nation's largest hunting and fishing shows has led to the event's indefinite postponement. Pennsylvania businesses stand to lose tens of millions of dollars in revenue.
Some 200 shops and groups pulled out of the Harrisburg, Pa., event after organizers banned the sale and display of certain types of guns. Rick Harro is one of the more than 1,000 exhibitors at the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show who will be missing out on sales. For Harro, who sells Gobbler Getter turkey calls for $50 each, that's likely to add up to about $4,000 in lost revenue owing to the nine-day hunting and fishing extravaganza's postponement. "This was my biggest show, and actually we were sort of counting on this to get me to my next couple shows," says Harro.
Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, the show organizer banned the display of assault weapons at the event. Britian-based Reed Exhibitions would not comment for this story.
The decision led to a boycott that started with a south central Pennsylvania gun shop. Trop Gun Shop was the first vendor to drop out of the show that draws some 250,000 visitors each year. Sales manager James Diehl says the shop's owner didn't like being told what he could sell, especially because the rifles in question are legal. Diehl says they had no idea the decision would spawn a movement. "After we pulled out of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, and we got hundreds upon hundreds of likes on our Facebook page and the industry backed us up by pulling out of the show, subsequently, the business has been brisk," says Diehl. “
Diehl says while he feels bad for smaller non-gun-related vendors who may be losing money, he thinks the decision to boycott the show has increased business at the shop. The semi-automatic AR-15 rifle has been Diehl's hottest seller. It's so in demand there's only one in the shop, and it's spoken for. Diehl says it's popular not only because it was banned from the show but because many fear it will be outlawed if Congress approves new gun control measures.
Drivers on the interstate outside Harrisburg can still see a billboard advertising the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show. And while the advertising is already paid for, the Hershey Harrisburg Regional Visitors Bureau estimates some $44 million in direct spending will be lost.
"I cried. I literally cried. I was devastated," says Sharon Altland, the visitors bureau's director of sales. She says everyone from shuttle bus drivers to Girl Scouts who fundraise during the show could be affected. And she says some businesses may even have to close. "Quite honestly, I don't know how they're going to survive. There's a lot of vendors that participate in this show that this is their No. 1 show. They only do one show a year," says Atland.
My Own Thoughts:
I am not all that familiar with this show but apparently the show promoters are located in Great Britian. I guess they didn't learn from the S&W experience when the compnay was under Britsh control. A decision made by the then CEO to cave in to the Clinton administration's outrageous firearms demands almost bankrupted S&W and tarnished it's reputation among firearms owners for many years. I hate to say it but I'm becoming more convinced every day that the British brought their current horrific firearms regulations upon themselves by acting like meek sheep. Harsh perhaps; But we are in NO position to go along meekly with anything the gun grabbers propose. Jim
Jim, the British are not meek sheep because a majority in their modern democracy chose the "horrific" firearms regulations under which they wanted to live. Canadians were not meek because a majority voted for an over-zealous registry after a massacre in a Montreal college. Nor were they better people when they thought it through and reversed it. US governments representing the will of their citizens pulled out of Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan when continuing was inimical to their national interests. They pulled out of Lebanon and Somalia when a barracks was blown up and a dead pilot dragged through the streets. All by and for the people. I don't think anyone would call America meek or weak.
Mr. Brown: You are quite correct. Whenever the British Empire made a muck of it throughout the 20th Century, the USA was there to pull their bacon out of the fire. Twice.
No we're tossing our own bacon into the fire. Just like the Brits.
You make a good point, Bob. You're too hard on yourselves, too. Let me come at it another way: The US is broke, dependent on China to make the payroll to build aircraft carriers, pay the troops, roads and bridges, social services, all the amenities of a very progressive and civilized society. There's also the appearance of a dysfunctional government.
Communist China saving your bacon didn't happen overnight nor the fault of you, Drew, Craig, Jim, Mike and all other members here whom I feel I know fairly well from what they say. It's a consequence of what the American people chose, deliberately and consciously, at the ballot box. Does that make Americans spendthrifts who can't govern themselves? No, it does not. The US has been overly generous in making its empire.
Which comes to the British Empire: a dominating power throughout the world, and the US succeeded it to make its own. Both became over-extended and both withdrew from their far-flung outposts when the costs in blood and treasure exceeded their resources to continue. US now looks to its friends to do more, as did Great Britain when it stood alone for years against the fascists before the US got into it---for years, twice.
As in any struggle, and I think of the US proposals as a serious struggle for the shooting sports, there are going to be casualties on both sides. It's important, however, to make a distinction between enemies and adversaries. Enemies we destroy but adversaries are opponents to defeat whom we may need later as an ally, as a Liberal leader said here the other day. The pro-gun lobby here didn't demonize anyone in getting rid of the gun registry.
Labelling members of a particular political party as inimical to the national interests, as citizens below the salt as liars and worse, would not have provided the relatively harmonious and productive result we got in Canada. (Yes, I agree, oldstarfire, that there's a lot more to be done!)
I appreciate the informational links shared by many of the folks here. I look for ways to get that info to the apathetic, I suspect the opponents already know and use it. It's a multi issue nation were we seem to get package deals.
This thread has been created by Dave Weber for the purpose of providing information to all the membership in how best to go about preserving out 2nd Amendment rights. It appears to me we are straying from this topic and that was NOT the intent. Views presented without factual and current information to assist in our cause in preserving our rights IMO do not belong here. I respectfully ask that these views be stated in the Misfires section for which it was created and lets stay on course and continue to address the task at hand. Jim
With respect, Jim, my intent is protection of the 2nd amendment by suggesting that demonizing, down-rating other people and filthy language which Dave has specifically proscribed is divisive and not helpful "to the task at hand." You included yourself in the "we are straying from the topic" and I commend you for that as well as having a civil tongue. Regards, King
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris pharetra, eros in gravida condimentum, velit velit consectetur purus, in aliquam enim lorem sit amet nibh. Aenean tempor sodales pretium. Praesent eleifend consequat commodo. Sed quam mauris, sodales sit amet luctus id, vulputate sed risus. Ut imperdiet purus ut turpis semper a varius augue molestie. Proin dictum fermentum metus, sed ultricies purus ullamcorper aliquet. Vivamus vitae luctus ipsum. Morbi sit amet nisi ut ante vulputate auctor pretium sed dolor. Suspendisse felis ante, ornare id congue et, gravida vitae elit. Cras eu velit sit amet eros dictum pharetra vitae vulputate mauris. Nulla facilisis faucibus urna, luctus viverra arcu ultricies sit amet. Sed posuere ornare massa, quis rhoncus nisl interdum sit amet. In ut elementum nunc. Donec in commodo sem. Aenean iaculis feugiat arcu ac interdum.
There. It's all Greek to the Low Information Voter.
And makes as much sense as most of these posts in preserving the Second Amendment.
Labelling members of a particular political party as inimical to the national interests, as citizens below the salt as liars and worse, would not have provided the relatively harmonious and productive result we got in Canada. (Yes, I agree, oldstarfire, that there's a lot more to be done!)
Regards, King
So... why are you wasting time here trying to get us to sing Kumbaya with the anti gunners when there is still so much work to do in Canada? Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet... lulling, lulling, lulling, blah, blah, blather, blather. I'm civil, you're not. As Julius Ceasar said to me when I interviewed him, "Aenean iaculis feugiat arcu ac inderdum." A big +1 to Billious Bob!
I would highly recommend you forward this video to friends who have been baffled by the B.S. and misinformation presented in the "mainstream news media".
"You'll have to take my guns from my cold dead hands"
BTW,the NRA is winning the battle and arming teachers as well as guards in schools is now becoming,as predicted,the choice America wants not caving into the lefts antigun ban and confiscation agenda.
Jim and DaveK, those are two excellent videos, well worth watching. Meanwhile, Obama has taken to the road to advance his agenda and is propagating the lie that we gun-owners generally agree with his "common sense" restrictions and his universal backround checks which is nothing more than a Federal Gun Registry. MSNBC is broadcasting the lie that 85% of gunowners and a majority of NRA members agree with Obama.
Incidentally Jim, King Brown was totally off-base when he alleged that you too, were taking this thread off-topic. He took your "we are straying from the topic..." to include you in what he was guilty of doing. You were too much of a gentleman to correct him, so I will make the point. You were absolutely correct to illuminate the hypocrisy and foolishness of a British based sports show promoter who chose to banish perfectly legal firearms from their venue, plus the predictable response from vendors who value our freedoms more than the almighty dollar. I'm pretty sure King would also say that the testimony given by Senator Cruz, Wayne LaPierre, and the Sandy Hook Dad in these two videos was counterproductive and weakens our chances to protect the Second Amendment. That is my opinion, based upon all the blather he has belched ever since this assault on our rights began. I don't wish to again be falsely accused of putting words in his mouth.
I hear you Keith: Hannity again had a very good informational program tonite on Obama's efforts to circumvent the NRA leadership and go directly to American NRA members with his "reasonable gun control" measures. Hopefully this will backfire and most gun owners will see right through this ruse. Again; I recommend you tune into Hannity if you want to know the truth about what's going on with teh current administration to eliminate your 2nd Amendment rights. jim
Jim, CNN's Morgan with Nugent and Fox's Chris Wallace in high flight yesterday, too. I don't know why nearly all these purported current and public affairs programs are infotainment with everyone rude. yelling and interrupting each other like small children. Nugent handled himself well. What's with Fox going to the dark side? Networks hammering LaPierre background-switch, even up here. But Fox?
If America and the Second Amendment last for a thousand years, let it be said that these few, these gallant few, on the DoubleShop.com BBS saved our rights.
Through endless self-righteous blather and bitching.
At each other.
(apologies to the spirts of Shakespeare and Winston Spencer Churchill)
I still haven't figured out what's saved, Bob. The US has seen an assault ban and background checks are nothing new. An active member even conceded that the "pendulum" of influence has swung toward the antis. I'm sticking to my notion here since Sandy Hook that there may be cosmetic changes but the votes and will aren't there there to change America's gun culture. Americans, Canadians, the British and Australians have chosen how they want to live with their guns, all differently whatever our views but that's how democracy works.
For all that, thanks for WSC and WS! We needed it.
What Happened in Great Britian?? READ THIS TO THE END.
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it...
In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.
One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door
and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before,
and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..
Yours was never registered..
Police arrive and inform you
that the second burglar has died.
They arrest you for First Degree Murder
and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry:
authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years,"
he replies, as if that's nothing.
"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead
story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.
Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it all:
"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..
As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
The national media picks it up,
then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and
that you've been critical of local police for their lack
of effort in apprehending the suspects.
After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege
that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial.
The charges haven't been reduced,
as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.
When you take the stand, your anger at
the injustice of it all works against you..
Prosecutors paint a picture of you
as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.
In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and
established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and
mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.
Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm's
still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights,
the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened,
claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Tony Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.
Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA;
THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams
You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done.
IF YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING HANNITY AS I RECOMMENDED YOU WOULD KNOW THAT OBAMA IS DOING THIS ON A DAILY BASIS AS WAS REPORTED LAST NIGHT!
And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.
I still haven't figured out what's saved, Bob. The US has seen an assault ban and background checks are nothing new. An active member even conceded that the "pendulum" of influence has swung toward the antis. I'm sticking to my notion here since Sandy Hook that there may be cosmetic changes but the votes and will aren't there there to change America's gun culture. Americans, Canadians, the British and Australians have chosen how they want to live with their guns, all differently whatever our views but that's how democracy works.
For all that, thanks for WSC and WS! We needed it.
This thread was created by Dave Weber to provide INFORMATION to the membership in regards to the struggle we are engaged in with those who would take away our 2nd Amendment rights. It was NOT CREATED for you or anyone else for that matter to express opinions. You have all the opportunity you want to spew out your opinions over in the Misfires section which was created for that purpose. I would appreciate if you would do that in the future.
I respect your right to your opinion, Jim, as I know you respect mine. It may be an over-reach, however, to declare an injunction against posts here by many others, including your own, that comment on posts of who to watch and listen to etc. and many others not germane to the 2nd amendment. I'm pleased to oblige your support of keeping posts specifically to the 2nd amendment---providing you and others are respecting the same rules. Otherwise, sorry. I'm no one's baby.
Howdy boys...just a quick heads up. I will be deleting all opinion based posts from this thread as time permits....Nothing pesonal...just want to stay on task....Pro Gun informational USA 2nd Amendment stop finish.
Edelman, world's biggest public relations firm, in its 2013 Trust Barometer reported that its poll showed only 18 per cent trusted business leaders to tell the truth, and 13 per cent trusted political leaders to do what they say.
The masters of spin should know.
Harnessing, collaborating or making coalitions with community organizations of like mind concerning the 2nd Amendment, bottom-up with the tools of change in the hands of ordinary people, could help in the struggle.
Gays in the Boy Scouts was stopped in its tracks by the Mormons yesterday.
(I believe the above meets Dave's injunction to stay on the task: "Pro Gun informational USA 2nd Amendment stop finish." It's pro-gun, informational, and not personal.)
Posted again,to avoid dilution by off topic blabber;
Great interview with David Keene NRA President,well worth the 1/2 hr to listen too. Note how much money Bloomberg is going to spend,also the number of actual proscription's from backround check denials
Edit: Deleted one paragraph of personal opinion which was obvious to everyone anyway. Spit out the bait.
Something that is pro-gun informational is to observe the tactics Obama is using in his anti-gun road-show. Note carefully that he is appealing to the public to contact their legislators to tell them that they demand gun control now. Although I have zero respect for Obama, he knows that legislators listen when they are contacted by their constituants. He knows that every call, letter. or e-mail represents about 100 voters who don't make contact with their legislators. We all need to let our Senators and Congressmen know how we feel and remind them that we will remember how they voted when they seek re-election. Now that Obama is making the same kind of appeal, it is even more important that none of us rely on others to speak for us, or worse, have anti-gunners getting a majotity of attention from Congress.
Dave, I agree that bringing attention to any pro-gun information to help protect integrity of 2nd amendment here is exactly what Dave Weber intended. Your attending description of the interview does not infringe Dave's rules. Your post is an example to follow.Your reminder of off-topic blabber---personal opinion, imputing of motives proscribed by Dave---is an imperative I will observe to keep this from being sent off to Misfires. Thank you.
I have received replies from both U.S. Senators from Pennsylvania. Senator Robert Casey is strongly considering supporting the Feinstein bill while Senator Pat Toomey supports the portions that deal with tougher backround checks and universal backround checks (the Backdoor Federal Registry of law abiding gun owners).
I have sent replies to both Senators urging them to reconsider any infringment on the Second Amendment, and I reminded them that I will actively campaign and vote against any representative that votes to support legislation that restricts the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Congressman Mike Kelly also replied and he is 100% on the side of the Second Amendment. I have thanked him and told him I would fully support his re-election.
I urge any Pennsylvania gun owners here to continue to call, e-mail, and write these U.S. Senators. Senator Casey in particular needs to be reminded that he risks losing his job if he does not reverse his extreme position. I politely reminded both that president Obama did not risk re-election by advancing his anti-gun agenda in his first term, but he has no qualms about asking them to risk their jobs now.
Canadians may lend support as I did a month or so ago with short, punchy correspondence. As a member of a family with a distinguished military record, I tried to connect with former fighter pilot and POW McCain.
"Dear Senator McCain:
"As a Canadian with friends in Arizona, of three generations of pilots including combat overseas and my POW father an organizer of The Great Escape, I felt I should tell you of my experience working successfully with our current Defence Minister against gun control. You were with Peter last year in Halifax.
"To keep this short, nothing in our time will stop gun violence. Canada is low in violence with the world's highest suicide rates in our Arctic. A Harvard study of gun violence is empirically clear: "To reiterate, the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic and cultural factors, not the form of deadly mechanism."
"We got rid of the gun registry by appealing to Reason: it was ineffective and wasteful of public money. It made criminals of long-gun owners who did not register their rifles and shotguns. The current US turmoil of assault rifles etc is almost irrelevant. There will be compromises. Take Reason with you against registration.
Craig, we should not comment on the posts of others to preserve integrity of this special place. In the spirit of serving inquisitiveness, the juxtaposition of murder and suicide accommodates the Harvard study that the "deadly mechanism" isn't the issue as much as the people we are and our choices.
The 10-bill package constitutes the single largest gun control push in decades in the Golden State, which already boasts some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state’s 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners.
My congressman has come out for draconian gun control. Nevertheless, I believe it is important for me to speak up and write to him on this issue. First, in order to attempt to show him the light. Second, so that he will know that there are involved, dedicated constituents who strongly defend the 2nd Amendment in his district. The following is my most recent e mail to him. His website required me to select a topic from a list which he provided. The only vaguely appropriate topic offered was, "crime & guns." As you will see I declined to use that topic and instead selected the heading, "other."
"Thank you for your response to my previous communication. My topic is "other" because I am addressing a matter not specifically listed among your options, "Civil liberties & guns." All our treasured constitutional rights come at a societal cost. The 2nd amendment is no different. Alas there are madmen & criminals in our society. Ownership of firearms by the general public protects us from these elements and from the potential threat from tyrants, foreign & domestic. Please consider this conscientious objection to gun control. Thanks..."
We should all write to our representatives, even if we know that they are in the wrong camp.
Be prepared for a "full court press" on extreme gun control during Obama's State of the Union address. Below is PJ media's take on what you'll probably hear. Jim
Ready, aim, gun control: Obama’s party says that they’ve invited victims of gun violence to highlight their own legislative aims, but members who are allocating their one guest ticket in this way are filling a chamber full of people Obama can reference and point to during his address as he advocates for stricter gun laws. Dems are even splitting their tickets to fill the seats with gun victims. Rep. Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Calif.) is bringing Christopher McDonnell, the father of 7-year-old Newtown victim Grace McDonnell, while Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) is bringing McDonnell’s wife, Lynn. “His presence at the president’s address this Tuesday will also serve as a powerful reminder that victims of gun violence are not just those who perish, but those who suffer from losing a loved one,” Negrete McLeod said.
Connecticut’s senators are expanding the guest list with Richard Blumenthal (D) bringing Newtown Chief Executive Officer Pat Llodra — a Republican, Blumenthal’s office stresses — and Chris Murphy (D) is bringing Newtown Detectives Jason Frank and Dan McAnaspie.
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), the shock-jock of the freshman class who has already called for Obama’s impeachment, has invited Ted Nugent as his guest. “I am excited to have a patriot like Ted Nugent joining me in the House Chamber to hear from President Obama,” said Stockman. “After the address I’m sure Ted will have plenty to say.” Meanwhile, Stockman will be live-tweeting the address with the hashtag #youlie — surely he should pay some royalties to Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who earned a formal rebuke from his House colleagues in 2009 after yelling “You lie!” to Obama during a joint session of Congress.
The law and gun control...I can't take credit for this but it contains a bunch of common sense....
A person steals guns (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW) Shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW) Transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW) Brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW) Breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW) Discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW) Murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW) And commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).
And now we hear the hypocrisy of the current "Fast & Furious" Obama reality show...looking to pass more laws....Perfect.
Just want to say the gun-loving people of the world are with you. The whole thing is riduculous. Even my pro-gun-control wife admits no gun control could have prevented Newton massacre. There isn't such thing as a gun-free country. Even in North Corea, and China some individuals - police, selected Party members, military, competition athlets - have access to firearms. And where some can get a gun, every determinded or obsessed person who wants a gun will find a way of getting a gun, legally or illegally. Russia has draconian gun control laws - which didn't stop a Greenpeace activist from gunning down seven of his former employees right at their workplace in Moscow last year. Neither did it stop a Moscow criminal police officer from murdering eleven innocent shoppers at a supermarket a few years back. Or two traffic cops in my wife's little hometown who pulled over a bus carrying a team of oil drill workers and for reason unknown AK'd them all. If Russia is a bad example, look at Norwey and Brevick massacre. Norway, by the way, didn't introduce strickter gun control or immigration laws after the murders. They said "we can't let one insane person change the life of the whole country. That would mean we aren't strong enough or don't have enough faith in our country and its ways".
Has anyone heard of this????? My birth certificate is not a deed, the federal government doesn't own me and best not share any information with Mexico.
From the NRA ILA,take note of the last paragraph,and be sure that is the main push of the liberal/progressives in power,notto protect the children;
THESE ARE THE FACTS — READ THEM — LEARN THEM — SHARE THEM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TALKING POINTS
NRA and NICS The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) [1], and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Dealers Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.
Private Sales Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.
Mental Health Records and NICS According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.[2]
Gun Shows A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.
A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.” Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[3]
Prosecutions In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.[4]
“Universal Background Checks” While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.
According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986
"We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves in their homes and their jobs, where ever, and...for recreation for hunting and the rest. So we're not questioning their right to do that." --
Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, on the "First Amendment" right for gun protection in homes and hunting.
Well: At least she's not maintaining Guam is likely to tip over. Yet!! Jim
Memo to Nan: That would be the Second Amendment and the protection in question would be against a government which no longer adheres to Constitutional restraints.
The following statement was made by the Boston Globe - has anyone seen a news report definitively stating that the Bushmaster rifle was not used in the Sandy Hook murders?
Quote:
The hearing’s focus was legislation by Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, to ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds. A Bushmaster assault weapon was used at Newtown by the attacker, Adam Lanza, whose body was found with 30-round magazines nearby.
"“Guns (are) nowhere as dangerous as liberals who can’t handle them. There stood Dianne Feinstein, the anti-gun senator from California, posing for all the nation’s media to capture on Kodachrome, holding an AK-47 with her finger firmly planted on the trigger. Here’s a woman so concerned about the supposed recklessness of gun manufacturers…who wouldn’t know firearm safety if it bit her in the end of her upturned San Franciscan nose.”
The website posted above is a link to a plethora of information debunking the junk science and inaccurate information that has been, and is still being used to promote bans on lead ammunition.
This is a concern right now as we face an anti-Second Amendment assault. The EPA reduced the exposure limit to lead by 50% in 2012 even though there is no pressing need. With the shortages and inflated costs of ammunition and components we have right now, imagine how much worse it could be if lead was banned and 40 million shooters were all grasping for non-lead alternatives.
The link above is from the website of Pennsylvania State Rep. Darryl Metcalf (12th District R Butler) who has introduced legislation that would make any new Federal Gun Control unenforceable within the Commonwealth, HB 357. Pa. residents should contact their representatives and Governor and ask them to support this Bill.
You can also click on Hot Issues for more information on 2nd Amendment Rights and information on the Second Amendment Action Day rally in Harrisburg on April 23. There is also a link to Petitions which you can sign and submit.
Others here may wish to send the language from HB 357 to legislators in their states and ask them to introduce similar legislation.
Pennsylvania will be a battleground in this fight as we are essentially two states with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh being mostly Liberal Democrat, and a large number of rural residents in between with a strong pro-gun-pro-hunting heritage. Pa. gun owners would be wise to make their voices heard early and often. Hope to see some of you at the April 23 rally.
Gun control advocate and astronaut Mark Kelly recently bought one of the rifles that he and his gun control group rail against. The husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords purchased an AR-15 rifle at a Tucson gun shop on March 5.
He made no public statement about the purchase, until news broke that he had done it.
Confronted with news of his “assault” weapon purchase, Kelly said that he bought the rifle only to prove that it’s too easy to buy such weapons.
Well, it turns out that the specific rifle that Kelley chose to buy isn’t so easy to buy. It’s a second-hand rifle. Therefore, it takes longer for the purchase to be completed, according to a statement released to Breitbart by the gun shop at which Kelley bought the rifle:
On March 5, 2013 Mr. Mark Kelly purchased a Sig Sauer 45 caliber pistol and a Sig Sauer M400 5.56 AR style rifle from my company, Diamondback Police Supply Co. in Tucson, AZ. The rifle, having been purchased in trade from another customer, cannot be released to Mr. Kelly or any other customer for a minimum of 20 days in accordance with local ordinances. Mr. Kelly did not ask for any modifications to the rifle, nor are we making any. Once the hold period is up, Mr. Kelly must then show proper identification, complete the Federal Firearms Transfer Record (Form 4473) and successfully complete the NICS background check prior to his taking physical possession of the firearm. [emphasis added]
The applicable local ordinances delay purchases of second-hand weapons by almost three weeks. This raises an obvious question: Why did Mark Kelly choose to buy a rifle that it would take 20 days to buy, if his intent was really to show how easy it is to buy that rifle?
Second-hand rifles tend to cost far less than new ones. Kelly admits that he was in the shop buying a handgun when he spotted the rifle. The most obvious answer to all this is that Kelly saw a rifle he wanted and bought it, believing that no one would ever find out about it. Astronaut Kelly figured no one out here would be smart enough to catch him. Then when caught, he lied about why he bought the rifle.
Oops.
UPDATE:
This "story" is now even more bizarre:
Here is part of the interview Kelly did with Wolf Blitzer after he was caught red handed buying an AR 15 in a Tucson gun shop:
“What are you going to do with the AR-15?” Blitzer asked.
“Well, the plan is to turn it into the Tucson police department,” Kelly replied, just as he had on Facebook. He also told Blitzer that he plans to keep the .45 that he purchased. “Gabby and I are gun owners,” he said, “strong supporters of the Second Amendment, had guns all my life. I’ll be keeping the .45, turning in the AR-15. but the important thing that’s coming up this week, what’s going to happen in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is important we get this universal background checks passed.”
Blitzer persisted. “Just to be precise,” he said, “your intention was always to hand over the AR-15 to the police department?”
“Absolutely, yeah,” Kelly responded. “I have no use for a gun like that. From my military experience, it is important that the military have assault weapons with high capacity magazines. I really think the access that the public has to these, it is too easy, as I demonstrated the other day. It is easy to buy an assault weapon, they’re readily available, and they really shouldn’t be."
I guess military retirement pay is higher than I expected to be able to spend $1500(minimum) on an AR 15 only to turn it over to the police.
WASHINGTON (AP) - All but ending chances for an assault weapons ban, Democratic leaders said Tuesday the firearms legislation the Senate will debate next month won't include the provision that gun-control advocates pressed for after an assault-type weapon was used in the Newtown school shootings in December.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he wanted to bring a gun bill to the full Senate that would have enough support to overcome any GOP attempts to prevent debate from even starting. He expressed concern that including the assault weapons provision might effectively block passage of any bill at all.
Instead, the sponsor of the provision, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said she will offer her ban on the military-style firearms as an amendment. But Feinstein is all but certain to need 60 votes from the 100-member Senate to prevail, and she faces solid Republican opposition as well as likely defections from some Democrats.
"I very much regret it," Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters of Reid's decision. "I tried my best."
Reid said that "using the most optimistic numbers," there were less than 40 votes for Feinstein's ban. That is far less than the 60 needed to begin considering legislation.
"I'm not going to try to put something on the floor that won't succeed. I want something that will succeed. I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring to something to the floor and it dies there," Reid said.
Feinstein, an author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired after a decade, said that Reid told her of the decision on Monday.
There are 53 Democrats in the Senate, plus two independents who usually vote with them.
An assault-type weapon was used in the December massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that revived gun control as a top issue in Washington. Banning those firearms was among the proposals President Barack Obama made in January in response to those slayings.
The assault weapons ban was the most controversial of the major proposals to restrict guns that have been advanced by Obama and Senate Democrats. Because of that, it had been expected that the assault weapons measure would be left out of the initial package the Senate considers, with Democrats hoping the Senate could therefore amass the strongest possible vote for the overall legislation.
Having a separate vote on assault weapons might free moderate Democratic senators facing re-election next year in Republican-leaning states to vote against the assault weapons measure, but then support the remaining overall package of gun curbs.
Gun control supporters consider a strong Senate vote important because the Republican-run House has shown little enthusiasm for most of Obama's proposals.
Feinstein said Reid told her there will be two votes.
One would be on her assault weapons ban, which also includes a ban on ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The second would just be on prohibiting the high-capacity magazine clips.
Many Democrats think the ban on large-capacity magazines has a better chance of getting 60 votes than the assault weapons ban.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved four gun control measures this month, including Feinstein's barring assault weapons and high capacity magazines. The others would expand required federal background checks for firearms buyers, increase federal penalties for illegal gun trafficking and boost school safety money.
Feinstein, the darling of the California anti-gun crowd will get massive donations to her campaign for her efforts (that she knew would go absolutely nowhere)thus ensuring her re-election and ability to live off the taxpayers. This was politics to her...the real danger yet to come is what Obama really wants; the UNIVERSAL background check(national registration). Read Chuck Shumer's bill if you want an indication of how strict this would be. Feinstein's bill was, and is, a smoke screen hoping to lull the pro-gun people into complacency. Remember the "we have to pass this so we will know what's in it.." BS about Obamacare? Any universal background check bill will have a ton of hidden crap in it. Under Schumer if you left home for a certain amount of days and left YOUR NATIONALLY REGISTERED GUNS at home where another person also lived you BOTH would be guilty of a felony. If you loan a gun to a friend at the trap range....FELONY...let your son use your rifle on a hunting trip...FELONY. The list goes on. Schumer's bill hasn't attracted much attention with the attention focused on Feinstein's theatrics, and watch for it to be sneaked in as an amendment to a larger bill such as background checks for people with mental health issues or something similar that appears less draconian. The only way to ensure this doesn't happen is to keep emailing and calling your representatives. Colorado just got screwed due to NYC Nanny Michael Bloomberg and his $$$$$$. Don't let it happen nationally. The real fights, however, will be in the local and state courtrooms and possibly the supreme court. (remember, these a**es like Shumer and Feinstein could have been working on the budget and deficit.)
NY State has established a toll-free tip line – 1-855-GUNSNYS (1-855- 486-7697) to encourage residents to report illegal firearm possession. The tip line also allows for information to be submitted via text – individuals can text GUNTIP and their message to CRIMES (274637). The New York State Police staff the tip line 24 hours a day. Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip then contact the appropriate police agency with the lead to initiate an investigation. If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the “tipster” will be awarded $500
My view: The Gestapo is alive and functioning in the United States today. As an aside: What a perfect way to harass a neighbor you don't like. Just report him or her as a possible illegal gun owner and wait for the police to swoop in. Jim
Why am I so wary of the left's blatant sleight-of-hand cries for "common sense" gun control measures and so adamant about not relinquishing ANY of my 2nd amendment rights? Simple; as a Texas CHL holder, I have passed a more intense background check than the Corruption-in-Chief Obama ever has. Nuff' said.
Oklahoma Senator Inhofe introduced an amendment to the budget that was approved. His amendment banned the U.S. from agreeing to any UN Small Arms Trade Treaty. 46 Senators voted NAY, meaning they were for the treaty. They are listed below and should be voted out of office in the next election, and Senators voting for the amendment should be praised. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...&vote=00091
On the Cover of the April 2013 issue of the NRA's American Rifleman is the perfect depiction of the empty suit attempting to shoot an O/U shotgun.....
The very bold caption on the cover reads:
ONLY YOU CAN SAVE OUR GUNS FROM "KING PINOCCHIO"
ABSOLUTELY THE PERFECT COVER, TAG LINE AND PICTURE, A MUST SEE......IF NOT ALREADY A MEMBER, JOIN THE NRA AND HELP FIGHT THIS ADMINISTRATION OF IDIOTS.
So much for the NRA using the "civil" wording that some of you recommend......!........I love it, it's about time they called a spade a spade.......!........
Quote: "IF NOT ALREADY A MEMBER, JOIN THE NRA AND HELP FIGHT THIS ADMINISTRATION OF IDIOTS. "
If you are on this forum and not part of the small contingent of anti gun trolls we have to contend with and you are NOT an NRA member you are doing a disservice to yourself and the community. BY all means cough up the small amount required and join the NRA Now. Jim.
From today's Washington Times: How's this for a Catch 22??
One major national firearms retailer, for example, has been under fire for more than two years from the Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It seems the company won’t hire convicted felons, which the commission claims amounts to illegal racial discrimination. The federal government these days argues that policies that have what government lawyers call a “disparate impact” on racial minorities amount to impermissible discrimination - even when the policies themselves were not put in place for discriminatory reasons. Thus, the government argues that a higher percentage of minorities within the felony population than in the population at large means that any policy that discriminates against felons as a class is discriminatory because its impact falls disparately on minorities.
Company officials pointed out to commission investigators threatening to charge the company with discrimination that they couldn’t hire felons even if they wanted to, because federal law prohibits federal firearms licensees from hiring felons. The investigator’s response was, according to a company official I talked to: “That’s your problem, not ours.” These are investigators and regulators who can read between the lines, know their bosses are anti-gun and will do anything they can to please them.
This really ticks me off, no wonder Obumya has a food tester for all his
meals.
MARLIN FIREARMS CLOSING ITS DOORS PASS THIS ON PLEASE
One more limb on the tree of truth.!! Our country is being stolen in
leaps and bounds. Their plan is if they cannot take our rights, they will
make them so difficult or expensive that we can no longer afford to
participate in them.!!
MARLIN FIREARMS CLOSING ITS DOORS. NOT BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROFITABLE, BUT
CHECK OUT WHY:
Even if you do not own a gun you need to know this. I checked this out on
"Truth or Fiction" who verified it. I trust them more than snopes.
Marlin Firearms is already closing its doors! They are doing it to us,
America! This needs to be spread to all gun owners and sportsmen/women.
We cannot rely on the media to inform us of these types of matters.
Something You May Not Know That Is Happening ... Who is buying companies
that manufacture guns??? A company called The Freedom Group has been
buying up gun and ammunition manufacturers. Some of the companies already
bought are Bushmaster, Marlin, Remington, DPMS, Dakota Arms and H&R. Some
people worry that this Freedom Group is going to soon control almost all of
the firearms companies in the United States. If you control the
manufacturers you can basically stop selling to civilians. Now this is
one way to control guns being sold that I had never thought of. Just don't
let civilians buy them.
What a perfect way to control guns. Now if you do some digging you will
see that The Freedom Group is owned by a company called Cerberus Capital
Management. Guess who controls Cerberus??? GEORGE SOROS, Obama's chief
financier!! He wants to restrict or ban all civilian guns. Please pass
this on to all your freedom loving friends. This needs to come out.
Why have we not heard about this in the "mainstream" media? I would think
this would be BIG news. (Soros also owns Progressive Insurance). If you
don't know who George Soros is, you need to do some Research. He has
continually backed Obama with millions of dollars and Obama is a puppet on
a string controlled by George Soros.
Send this to every gun owner you know!
LATER----------THE INFORMATION IN THIS POST MAY BE BOGUS ACCORDING TO A NOTE I JUST RECEIVED FROM A FRIEND. I'D DELETE IT , BUT THE WEBSITE WON'T ALLOW DELETION AT THIS TIME. Daryl
In one form or another everything that I will say has been stated in prior posts.
1.) No LAW abiding Citizen shall have arms or protection priviledges that are denied to others. Specifically, if the President deems his right of protection shall exceed our right to self defense - it is an abomnation. Ditto DHS, FBI, local Sheriff, etc or Chuck Schumer or Diane Feinstein. In other words if DHS deems a three shot burst AR a "Self Protection" weapon, it shall not be prohibited from ownership by a Lawful citizen.
2.) No legally purchased Firearm should EVER be recorded by the Federal Government, nor should they have access to such records unless agreed by the Citizen. Nor shall confiscation of a firearm EVER occur unless and until due process following a legal trial before a body of the defendant's peers be perfomed and the defendant announced guilty of a crime which by statute precludes the Defendant from possessing a firearm.
3.) No Tax or License Fee shall be levied for firearms, ammunition or Permit to carry concealed. If the State deems such fees necessary, the Legislators and Governors of such State shall be billed personally to cover the costs of administration - Ditto the Congress and President of the US that vote or sign into law such legislation.
4.) No Permit, if required, will ever be denied unless there is factual evidence to support a Finding of Mental Incompetence - such finding to be performed by two separate Medical processes, one of which must be chosen by the Defendant.
5.) Mental Illness as an exception to Lawful Ownership must be defined and agreed. Records of those forced to submit and/or adjudicated as sane shall be compared against crimes by that person - and criminal behavior data on such persons to be reviewed every year By States for recommendations for improvement.
6.) Congress shall pass a Law limiting the Chief Executive of the States and the United States from issuing any order to compel citizens to surrender firearms under any circumstances, including War and Martial Law. Violation of such Law is grounds for immediate arrest and detention of that Executive by either the Attorney General or by the head of the Agency protecting that Executive.
7.) UCMJ to prohibit any officer or member of the Armed Forces, and Law to prohibit any agent or law enforcement officer, to order confiscation of firearms from Law abiding Citizens. It must stipulate that issuance of such orders by superiors shall constitute an Illegal Order and Not to be Obeyed.
8.) Background checks, if conducted, must apply to ALL citizens including Federal, State and Individual - and data regarding criminal record, mental health and Citizenship must be held in strictest security except for Firearm and Voter's Registration Issuance. Even then, the sole determinant is eligibility to own a firearm and/or vote.
If I was God for a day, a lot of politicians and Government employees would all be re-located to a distant planet - unarmed - to co-exist with all the Terrorists I put there this morning... and let them 'co-exist'.
Any board members in MA should consider attending this event next week in Boston - it could be a good opportunity to tell "the other side of the story" away from all the media hype and bias.
The Senate will be taking up "Gun Control" soon so it's time to email your Congressmen again. It only takes a couple of minutes and will go to your State elected officials as well. We have to keep the pressure on and this major issue in the forefront. Jim
Big Rally in front of the MA Statehouse today in support of the Second Amendment:
Quote:
GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES TAKE TO THE COMMON
By Andy Metzger STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
BOSTON, APRIL 3, 2013……Like most people, Jay Lewis reacted to the news of a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School with a mix of horror and disbelief.
The kindergarten teacher, constable, gun owner and father who attended a gun rights rally on Boston Common Wednesday said the rhetoric around new restrictive laws that followed the tragedy was the wrong course.
“It hurt at the time, and as it’s gone on and I’ve heard people use that as a reason to enforce new gun laws, it upsets me because taking away the rights of citizens is not going to help crime,” Lewis told the News Service.
Laws governing the sale and use of guns have become a focus in the months since the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., with lawmakers in Massachusetts seeking to restrict the availability of certain weapons and President Barack Obama pressing the case for new federal laws.
On Wednesday, the two Democrats seeking an open U.S. Senate seat joined together to criticize their Republican opponents in the race for positions they said side with the National Rifle Association.
"While we may be competitors in the Democratic primary, we can both agree that it is deeply troubling to see our three Republican rivals siding more with the NRA and their activists who are descending upon Boston Common today, rather than with the President of the United States on the critically important issue of gun safety,” Congressmen Stephen Lynch and Ed Markey said in a statement. “Once again, our opponents find themselves dramatically out of step with the majority of Massachusetts residents. We both understand that we can and must do more to protect our residents from the scourge of gun violence, and hope our opponents will rethink their efforts to derail our President’s agenda when it comes to gun safety."
Earlier in the day, Rep. Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk), one of the Republicans seeking the seat, told reporters he has a three-stage litmus for evaluating gun laws.
“In any issue involving guns I ask three questions: Would it have prevented the Newtown tragedy? Will it keep kids from killing kids with illegal guns in our inner cities? And does it respect the Second Amendment rights under the Bill of Rights, and to me if the answer is no, no and no, I’m not terribly interested in it because it’s feel-good legislation that doesn’t solve the problem,” Winslow said. He said the solution “lies in fixing our mental health system.”
A New Bedford native who now teaches in the city, Lewis said he does not carry a firearm to school, and has never sought permission, though he said his life had been threatened by a father who was a gang member.
“There’s also a need to have a standardized training, which we don’t really have as a constable, and I kind of think we should, and we should have it if a teacher wants to carry, because it takes a certain amount of proficiency,” Lewis said. He also said permission for teachers to carry should be handled by the state, not individual principals, and said additional training for teachers who want to be armed in school makes sense and would alleviate concerns.
The Gun Owners Action League rally on common drew a crowd of gun rights advocates who cheered on a recitation of the Second Amendment that followed the Pledge of Allegiance. Some in the crowd carried provocative signs, one of which said “Blame these tools” next to photos of accused mass murders and “not these tools” next to photos of firearms.
One man at the rally who identified himself as John Delcord said “the government’s trying to take our guns, just like the British tried to do when we started this great country” and claimed that police know where illegal guns are located and choose not to enforce gun laws because “if you cut that out, you’d lose all the overtime and special funding.”
Lewis, who criticized legislation proposed by Gov. Deval Patrick and Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick) as “not realistic” and punitive toward law-abiding citizens, said that while he does not agree with the notion that government’s taking people’s guns away, he sympathized with those who believe that.
“I can see why people are getting upset. I don’t think we’re at that point yet,” Lewis said.
Accompanied by his 11-year-old son, Lewis said that he knew from his father, a constable, how to properly turn in a gun he found as a child, and said that at a certain age children should be educated on gun safety in case they encounter guns.
"At a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on Thursday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) opposed an amendment to her Assault Weapons Ban legislation that would allow military veterans to continue to buy the firearms that would be banned. Feinstein says a veteran may be mentally ill and should be prevented from purchasing firearms.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: If I understand this, this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military.
The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this."
Heard about this Feinstein blunder in the "mainstream news media"?
Now what do you think would happen if a Republican made a proposal to bar all Blacks from owning firearms since some of them have proven to be irresponsible? Note: If you have comments please post them over in the Misfires area.
More "Grist From The Mill" published in today's Military Newsletter:
Liberals Go Crazy For The Mentally Ill
The one clear thread that unites all the mass murders currently being exploited by the Democrats is that they were committed by visibly crazy people who were unaccountably not institutionalized. But Democrats refuse to do anything about crazy people. Apparently, the views of families with relatives murdered by severely disturbed individuals are no longer relevant when it comes to institutionalizing the mentally ill.
If liberals had a decent argument for taking guns away from the law-abiding while doing nothing to prevent schizophrenics from getting guns, they'd make it. Manifestly, they don't, so they send out victims to make the argument for them, knowing no one will argue with a person whose child has just been murdered.
This allows liberals to act as if Republicans' only counter-argument to their idiotic gun control proposals is: We don't mind dead children.
The truth is the opposite. Republicans are pushing policies that will reduce gun violence; Democrats are pushing policies that will increase gun violence.
All the actual evidence -- mountains of it, in peer-reviewed studies by highly respected economists and criminologists and endlessly retested -- shows that limits on magazine capacity, background checks and assault weapons bans will accomplish nothing. Only one policy has been shown to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings: concealed-carry laws.
Unfortunately, there are no similar studies on the effect of involuntary commitment laws for the mentally deranged because no such laws exist anymore and therefore can't be tested. But we do know that the number of mass public shootings has ballooned since crazy people were thrown out of mental institutions in the 1970s.
For most of the 20th century, from 1900 to 1970, there was an average of four mass public shootings per decade. Throughout the '70s, as the loony bins were being emptied, the average number of mass shootings suddenly shot up to 13. In the 3.3 decades since 1980, after all the mental institutions had been turned into condos, mass shootings skyrocketed to 36 on average per decade.
Mass shootings don't correlate with gun ownership; they correlate with not locking up schizophrenics.
I see that both of my Georgia republican senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isaacson, voted with the democrats to close out the filibuster of the gun control legislation. I guess it's all on the floor for discussion and vote now. If the 2nd amendment of the constitution is not worthy of a minority party filibuster, then I have to wonder what is.
Chambliss already knew his career was over for bedding down too often with the democrats and has announced his intention not to run again. I guess Isaacson has decided to come home too...Geo
A "thoughtful" response to my letter to our newest Senator. Clearly an independent thinker focused on real world solutions and not political sound-bites. I am particularly impressed by her willingness to look beyond guns to focus on the real problems of mental health and the epidemic of violence in the media:
Quote:
Dear Hamilton,
Thank you for contacting me about efforts to curb gun violence.
Like millions of people across the country, I was heartbroken by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December. I do not know how to explain the deaths of twenty innocent children or why six heroic teachers had to make the ultimate sacrifice for their students.
Tragically, the shooting in Newtown was not an isolated incident. Research by the Children's Defense Fund shows that, on average, nearly nine children and teenagers die every day from gun violence - thousands every year, and tens of thousands every decade. If nine children were dying of a mysterious illness every day, our country would do everything in its power to stop it.
That's why I support a comprehensive set of reforms to reduce gun violence. I strongly support reauthorizing the expired federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and I will fight for its passage in the United States Senate. I also support closing the loopholes in federal background checks for gun shows and private sales. The President has put forward a slate of proposals to help address gun violence and gun safety, and I strongly support those efforts as well.
There is no one solution for ending gun violence, but commonsense reforms like a reauthorized assault weapons ban and the President's proposals would be a responsible way forward. I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to look for other steps we can take to protect our children and families from these terrible tragedies. I believe that is my responsibility as a United States Senator -- and as a mother and grandmother.
A "thoughtful" response to my letter to our newest Senator. Clearly an independent thinker focused on real world solutions and not political sound-bites. I am particularly impressed on her willingness to look beyond guns to focus on the real problems of mental health and the epidemic of violence the media:
Quote:
That's why I support a comprehensive set of reforms to reduce gun violence. I strongly support reauthorizing the expired federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and I will fight for its passage in the United States Senate. I also support closing the loopholes in federal background checks for gun shows and private sales. The President has put forward a slate of proposals to help address gun violence and gun safety, and I strongly support those efforts as well.
There is no one solution for ending gun violence, but commonsense reforms like a reauthorized assault weapons ban and the President's proposals would be a responsible way forward. I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to look for other steps we can take to protect our children and families from these terrible tragedies. I believe that is my responsibility as a United States Senator -- and as a mother and grandmother.
Sincerely, Elizabeth Warren United States Senator
You MUST REALIZE that your new Senator is "Marching In Step" precisely with B.O. and the other Liberal Democrats STEP FOR STEP to pass (ON ALL OF US COAST TO COAST) more "useless" gun owner suppressive Federal laws that have already been proven NOT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE or "SAVE THE CHILDREN".............
These are exactly, item for item, the Democrat Proposals to gun legislation THAT WE ARE FIGHTING TO STOP.......
Join, support and fund the NRA........
***Thanks for the clarification DH, before the laughing face it looked like you were buying into the liberal double speak.......you know how liberals are, change bait for each species of fish, er citizen.....
Doug - sorry, I guess my sarcasm did not carry through loud enough [I have added some clarification]. . . . At least she responded (unlike most of my other elected representatives), but her response shows a complete lack of understanding of the real issues. Expected, but still very disappointing.
Here is an interesting survey of law enforcement officers and their reaction to current gun control proposals. Too bad Senators Warren, Feinstein, et al are not bothering to consider information from the police officers who are on the front line of this issue:
No anal retentives in Arizona named Cuomo,Bloomberg or Shumer!!
Arizona: Two Pro-Gun Bills Pass in Legislature and Go to Governor
Today, the Arizona Senate approved two pro-gun bills. House Bill 2455 passed by a 18-12 vote and would prohibit government-sponsored destruction of seized or surrendered firearms. Introduced by state Representative Brenda Barton (R-6), HB 2455 passed in the House of Representatives by a 36 to 23 vote on March 7.
The Arizona Senate also approved House Bill 2326 by 19-11 vote. Sponsored by state Representative Eddie Farnsworth (R-12), HB 2326 would provide meaningful privacy protections for firearm owners, and passed in the Arizona House by a 46 to 13 vote on March 7. Both of these bills are eligible for Governor Jan Brewer’s signature.
HB 2455 would require any firearms forfeited to or confiscated by a law enforcement agency to be sold to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder in exchange for money, new equipment or ammunition. As a result, previously owned firearms that are collected would maintain their value and their sale to the public would help recover public funds when budgets are strained.
HB 2326 would restrict the ability of any political subdivision from requiring or retaining a record in any form, whether permanent or temporary, of any identifying information of a person who owns, possesses, purchases, sells or transfers a firearm. In other parts of the country, anti-gun media outlets have abused their privileges under the Freedom of Information Act and have jeopardized the safety of law-abiding citizens by publishing the names and addresses of registered gun owners. Contrary to their claims, these media elites have not increased public safety and have instead simply provided a map for criminals to use for their next burglary and firearm theft. HB 2326 would prevent this from happening in Arizona.
Thank you to the state Senators who voted for these important pro-gun reforms and
It is now being reported on other gun oriented forums what many of us long suspected here. The anti's are in fact Bloomberg shills trying to portray us in the worst light possible. Again we need to be thankful that the forum administrator here saw this as well and the anti's seem to have departed Double Guns for more naive locals. (READ ATTACHED) Jim
April 17, 2013....U.S. Senate Vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment, S. 649 the Firearms Bill, which would have a negative effect on our Second Amendment Rights........
"The Federal Government Shall NOT infringe on the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS".......
With the help of the NRA and gun owners calling and writing their Senators it was defeated by the Minority Republican Senators and few Pro-Gun Democrat Senators from Pro-Gun States, not counting anti-gun Harry Reid D-NV who voted nea to cover his own ass..... only.......
DO NOT FORGET who the Anti-Gun Democrat and Change Over Republican Senators are......VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE ONCE AND FOR ALL......
We cannot afford to get complacent now the fight has just begun. Jim
Chris W. Cox's Message to Gun Owners on Their Victory in the Senate
While both sides in the gun control debate regroup after our victory in the Senate earlier this week, I want to give credit where credit is due. The credit for Wednesday’s defeat of gun control goes to the countless gun owners and other Americans who drew a line in the sand—who sent emails and letters and made phone calls to their U.S. senators, urging them to protect private firearm transfers, semi-automatic firearms, and the magazines that millions of Americans own for self-defense.
There is no question that you shocked the enemies of liberty two days ago. Going into Wednesday’s votes, they thought victory was within reach. Many in the media had pushed the idea that resistance to the gun control agenda was futile, and some of our more aggressive adversaries may have started to believe their own propaganda. I’m sure some had convinced themselves that the intensity of their anger toward gun owners was all that was necessary to assure victory.
But you and your fellow gun owners proved them wrong. As you know, the best Americans do what they have to do, not for personal praise, but because it’s the right thing to do. They do what has to be done not only for themselves, but for their fellow Americans today and for generations of Americans to come. Nevertheless, on behalf of all of us at NRA headquarters, I want to thank you for answering the call.
As you know, however, we can take only measured comfort from this week’s success. In his bitter response to the Senate’s votes, President Obama said that this fight is far from over, and that’s the one thing that he is right about.
Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), sponsor of the gun control bill debated this week, has promised to bring his bill up at a more opportune moment. Obama’s “Organizing for America,” billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Gun Guns,” and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ “Americans for Responsible Solutions” will focus their efforts on defeating pro-Second Amendment senators in 2014.
I say to those groups and their leaders, that pro-Second Amendment senators stood with us and we will stand with them, as we have with other elected representatives who have supported the Second Amendment before them.
Over the last generation, gun owners have had tremendous success advancing our cause. The refusal of the Obama administration and anti-gun radicals in Congress to attack us during Obama’s first term is a testament to our strength. They became emboldened by Obama’s reelection and over the last four months, we have weathered an anti-gun public relations campaign as severe as any we have experienced. And we have won the first legislative battle at the national level.
Our adversaries are well-funded, though, and as determined as any we have seen before. The fight ahead will be as difficult as this organization and the gun owning community has ever faced. Prepare for what’s ahead. Every gun owner will be needed on the team. Elected officials who support the Second Amendment will be subjected to a well-financed, cleverly conceived campaign designed to convince them that they are on the wrong side of history. Our job and yours will be to expose that claim for the fraud that it is. Please find strength in the knowledge that the victories best savored are those that are hardest fought, and encourage our friends in Congress to do the same.
Thank you for all you did to win this fight, and for your readiness to win the fights that will come.
Drama in the Rose Garden: Defying Senate,
Obama Vows to Win on Gun Control
On Wednesday, the Senate rejected a gun control agenda that President Obama has adopted as his own over the last few months, but to which other gun control supporters have bitterly clung for years: banning an ever-lengthening list of semi-automatic firearms, banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and expanding background check requirements to require government permission for many transfers of firearms among private citizens.
Within minutes of the Senate’s votes, which one political commentator called the “biggest loss” of Obama’s presidency, the President theatrically stood beside a prominent crime victim and several family members of other victims in the Rose Garden, beginning his comments in a somber tone, so that the anger to which he would dramatically build over the next 13 minutes would, in contrast, appear more sincere.
Obama should not have been surprised by what happened on Capitol Hill, however. A CBS poll in March showed that support for gun control had dropped 10
I would rather(and probably will)die to protect my freedom to bear arms in this country. I realize just how good we have it in the USA despite our current and many problems. Wouldn't want to live anywhere else!!! Just look and see what's going on in other countries when you try to express your opinion or practice your faith! I am prepared to stand up for the principles mentioned earlier, and quite prepared to take on those who are trying to "change" those things which were just fine up until about 4 years ago.
Contrary to the outright lies and propaganda put out by the Obama administration and the anti-gun liberal media, the link above cites a recent Washington Post/ Pew Research Center poll that says less than half of Americans are upset that the Senate did not pass S 649, the Universal Backround Check bill. I'd say that even the new lower number is grossly exaggerated judging by the "thumbs up" vs. "thumbs down" ratings given to comments below this article. The pro-gun, anti Obama posts are rated more like 100 to 1 "thumbs up". That's something to consider for anyone who might begin to be swayed by the anti-gunners' propaganda.
IDENTIFYING THE ENEMY: THE GROUPS MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE BOYCOTTED BY ALL THE MEMBERS HERE.
4/24/13 | by S.H. Blannelberry
"From 2000-2011, international business tycoon George Soros donated approximately $7 million to five different advocacy groups and organizations that support tougher gun laws, including the high-profile Brady Center to Prevent Gun violence.The largest recipient was The American Bar Association, a volunteer professional membership group of attorneys, which received a whopping $4,093,946 over that time span, as reported by Newsbusters.org. While its ties to gun control legislation may not be all that overt, the ABA website does state that the organization “believes that lawyers share a special responsibility to help create a just and secure society in which firearms are well-regulated.” Moreover, ABA President Laurel Bellows echoed those thoughts in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. In January, Bellows endorsed President Obama’s and Vice President Biden’s proposal to reduce gun violence, writing that “Gun violence prevention policies are achievable and desperately needed,” including, “mandatory background checks before all gun sales” and “new legislation to restrict the availability of military assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.” The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence got a check for $50,000 from Soros. Obviously, that was not a huge contribution relative to the ABA donation, but a clear sign that Soros backs the push for tougher gun laws.
The other three recipients of the Soros bump included The Children’s Defense Fund, which received $550,000, The League of Women Voters, which received $2,028,020, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, which pulled in $5,000. All of the aforementioned organizations, in one respect or another, believe in curtailing gun ownership via stringent regulations. Probably the most startling example was the Physicians for Social Responsibility, which lobbied for the “strongest possible legislative and regulatory approaches” with respect to guns. In the past, Soros personally criticized the Bush administration from preventing progress on the gun control front. In his book, “The Bubble of American Supremacy: The Costs of Bush’s War in Iraq,” the champion of all causes liberal or progressive wrote that President Bush has “aggressively infringed the rights of states to legislate and enforce provisions on issues such as gun control and medical marijuana.”
Washington, D.C. – After months of speculation of the intent of the Obama Administration and the Department of Homeland Defense, many officials believe they now have the reason behind the massive ammunition stockpiles: Rationing. The Obama Administration has struggle with legislation to crack down on the 2nd Amendment, but throughout the process had plan B in effect.
Over the past few years, the Department of Homeland Security has purchased over 1,000 more rounds per person than Army. At a recent hearing, Representative Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah stated, ”It is entirely … inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition,” .
Chaffetz, who chairs one of the House oversight subcommittees holding the hearing Thursday, revealed that the department currently has more than 260 million rounds in stock. He said the department bought more than 103 million rounds in 2012 and used 116 million that same year — among roughly 70,000 agents.
Insiders who asked to remain anonymous were asked about the massive ammunition stockpiles and hinted that the massive stockpiles were achieving their end result, empty shelves. The Obama Administration knew heading into their second term the fight on the 2nd Amendment would be tough, so instead of fighting that battle, they decided to remove the main component. The insider stated, “There’s a good reason you can find shotgun ammo all day long, but not assault type rifles and handgun. Thing about it, Joe Biden recently was encouraging gun owners to buy shotguns over assault rifles, this was their intention all along.”
One major side effect the Obama Administration failed to factor in, local law enforcement agencies are running short of ammunition supplies. Another major side effect, although this one likely intentional, the price of ammunition has skyrocketed. Many police agencies across the Nation have resorted to smaller bus due to the much higher cost and nationwide budget cuts. It’s also been reported that many law enforcement agencies have had to use Airsoft guns for training to save ammunition.
Republicans on Captial Hill are introducing a bill that would force the DHS to make purchases that are more inline with historical numbers vs. the current levels, which are enough for an army. Frank Lucas, R-Okla. stated: “I was surprised to find out the DHS has the right to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years, while it already has two years worth of ammo already,” Lucas said. “This is an issue that must be addressed, and I am pleased this legislation provides us the opportunity to do so.”
Here's a couple of reasons I'm glad I live in Arizona:
"All your hard work paid off! On Monday, April 29, Governor Brewer signed HB 2326 and HB 2455 into law.
HB 2326 prohibits maintaining information on a person who possesses, purchases, transfers or sells a firearm, except in the course of a law enforcement investigation.
HB 2455, an AzCDL-requested bill, clarifies that firearms voluntarily surrendered to a state or local entity cannot be destroyed and must be sold. We thank everyone who sent the over 2,000 emails to the Governor urging her to sign HB 2455. YOU made a difference!
These bills will become law 90 days after the Legislative session adjourns"
Tucked away on A8 of the WSJ, in a blurb next to a picture of the Dalai Lama rubbing noses with MD Gov. O'Malley(?), was the following:
"The rates of gun violence and gun deaths in the U.S. are off sharply from their high levels of the mid-1990s, a new study shows. The Pew Research Center found that since a peak in 1993, the rate of people murdered by a firearm had dropped by nearly half, from 7 deaths per 100,000 people to 3.6 deaths in 2010. The rate at which people were victims of nonfatal gun violence fell 75% from 1993 to 2011."
So after the AWB ended, and during a period of increased firearms sales, deaths and injuries from firearms has fallen. Perhaps someone can explain why this is not being more widely reported? Oh right, it conflicts with the media message about rampant gun violence.
Tucked away on A8 of the WSJ, in a blurb next to a picture of the Dalai Lama rubbing noses with MD Gov. O'Malley(?), was the following:
"The rates of gun violence and gun deaths in the U.S. are off sharply from their high levels of the mid-1990s, a new study shows. The Pew Research Center found that since a peak in 1993, the rate of people murdered by a firearm had dropped by nearly half, from 7 deaths per 100,000 people to 3.6 deaths in 2010. The rate at which people were victims of nonfatal gun violence fell 75% from 1993 to 2011."
So after the AWB ended, and during a period of increased firearms sales, deaths and injuries from firearms has fallen. Perhaps someone can explain why this is not being more widely reported? Oh right, it conflicts with the media message about rampant gun violence.
Hamilton, the detailed article is on the FRONT PAGE of the Daily Mail-UK-OnLine........Unfortunately when one wants ACCURATE and up to date headline information on THE U.S.A. with it's retarded opinionated liberal media, it is usually necessary to look at media outlets from other countries........
Here's the link for the complete story with graphs etc.
The two best things, right now, is to send a donation to the NRA-ILA. 100% of it goes to protecting the 2nd & you do not need to be an NRA member to do that. And secondly, to call the congress and leave a message with your representatives, both house & senate, letting them know your views on the subject and that you ARE paying attention w/both your vote & financial support to those ends. Now is clearly not the time to sit down.
My impression is that the media has embarked now on a mission to discredit the NRA with the charge that it only represents the gun manufacture industry. I don't know how the NRA is funded, but I'll bet the figures would show that it is mainly dependent upon it's millions of individual members like me, rather than the gun industry. Anyone know the facts on this?...Geo
This study may have been posted before in this topic. If so, my apology. It is quite convincing in my opinion: "More guns = LESS violent crime, not MORE."
With respect to the gun homicide statistics discussed above, I pulled together some other statistics. No death rate is "acceptable," but it is interesting to compare how American society seems more tolerant of some causes of death than others:
443,000 deaths annually from tobacco (including second hand smoke) [CDC 2000-2004]
49,400 deaths annually from second-hand tobacco smoke [CDC 2000-2004]
35,900 traffic fatalities in 2009 (all causes) [US Census Bureau]
10,590 traffic fatalities in 2009 from speeding [US Census Bureau]
12,700 traffic fatalities in 2009 involving alcohol [US Census Bureau]
5,400 traffic fatalities in 2009 from distracted driving [US Census Bureau - and note that this figure is likely seriously under-reported]
41,500 poisoning fatalities in 2009 [CDC]
1,800 teen suicides annually by suffocation [CDC - annual average]
700 children on average drown every year, most in swimming pools [CDC 2005-2009]
For anyone on this forum still naďve enough to think that the ultimate goal of the left wing liberals isn't confiscation read the following: Source: The NRA: Jim
Confiscate! Confiscate! Confiscate!
Posted on May 17, 2013
Hell hath no fury like an anti-gunner who doesn't get her way on gun control.
The Star-Ledger reported last Friday that after a closed-door hearing on gun control in the New Jersey Senate the previous day, three state senators--believed to be Democrats Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham and Linda Greenstein--were caught on tape, complaining that bills introduced in the Garden State--including one that would require mandatory training to possess a firearm--don't go far enough.
First, a voice is heard complaining, "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate." Then, the trio apparently focuses its ire on gun control opponents who say that the way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to throw the book at them.
Weinberg, willing to have no part of it, says "They want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don't have any regulations to do it." Cunningham then snipes, "They don't care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them," and Greenstein chimes in that enforcing existing law is "the line they have developed."
Strong rhetoric that reveals how gun control supporters really feel about their issue is nothing new, of course. Nearly 20 years ago, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that if she had been able to muster the votes, her 1994 "assault weapon" ban would not have merely prohibited various guns from being made with pistol grips, folding stocks and flash suppressors, but would have required a far harsher outcome; as Sen. Feinstein put it, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in."
However, the fact that gun control supporters still feel that way, after violent crime rates have plummeted as gun controls have been eliminated and gun sales and gun ownership rates have soared, suggests that we're up against ideologically driven adversaries with whom there can be no negotiation--only victory or defeat.
"The People" vs Those who feel they own the Flock of Sheeple: The growing cultural division reminds me of the run-up to the Civil War. It's still about who owns whom.
I hate to capitalize on someone's death but if we don't the anti's certainly will. I'd recommend that everyone on here from New Jersey assail the Governor, who will appoint his successor, with the admonition to appoint someone far more conservative. Lautenberg was a strong anti 2nd Amendment foe in Congress and with another vote sure to come up on the "Universal background Check" Bill we will need all the votes we can get. Jim
Please note those from your State who voted for this traitorous legislation. Keep this in mind the next time they're up for re-election. Jim
Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Hello All, here is the list of all the TRAITORS in the U.S. Senate -Thank God there was none listed for OK, AR, TX
People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
Asked his priorities, Markey ticked off a ban on assault weapons, “unleashing a green energy revolution” and helping to pass a transportation bill that can put Bay State citizens to work building roads, bridges and tunnels.
Though Markey said he would have supported the Manchin-Toomey expansion of background checks for gun purchases that failed in the Senate, he said it didn’t go far enough. “I realize that it’s not easy. It’s going to take an ongoing effort over some time, but I am not going to give up on the issue. I have been working on that issue for over 20 years and I am going to continue to do so until we have ultimate success,” Markey said.
For all my pro 2A friends out there, I'd like to bring up a point of semantics I was reminded of in a post above. The media and many gun publications tend to refer to anti second amendment people and organizations as "gun control" advocates. After all, who could be against some control of guns? The fact is that those people do not favor control, we have plenty of that, what they really want is prohibition and confiscation. For that reason, I always refer to them as "prohibitionists." We all know what alcohol prohibition did to the US between 1920 and 1933. It was great for criminals and bad for the public. Calling our opponents prohibitionists reinforces this point.
Our side also tends to refer to our opponents as "gun grabbers." This is a very poor choice of words because the great number of non-gun enthusiasts tend to think of us as gun grabbers, inferring that we will grab a gun at the first sign of trouble.
One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.
The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering certain guns, like machine guns and short-barreled shotguns, to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register those types of guns.
It requires id stamping on the bullet base and database tracking for pistol and rifle calibers. * It adds an ammo tax * No apparent exemption for .22 * No exemption for reloading * You must dispose of un-coded ammunition within 1 year (3 years if you have a hunting license)
* You may not have more than 100 rounds of un-coded ammunition after 1 year (even with a hunting license?)
Circle the wagons…remember no one thought that Comrade Cuomo (*"No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer"*) could possibly get the NY SAFE act passed. Down state Republicans are pretty much all in the tank for the trinity telling them what to do. All I see here is less liberty, more tax burden and more big government at work.
Send this out to everyone owning a firearm…any type…as we are all in the same boat. Call and/or write to your NY assemblymen and Senators.
The Executive Order banning the re-importation of military guns will stop over 850,000 M1 Garands which are currently stored in South Korea from being returned to the United States. This also threatens the existance of the Civilian Marksmanship Program which has been responsible for selling decommisioned military rifles to the American Public under a controlled program for many decades.
There is no evidence that expensive and heavy M1 Garands are being acquired and used by criminals. This is an attack on sportsmen, gun collectors, and target shooters... guys like you!
Jim's post above showing that 44 out of the 46 Senators (the other 2 are Independants) who voted to support the U.N. Small Arms Treaty are Democrats shows why we all must work hard to end the Democrat majority in the Senate in 2014. Democrat ex-President Bill Clinton said in a speech a few days ago that Voter I.D. laws unjustly require people to produce I.D. to vote while no I.D. is required to purchase an assault weapon. These Democrats will say and do anything... even flat-out lie... in order to get your guns. There is just no good reason to support any party or politician who would undermine the U.S. Constitution... especially the Second Amendment.
COLORADO RECALL WAS A SUCCESS: Two of the worst of the Democrats are now out of office!
Colorado’s state senate president and another legislator have conceded in an unprecedented recall election triggered by their push for stricter gun control measures. The outcome is likely to be viewed as a referendum on the hot-button issue that has divided the country this year.
The senate leader, John Morse of Colorado Springs, and state Sen. Angela Giron of the Democratic-leaning city of Pueblo were targeted by a highly contentious recall effort that drew big-name donors on both sides of the debate. The legislative recall effort is the first in state history. Continue Reading
Obama delivers remarks on gun control in Colorado I didn't listen to the incumbent socialist so I have no idea what he said
Biden: Politicians need 'courage'
With about 80 percent of voted counted, the Denver Post and other local media outlets reported that Morse had conceded Tuesday night. The final counts showed Morse was voted out 50.9-49 percent. Giron was ousted 56 percent to 44 percent.
“We as the Democratic Party will continue to fight,” Morse pledged.
National figures and groups weighing in on the race ranged from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a vocal champion of tighter gun restrictions, to the National Rifle Association on the other side of the spectrum. The Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee both had some staffers on the ground assisting the campaigns, and Bloomberg’s anti-gun violence group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, had about 30 people on the ground.
Morse — whose county strongly backed Mitt Romney in 2012 — and Giron were key advocates of gun control measures in the state Senate, which included stipulations such as universal background checks and limits on the amount of ammunition a gun can carry. That debate unfolded in the aftermath of last year’s shooting massacres in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., and came as gun control advocates made a push in Congress, which ultimately failed.
I'm posting this here even though it's partially the author's opinion. My reason for doing this is that it outlines how the recall was accomplished and demonstrates it was truly a "grassroots" effort. Jim
A Famous Victory in Colorado National Review, by Charles C.W. Cooke Despite the media’s insistence that the Colorado recalls were the first skirmish in a new proxy war between the National Rifle Association and New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, the simple truth is that Tuesday’s stunning elections were prompted and won by forces on the ground.
A famous victory unfolded. Speaking after Senator Morse conceded, the recall’s founder, Tim Knight, told the crowd that “you must own your freedom in order to protect and pass it on to your children.” He has spent the last few months doing just that.
Guns are a notoriously touchy subject in America — a supercharged third rail, if you will. But so too is the notion of accountability. The country was founded, after all, by men with guns grumbling about the nature of their political representation. It was in this proud tradition that the disgruntled banded together in Colorado to try to recall two sitting state senators who had not just voted to pass new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, but had steadfastly refused to listen to the opposition. The new gun laws, locals in both Colorado Springs and Pueblo told me repeatedly, were “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
The national implications of this are significant.
Maligned were the parade of little groups that sprung up to fight the government. Women who testified — some of them, like Kimberly Weeks and Amanda Collins, victims of rape — were cruelly rebuffed; genuine advocates, like the six men who founded the Basic Freedom Defense Fund, were dismissed erroneously as “AstroTurf”; and the plucky little guerrilla group, Pueblo Freedom and Rights, which was started by three formerly apolitical blue-collar twenty-somethings, was described variously, its founder, Victor Head told me, as being made up of “peons” and “nuts,” and guilty of representing “amateur hour.”
Nevertheless, by the end of the process, so anxious were the opponents of the recall that they felt compelled to rely heavily on Michael Bloomberg, who sent $350,000 to Colorado to fight the threat; members of Obama’s ground team were brought in to boost turnout, and even former president Bill Clinton was wheeled in at the last minute to try to tip the scales.
None of it worked. This was the recall that never supposed to happen — let alone be successful. The nine men who set the ball rolling weren’t supposed to be capable of organizing a town hall, let alone taking down the state-senate president. And yet they did it.
Victor Head, a plumber who had never been politically active, took down a senator in a district that went Democratic in 2012 by ten points; a group of six concerned men from the AR15.com chat room removed the state’s top-ranking legislator. “We are a quiet people,” recall founder Tim Knight told his victorious friends when the results became known at the Stargazers Theater. “You may be tempted to ignore us. Clearly, that would be a mistake.”
The power that the defenders of the Second Amendment enjoy lies in the appeal of the Second Amendment itself — and, too, in that peculiar American genius for liberty.
“Amateur hour?” Perhaps. But, as is proper in a republic, the amateurs were victorious.
Sore loser,even having 8 times more money from Nanny Bloomberg and still loses.She blames the NRA and.........voter suppression !Even the CNN talking head is buying it
The anti's with assistance from the "mainstream news media" will continue to report that we gunowners and the NRA "bought" this recall election. Here's the REAL numbers in this article. We were outspent by 5+ times over. Jim
Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out. This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.
This really takes excessive nerve after the Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right! =
Corker sent a letter warning him about implementing it before congress ratifies it. No doubt the "we can't wait speech" is all prepared for the next "never let a crises to waste" opportunity !
"WASHINGTON – Asserting the Senate’s constitutional role on treaties, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, in a letter today warned the Obama administration against taking any action to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty without Senate advice and consent.
“The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be fundamentally inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, law, and practice,” said Corker."
One of the best writeups I've seen on the potential effect of the Small Arms Trade treaty that Kerry just signed. This should be a big red flag to all of us! Jim
The United States is ranked 3rd in Murders throughout the World. But, if you remove just 4 cities from the statistics:
· Chicago · Detroit · Washington, DC · New Orleans
The United States is then ranked 4th from the bottom in the entire world for Murders. These 4 cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States and are run by DEMOCRATS!
If anyone reading this has ever wondered why the ultra left has continuously tried to promote their point that the U S Constitution with it's Bill of Rights is irrelevant today read the following: Jim
George Mason and the Bill of Rights
Washington Times, by Charles Hurt
Commonly referred to as the “forgotten founder,” George Mason IV had a fair amount of contempt for politics. Especially politicians. It was a dirty, grubby affair that attracted mostly dirty, grubby people. Mason was clairvoyant.
Mason served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and helped craft that document. But he ultimately refused to sign it because, among other flaws, it lacked a bill of rights.
"The American Citizen is the Republic itself, and the tribunal of his authority is set above the Throne of Kings.” To Mason, government was never a sure thing. Free people begrudgingly allowed it to exist in a most limited form to serve a severely limited purpose. And if that government got out of line, free people would simply dispatch it and start over again. Or do without. (Any doubt that he’d have huzzahed the gubmint shutdown last month?)
Looking around Washington today and trying to pick between the all-seeing, all-groping, insatiably power-hungry big government Democrats and the all-seeing, all-groping, insatiably power-hungry big government Republicans, scrapping it all and starting over is not such a bad idea.
After the Constitution was ratified, his continued calls for a bill of rights finally took hold. To this day, this list of rights is the only reason we have not been stripped of our guns. ***It is the only vestige of protection between us and the government spies. It blazed the trail to crush the intolerable institution of slavery — a result that Mason quite purposely knew and predicted would come from his demand of individual liberties.
As paltry and violated as our state of freedom seems today, it has been worse for various people at various other times during our history. Every time, it was the light cast far forward by George Mason that led us home.
If ANYONE on this forum has any doubts as to why the left wing liberals in Congress pushed so hard for universal firearms registration last summer and why we fought so hard to defeat it read on: Jim
Default Confiscation Begins in New York
In the wake of New York’s latest gun control law, the New York Police Department is now sending out notices to registered gun owners demanding that they give up their firearms, clear proof that gun registration leads to outright confiscations.
The notice provides gun owners, who possess firearms now prohibited under New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act, the “options” to either surrender their firearms to the police, remove them from the city limits or otherwise render them inoperable. The NYPD knew exactly who to send the notices to by using a centralized firearms registry which lists the city’s gun owners and what firearms they have in their possession. With the gun database already in place, the police merely needed to compile a list of firearm makes and models now banned under the SAFE Act and send the notices to the appropriate owners. The SAFE Act, which was passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor on the same day in January, has numerous, draconian provisions including, but not limited to: - Outright ban of magazines holding over 10 rounds - Restriction on more than seven rounds being loaded into a magazine; the limited exceptions do not include home defense - Mandatory background checks for ammunition - The creation of a firearms registry for what the state considers “assault weapons” - A requirement for firearm permit holders to fill out a form to keep the state from publicly identifying them
Note: The above information was provided by another forum:
Here is a sample copy of the form that was sent out:
So these scumbags think that harassing gun owners who are already law abiding, by registering their weapons, will deter criminals who haven't registered any weapons??? This is an outrage!! Five rounds? NY state law is 10 round mags are OK, just don't load more than 7!
Don't forget, a court ruling already stated that a convicted felon doesn't have to register his firearms, because that would be self incrimination. Tis true!
Registration then confiscation “Holy crap. Looks like Weimar Germany,”
Connecticut gun owners are rushing to register certain firearms and ammunition that will be considered illegal contraband in the new year.
Under a wide-ranging gun control law passed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, they have until Tuesday to submit the paperwork with the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
Detroit Police Chief James Craig has an idea for fighting crime — arm more citizens.
"When we look at the good community members who have concealed weapons permits, the likelihood they’ll shoot is based on a lack of confidence in this police department,” said the chief at a press conference this week, The Detroit News reports.
The chief said he believes the financially crippled city's residents are feeling safer and violent crime dropped seven percent in 2013. But Craig said that he's changed his mind over the years over whether citizens should be armed.
He said that when he was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years, California law made it difficult to get a concealed weapon permit. However, when he became police chief in Portland, Me., in 2009 he changed his mind.
"I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation," Craig said. "I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”
Craig said on a radio show in mid-December that there are a number of people in Detroit with concealed pistol licenses (CPL), and he thinks it's a deterrent to crime.
"Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction," said Craig. "I learned that real quick in the state of Maine.”
Craig's stance is unusual for a police chief, but Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police Director Robert Stevenson said that there are many police officers who have no problem when law-abiding citizens have guns, but they usually try to stay out of those discussions.
Craig's opinion, though, does not stretch to assault weapons, which he has said should be banned. He's also called for tight restrictions for online ammunition sales, to regulate high-capacity magazines, and for background checks for gun sales.
There were 15 justifiable homicides in Detroit in 2013, down from 25 in 2012, the Detroit News reports. In most of those cases, citizens were defending themselves by killing criminals.
Related Stories: Study: Murder Rates Lower Where Concealed Weapons Allowed
I know the majority of the membership here clearly understand the message in this video. However it's a good an example as any of the type of information that the "mainstream news media" makes a concentrated effort to keep from the general public. I'll bet this is the first time the majority of you have seen this video or even knew it existed. Jim
many of us know that the so called SAFE act in NY is about disarming the citizen not about crime control
here is proof - a federal judge last week said the 7 round limit in a magazine is unconstitutional, The state says its still in effect because federal rulings do not apply to state law.
Ammunition sales, as of next Wednesday must be done in person with a registered vendor and recorded for the state police. So for public safety reasons- I can no directly longer order RSTs for my old doubles.
In the mean time- we had a robo 911 phone call at 0 dark thirty yesterday morning telling us to "stay in our house and away from the windows" because of a police action in our area. We live in a fairly rural area, turns out a person had left his home with a shotgun threatening violence. He was later found and arrested under the mental health laws - AGAIN - he was also arrested and hospitalized for a similar incident a month ago with a rifle.
Catch and release in spite of the law's requirements and common sense of securing firearms from a mental patient.
so - roaming mental patients---- armed home owners in the area --- restricted on ammo and firearms
This is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around...reloading. Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known!! See below. If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 “legistraitors”… vote against them (or better yet RECALL them). In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N. Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) XXXXX Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) XXX Hirono (D-HI Johnson (D-SD) XXXXX Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
Lots of D's behind those names...who would of thunk it?
At least I can cast my vote against one of them this fall. Good ol Al Franken (yes, I am utterly embarrassed every time I have to say I live in a state that elected Al Franken).
Regardless of the vote, the USA is effectively implementing the UN treaty, as those of us who live outside the US know from experience. Until recently we could buy non vital gun parts from the US, not anymore, because the State Department put in rules identical to the provisions of the Small Arms treaty. So, no more semi inletted stocks, sights, even grips. Some dealers even refuse to sell pieces of wood for stock making.
Democratic Senators that voted against the small arms treaty.
Though Secretary of State John Kerry signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty in September, there are positive signs that the treaty will be dead on arrival in the Senate. Last week Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and Joe Manchin, D-W.V., released a bipartisan letter opposing the treaty, which was signed by 48 of their colleagues. And on Tuesday, four Democratic Senators sent a letter to President Obama, Kerry and the UN stating that the small arms treaty would not be ratified.
The letter, sent by Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., said that “because of unaddressed concerns that this Treaty’s obligations could undermine our nation’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, we would oppose the Treaty if it were to come before the U.S. Senate.”
BTW: This information is already posted in the "Preserve the 2nd Amendment" that's pinned at the top.
FYI: Misfires is where the paranoia and fear mongering goes.
OWD
This anti-2nd Amendment vote was factual and verifiable OWD. There is no paranoia or fear mongering. I realize this makes your hero Obama and his anti-gun minions look bad, and you would like to hide that in Misfires. But this stuff potentially affects our rights to own any guns and ammunition... even doubles!
I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to whine about a legitimate threat to gun rights appearing on the main page of a firearms forum. Makes you wonder what their motives are. Again... not paranoia... just fact.
This is old news. The referenced vote was in March of last year. The list of names of the Senators that voted for the treaty (against the amendment) made the rounds several months ago including this BBS in the MisFires section (where this thread belongs):
why do insist on being part of a gun fraternity yet try and clamp down on any effort to protecting our rights?If you don't want to read it then don't !
We know they will come for your doubles after they have all the handguns and semiauto rifle's,if you want to remain ignorant that fine jut STFU and and move on !
Saw a John Stossel piece on Fox news, where he applied for a NYC pistol permit. $430 application fee?? WTF? Isn't this just like the old Jim Crow Poll Taxes in the south, to keep poor blacks from voting?? PS: He was rejected, because he didn't show enough need for a carry permit. Why should we pay so much to exercise our Constitutional rights?
This was reported today in the P J Tattler: The emphasis added in BOLD is mine: Jim
Attorney General Eric Holder said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today that President Obama is open to using an executive action to push through gun-control and/or associated mental health measures that haven’t found approval in Congress.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), one of the top proponents of new gun-control measures in Congress, noted that Obama only made a “very brief” reference to gun violence in his State of the Union address.
“But I hope, and I hope you will join me in the view that the president remains completely committed to ending gun violence in this country, adopting common sense sensible measures ** like background checks and mental health initiatives; a ban on straw purchases and illegal trafficking,” Blumenthal said to Holder at the Justice Department oversight hearing.
**This of course means another attempt at "Universal Background Checks" which as you probably know would be the first step to universal registration and confiscation.
They will never stop trying to get total gun control. They will use whatever steps they can to accomplish the death knoll of the second amendment. Then, they will scream and plead for our help once they have accomplished this "feel good" but horrendous action.
Illinois State Rep. Kelly M. Cassidy (D-14) introduced a bill on Feb. 5 that would require gun owners to register every gun they own. According to the bill, called the Firearms Registration Act (HB4715), this would not just apply to new purchases but Illinoisans would also need to register guns they already own.
The bill’s synopsis explains [emphasis added]:
“Creates the Firearms Registration Act. Provides that every person in the State must register each firearm he or she owns or possesses in accordance with the Act.”
Alan Gura's Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Drake v. Jeregian Questions Presented
Quote:
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self defense.
2. Whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for selfdefense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.
"The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public...
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Cue the "Wild West, blood in the streets" handwringing from the usual suspects in 3...2...1...
"The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public...
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Cue the "Wild West, blood in the streets" handwringing from the usual suspects in 3...2...1...
Plaintiffs were very smart. They did not challenge the licensing statute. They did not argue that miscreants can carry guns. They argued that applying the law in some counties to prevent most citizens from carrying was unconstitutional, leading the 9th Circuit to find that the 2nd Amendment applies to carrying outside the home. This made the spilt in the Circuits more pronounced, making it more likely that the Supreme Court will hear a Right to Bear Arms appeal, perhaps Drake v. Jeregian from New Jersey and the Third Circuit.
"The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public...
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Cue the "Wild West, blood in the streets" handwringing from the usual suspects in 3...2...1...
not only big, but should assure SCOTUS taking up the issue again, in more detail than Heller and McDonald
NRA Chief: ‘We are on Our Own, That Is a Certainty’
PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson
National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre told the Conservative Political Action Conference today that he sees a changing America with eroding freedoms in which people will need to assert the right “to protect our families with all the rifles, handguns and shotguns we want.”
LaPierre noted that this time last year pundits were “calling me about every nasty name in the book” for putting forth a plan for armed responders in schools in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting.
The NRA leader didn’t specifically address the gun-control legislative efforts that have since fizzled in Congress, but said “freedom has never needed our defense more than now.”
“You know it in your gut; something in our country has gone wrong,” LaPierre said, listing “core values” that are “eroding” from the “freedom to work, to practice our religion, raise families the way we see fit.”
“We are on our own, that is a certainty.”
“They’re laying the groundwork to put another Clinton back in the White House,” the NRA chief said, and have an ultimate goal to “fundamentally transform America into an America you won’t recognize.”
“The NRA will not go quietly into the night; we will fight, I promise you that.”
A LENGTHLY READ BUT I CAN'T GET OVER THE ARROGANCE.
CT Governor Dannel Malloy to Gun Owners: “Your Side Lost,” Get Over It
Tim Brown 7 hours ago
32 Comments
Share1.7K Tweet53 Share1.9K 19 Email0 As Connecticut is in the midst of a very serious situation regarding guns and gun registration, Governor Dannel Malloy attended a town meeting this week to address constituents at John Barry Elementary School in Meriden, Connecticut. During that event, a pro-gun citizen, who has opposed the legislation signed into law by Malloy, which requires gun owners to register their semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines or be considered felons, asked how Malloy could push legislation that is against law abiding gun owners while abolishing the death penalty and offered early release for violent criminals. Malloy's answer was not to point to the State Constitution, but to point to the people's desire to "feel safe." In that respect, he told the questioner that the legislation regarding gun registration had gone through each branch of government and "your side lost." In essence, Malloy said, "Get over it."
Malloy told a constituent who asked about the constitutionality of the gun registration law, "One court has already decided… courts are where the constitutionality of these things are decided."
"You've thrown that term around," Malloy said with a smirk, speaking of the term "constitutional." "It's gone to the court, and guess what? You lost."
Video provided courtesy of Palin Smith
The governor attempted to equate driver's licenses, background checks to get on an airplane, and background checks to obtain a gun with the right to keep and bear arms, which is explicit in the Connecticut State Constitution (Article 1, Section 15). I appeal to that since I believe the Second Amendment is specific to the federal government.
However, there are no caveats here. The Connecticut constitution is clear that people have that right and that nothing has to be done, as far as government is concerned, to exercise that right. Would that not include mandatory gun registration?
He then spoke about the people acting in a republican form of government decided the matter. While the people most definitely determined their elected officials, those officials are not to go against what is clear in their own constitution, and they are not to create ex post facto laws, such as the gun registration legislation which is at the heart of the debate. The fact that Malloy claims, "the legislature decided you could keep it" ought to be just as disturbing in this matter. Since when does the government in the United States determine whether or not you can keep your property? Do you get the implications? Malloy thinks the state grants you your rights, not God.
While the claim is true that those who purchased a weapon that was identified in the new legislation could keep their guns, the additional measure of registering it becomes a point of controversy. As I pointed out in a prior article, Branford Police Officer Joseph Peterson made it clear why registration was necessary: "So they know who's got them (sic) that's what the purpose is (sic)."
The only reason to want to know who owns those particular guns, is for later confiscation, nothing more.
Malloy then puts the blame for the law on the citizens, stating that they thought it best to make them safe. The question should be asked of Malloy, how does gun registration make anyone safe, seeing that no criminal will register their guns? Just how does that work? The truth is, it doesn't.
The questions posed were, "Since you've been governor, how could you abolish the death sentence in Connecticut, making it a 'killer's paradise," create a program that allows violent offenders the ability to get out of prison early, letting them run free on the streets with citizens before their time; cutting funding by hundreds of millions of dollars, with at least $25 million of that being taken away from mental health programs; such programs could identify and prevent another Sandy Hook and Adam Lanza? So by coddling and rewarding prisoners, you have turned around your wrath to the legal gun owners of the state, not realizing that legal gun owners could be the ones that could actually stop the next mass murder, since no one commits a serious crime with a police officer standing there. So how do you respond to this total turn around, as well as unconstitutional laws against law abiding gun owners while skirting around the real issues of the heinous crimes that were committed in this state?"
Malloy, attempting to belittle the man posing the questions, said, "I think you have a view," and added that sometimes those views "don't reflect reality."
He then erected a strawman, by claiming that the man's question and statement indicated that Connecticut's crime rate is higher in 2014 than it was in 2010. Of course, that was not the point of the man's question to Governor Malloy.
However, Malloy did toss out some "statistics" regarding his claim. He then made the bold proclamation, "Connecticut is safer today than it has been in 46 years. We've had fewer crimes committed in Connecticut in 2013 than we did going back 46 years, but actually when you adjust it for rate of crime, it goes back even further than that."
Malloy claims the state population was 600,000 46 years ago. OK, stop right there. This is the first lie from Malloy. He isn't even in the ballpark on this one. According to CensusScope, the total population for Connecticut in 1960, eight years prior to Malloy's claim, was 2,535,234. In 1970, just two years following Malloy's claim, the population had grown to 3,032,217.
Malloy continues to mischaracterize the man's question by stating that if he believed his statement, there "must be a plethora of murders taking place in our state."
The governor then goes on to claim, "Murders, for only the fourth time in forty years, were below 100 people."
According to murder statistics for the "Constitution State," Connecticut has seen murders under 100 on three occasions from 1974 to 2012. I don't have 2013 statistics to verify, but the Courant agrees with Malloy's claim that 2013 saw the number of murders under 100 (they cite 97). That would make this claim true.
However, that is the only year in the Malloy administration that has taken place. In fact, when you look at national average of violent crime and murder, you can see a drop almost across the board, but the question must be asked, "What are those declining rates attributed to? Are they attributed to legislation or more citizens being armed?" That is another topic for sure, so I suggest reading the real numbers on the issue here.
When taking into account Malloy's claim about 2013, keep in mind that the prior year saw what took place at Sandy Hook. The total number of murders was 146, up 17 from 2011 when Malloy took office. Now keep in mind that immediately following Sandy Hook, there was a run on guns and ammunition, so much so that shelves were emptied. This was brought on by the Obama administration pushing for more unconstitutional restrictions on guns and the State of Connecticut doing the same, even amidst opposition, including parents of those that attended Sandy Hook. If you are a thinking person in this, you would have to come to the conclusion that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens were what brought the murder rate down, not legislation and not Governor Malloy.
Malloy erected the strawman that if he believed the questions posed to him, it would lead him to believe violent offenders are doing less time in prison. That isn't even the issue. He makes comparisons to other administrations and how they have dealt with sentencing. The question posed was how could he do it? How could he release violent criminals onto the streets before their time was up?
What Malloy doesn't address is the fact that New Haven, Connecticut is listed as number 8 on a 2012 FBI report describing violent crime, murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. And the state's capital city of Hartford is consistently above the national average in regards to violent crime. In 2012 it was three times higher than the national average.
Yet, Malloy claims that the people are "safer" under his administration and says the statistics back that up. Again, why are they safer? Is it because of his administration or the people arming themselves? I'll let you be the judge.
Instead of actually answering the questions posed to him, Malloy seems to be doing nothing more than a song and dance, deflecting from the real questions and honest answers that should have been given. His answers, in my opinion, are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Governor Malloy attempted to claim that suicide attempts were more likely to be successful in a home that had guns. I don't doubt that, but it is irrelevant to the issue. Will Governor Malloy be giving up his guns or the guns of those that provide security to him at his home, because one day he might get suicidal? I'm guessing not.
Malloy's claim about strengthening laws about keeping guns under lock and key are worthless as well. I don't mind the sentiment that if you have multiple weapons that they are stored properly, especially if little ones are in your home. However, for it to be mandated by the state, does not then make it a reality. Second, a locked up gun is of no use when you are in need of it.
Finally, the issue of mental health came up. I've told you from day one, when conservatives came out pushing the entire "mental health" issue regarding guns, that it was a mistake, and they fell right in the trap that was laid for them. You are now giving government the ability to define who is and who is not mentally healthy enough to possess a gun. Many of our veterans, who fought to preserve liberty, the same liberty we speak of to keep and bear arms, are having their guns taken from them due to the ridiculous push for government to interject itself into the issue of mental health.
Malloy is right about one thing, when it comes to this law, the side of liberty lost. Now, it appears liberty lovers are demanding a best 2 out of 3. We'll see what happens in 2014 as a floundering Malloy will be going up against gubernatorial candidate Joe Visconti.
Attorney General Eric Holder sees a day where gun owners wear bracelets that communicate with the gun, allowing only the gun owner to use the weapon.
Holder told a House appropriations committee that the Department of Justice has spoken with technology experts who are exploring ways to restrict the use of guns to their legal owners, the Washington Free Beacon reports.
"By making [guns safer] either through fingerprint identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon," Holder reportedly said Friday. "It's those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis."
Fox News reports the Justice Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for gun safety for the 2014-2015 fiscal year. That would include $2 million for gun safety technology grants.
Seems our liberal agenda is now full steam ahead to kill anyone's business it is to keep brass and shooting your firearms available to the general public. As the Media is being stonewalled by the EPA and the FBI, information about the warrant used is sealed. However information is getting out from the employees and there are some really bizarre behaviors by the feds in this case. Below is a letter from Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association: Dear MSSA Friends,
Most of you will be aware that armed employees of the EPA and FBI recently conducted an armed raid on a company in Bozeman that recycles used cartridge brass.
Several months ago, OSHA visited the business, USA Brass, because of allegations of workplace safety issues, notably lead dust in the air from tumbling fired brass (the lead dust would be from primers). There were two employees who had lead levels above what is acceptable. As a result, USA Brass invested a lot of money in expensive air filtration and ventilation equipment, and upgraded employee training and practices. As a result, USA Brass passed a subsequent inspection by OSHA.
I'm told, USA Brass managers didn't kneel quickly enough to OSHA inspectors and offended them by not being subserviently cooperative. So, the subsequent raid by EPA, FBI and others was conducted to teach them a lesson about federal power and proper cooperation.
Many, if not all, of the federal employees were visibly armed. Upon arrival, the federal employees forced all the employees into a room or rooms where they were isolated and held for hours. The employees cell phones were confiscated so they could have no communication out of the building. The feds disabled all of the security cameras in the building so there would be no video record of the federal deeds or misdeeds. (There is no reasonable excuse for that.)
The feds confiscated and took away all laptop computers and external hard drives, and copied all desktop hard drives, including USA Brass's contact information for 10,000 customers.
I see this as a Montana version of what's happening in Nevada. (It’s slightly different in that Nevada involves unconstitutionally possessed lands by unconstitutional bureaucracies; and, of course, there is no armed stand-off in Montana. What’s happening in Montana is more like what was done to Gibson Guitars. There, you may recall, armed fed’l bureaucrats held employees hostage while they seized wood used to make guitars, computers, etc., purportedly because the wood was obtained in violation of some regulation out of India that the government of India was not the least bit interested in prosecuting. It took years, but Gibson eventually got the wood back; apology is still forthcoming. Unlike Gibson though, and like Bundy, this one involves 2nd Amendment rights. So let’s call it a hybrid.) What I find odd is the disabling of the security systems recording functions. What illegal behavior was it they intended to hide? This all after a compliance inspection from OSHA to see if they had indeed corrected the work place safety issues, which they passed.
This has the appearance of scorched earth policies by this administration of beat one to death and the rest will fall in line. ***
The Militarization of a civilian force goes on. One of Obama's pledges back in 2008 was to create a civilian force egual to the existing military forces of the United States. Here's a piece of his plan that's happening right now. Jim
For the next five years, the TSA will be given 4.8 million rounds of .357 “duty ammunition” each year, totaling 24,000,000 rounds over the life of the contract.
The TSA has already pushed controversial programs like x-ray body scanners that produced accurate images of a person’s naked body… and now it looks like they’re going to follow through on their threat to arm agents as they’ve discussed in the past.
As Infowars noted:
Although Federal Air Marshals acting under the jurisdiction of the TSA are currently armed, other indications, such as the hiring of shooting ranges near airports, suggest the federal government could be preparing to arm some TSA workers. There are only 4,000 Federal Air Marshals currently operating in the United States, a figure that doesn’t appear to match with the 4.8 million rounds a year the TSA is set to purchase under this solicitation alone.
The armament of the TSA appears to be yet another brick in the wall of tyranny as the government continues to transform the American republic into a totalitarian police state.
There are currently more than 40 armed federal agencies that have been granted the privilege of being armed with machine guns and hollow point ammunition.
Recent news revealed both the USDA and the USPS had solicited submachine guns and millions of rounds of ammo. The purpose of these planned acquisitions is still unknown.
Keep in mind, the TSA serves as an arm of the already-militarized DHS, so it’s unlikely the TSA’s newly acquired “duty ammunition” will go unused.
Naturally, the TSA will argue the 24,000,000 rounds of ammo will be used for the protection of air travelers — even as it’s beginning to look like the DHS is attempting to establish a permanent paramilitary force of its own here on U.S. soil.
We’ve already seen countless signs of increased militarization as local police departments acquire military-grade vehicles and helicopters.
And as politicians like Harry Reid begin to use federal agencies for their own personal gain, the purchase orders for billions of rounds of ammunition for “no good reason” are starting to make sense.
The TSA states the 24 million rounds of ammunition are for “DHS component locations nationwide.”
One of the chief concerns of America’s Founders in the early days of the Republic was the possibility that foreigners would usurp American political power. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68, “[the] most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally be expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain improper [ascendancy] in our councils.”
The latest case in point is that of former New York State Assemblywoman Gabriela Rosa, a Democrat, who pled guilty last week to immigration fraud charges that could land her in federal prison for up to ten years. Rosa, a native of the Dominican Republic, paid an American $8,000 for a fake marriage so she could illegally obtain American citizenship. Rosa subsequently got herself elected to the New York State Assembly in November 2012.
In January 2013, the New York State Legislature passed the most draconian and unconstitutional gun control law in American history: the so-called New York “SAFE” Act. The SAFE Act forever banned virtually all military-style firearms issued in the last 60 years.
The SAFE Act requires a background check for every ammunition purchase and requires the registration of every ammunition purchase with the State Police. It requires any doctor or nurse who thinks you are unfit to own a firearm to inform the State Police, who are then required by law to confiscate all of your firearms (and it grants the doctor or nurse who filed the complaint immunity from civil lawsuit). The law bans nearly all private transfers of firearms – even transfers between brothers and sisters. It was passed at two o'clock in the morning without any debate; members of the Republican minority were presented with the 39-page bill fifteen minutes before the floor vote.
Democratic Assemblywoman Rosa – a foreigner, an illegal alien, and now an admitted criminal -- co-sponsored and voted for the law that destroyed the Second Amendment rights of 20 million New Yorkers. Rosa is the fifth Democrat who voted for the law to be indicted or convicted.
Despite Rosa's guilty plea, the government is allowing her to retain U.S. citizenship. Pro-amnesty Republicans who think that illegal aliens are nascent conservatives-in-waiting who will uphold the Constitution and traditional American values are simply barking mad.
As an aside: I well remember when someone on here questioned the use of unalienable rather then inalienable. This ruling ought to clarify the wording issue. Jim
Wayne LaPierre,Executive VP-NRA, is publicly stating what many of us have expected. Winning the upcoming elections is essential to maintaining the American way of life. Jim
Over 1,000 Gun Owners Violate Washington’s I-594 - In Front Of Police!
Townhall, by Rachel Alexander
Fed up with the passage of an 18˝-page incoherent, rambling, unconstitutional gun control initiative that was bankrolled by billionaires, gun owners across Washington state held the largest felony civil disobedience rally in the nation’s history, brazenly titled “I Will Not Comply.” No one was hurt and no stores were looted. Between 1,000 and 3,000 lawful gun owners showed up openly armed at the state capitol in Olympia, Wash., on Saturday to defy the newly passed gun control law, I-594.
Organizer Gavin Seim made the extraordinary nature of the rally very clear, "This isn’t just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law." Attendees publicly transferred their guns to each other in violation of I-591’s background check provisions, and some even bought and sold guns just a few feet away from law enforcement. A fire pit blazed throughout the rally, and at the conclusion, gun owners lined up to burn their concealed weapons permits. A petition was circulated affirming gun owners’ refusal to follow I-594, which ended with, “We pledge our blood. We will not comply.”
As the RSVPs in advance of the rally grew to over 6,000, the police - most who probably detest I-594 - decided not to enforce the law. The Washington State Patrol announced there would be no arrests for exchanging guns - not even for selling guns. Seim refused to obtain a permit to hold the rally, citing the right of people to peaceably assemble.
The rally could not be dismissed as fringe elements. Several lawmakers and lawmen spoke, including former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona, Washington State Rep. Elizabeth Scott (R-Monroe) and Rep. Graham Hunt (R-Orting), who sported an AR-15 during his speech. Scott defiantly explained in her speech, “I will not comply with I-594 because it is unconstitutional, unenforceable and unjust. It is impossible to enforce this law unless there is a police officer on every back porch and in every living room. So it will be enforced selectively.” She noted that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton said any law that violates the Constitution is not valid, and there is a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. (Of all the founding fathers to cite; Alexander Hamilton? But at least she didn’t cite Aaron Burr.)
Seim asked everyone attending to kneel with him in prayer. As he led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance, he stressed, “I am not pledging obedience to the government, it is to the Republic. We don’t ask for our rights, and we don’t negotiate for our rights. We will take America back.”
Gun control zealots have finally gone too far. Gun owners are now discovering that the police in New York are using gun control laws to confiscate guns from family members within days after their owners pass away. Hundreds of thousands of gun owners in Connecticut and New York who failed to register their AR-15s earlier this year are now felons. Requiring the registration of guns or requiring background checks, as I-594 does, allows the government to compile a list of gun owners, which can be used later for confiscation.
There wasn’t a single mishap. There were 1,000 or so guns present. The state capitol was the safest place in the state last Saturday.
Another rally in Olympia is planned for January 15, and another one in Spokane on December 20. The Second Amendment Foundation, headquartered in Bellevue, intends to sue the state over I-594, and will be lobbying the legislature to get the law changed or repealed. Washington state is now ground zero for patriotic gun owners resisting tyranny. ***
This says a lot - the scandal that has 9 lives. The treatment of this family is disgraceful. Maybe the republicans will live up their lip service someday.
Dear Senator Grassley,
I write to you today to protest a great injustice.
For over four and a half years, my family has patiently waited for you and your fellow representatives in the government of these United States to produce results in the investigation pertaining to the murder of my brother, US Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry, and the US Government-sponsored operations that assisted in his death. Brian was killed in the darkness of the Arizona desert at the hands of Mexican drug cartel members operating miles within our own border bearing arms supplied by the dubious results of political agenda designed to vilify the second amendment.
Since his death in 2010, members of our own government, to include high-ranking members of federal law enforcement agencies have colluded in efforts to cover their criminal involvement by hiding the truth from the American people. As of the writing of this letter, no member of any government agency has been formally admonished or held criminally liable for what has been one of many recent criminal scandals against the citizenry of this great nation.
It was not until well after Brian was murdered that we learned of OPERATION: FAST AND FURIOUS through the courageous efforts of individuals who would not stand idly by and watch a skewed political agenda govern federal law enforcement activities at the cost of what has now been the lives of at least two federal agents and hundreds if not thousands of Mexican nationals.
From the very beginning, Key members of the current administration as well as leadership at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) have looked my mother and father in the eyes and lied to save their very skin.
On the last visit home that Brian made in the Fall of 2010, he stated that things were getting worse down on the border and that he believed, “Something bad is going to happen.” Sadly, he could not have been closer to the truth.
After Brian’s death, our family met with members of the USBP Union on the conditions of anonymity. Behind closed door and drapes, we were informed that in the weeks leading up to his murder, Brian had sent three emails to the union over concerns that were not regarding “standard” USBP issues. We were informed that they were, “Throwing us a bone,” and that, “They were never here.”
Shortly thereafter, my father notified the head of the investigation, Dennis Burke about the communication between Brian and the union. It was then that federal agents made entry into Brian’s home, seizing his personal electronics and personally-owned weapons without warning or permission. The electronic devices were returned to our family, wiped clean of any data and Brian’s personal handguns have still not been returned to this day. Brian’s personal cell phone, although, “Undiscovered” by investigators, remained active for over a year. We still have not been provided the warrant, legal writ, or any other associated documentation as to why Brian’s house was searched and his personal belongings taken and altered against our wishes.
The United States has currently tried and sentenced only one foreign criminal for actions related to Brian’s murder. The trial of this individual was closed to our family and to the public, and all records have been sealed. Although two other foreign nationals are currently in custody awaiting trail, we can only expect the same lack of transparency in their court appearances as we have received from our government since the very beginning of this ordeal.
Mr. Senator I am deeply concerned. We the people of the United States are witnessing ever more increasing displays of despicable behavior from those that sit in positions of great power in this country. It seems that those who took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States and it peoples have traded their responsibilities for that of their agendas.
With the departure of Director B. Todd Jones following one-to-many cases where the BATFE over-stepped their authority with the goal of criminalizing legitimate enterprise, businesses, and responsible citizens to fulfill a self-serving need, it is important that competent and truthful leadership be put in place should the agency hope to gain the trust of those they answer to.
Agent Thomas Brandon is not that person.
Agent Brandon was the individual responsible for seeing that those who had a role in the illegal activity that directly contributed to the death of my brother and so many others be held accountable. He made claims and promises that he would ensure that such individuals would never work in law enforcement again. To this day, he has not collected a single badge as all parties involved were merely moved from their duties to another station and position.
Brian Terry and Thomas Brandon are Marines. They are expected to live by a code of Honor, Courage, and Commitment. My brother gave half of his short life in service to his country as a Marine, a dedicated law enforcement officer, and as a Agent with the US Border Patrol. He died living that code. Others continue life without honor.
I would ask any who would hear these words read aloud, have the actions of this government, the BATFE, or of Agent Thomas Brandon met the standard of what we the people should demand of those who wield such power?
I thank you for your time on this matter. I can only hope that one day, my family receives the answers and justice that all of us deserve.
Information on this Bill S995 is sketchy at this point and the details are being kept secret just like with Obamacare but I'll post one very important point being reported that if it's the case will have a severe impact on our 2nd Amendment rights:
"Seven: Over The Next Six Years, There Is Ample Time To Insert Firearms Import Bans (With The Force Of Statutory Law) Into The TPP, The EU Agreement, or A Separate Trade Agreement For That Purpose.
Barack Obama has been rabid in his zeal to destroy the Second Amendment community. Over and over again, he has experimented with a wide variety of schemes to ban guns by regulatory fiat: eliminating credit, banning ammunition, compiling a gun registry, encouraging state bans, reclassifying common guns, banning the import of guns, and so forth. And yet, Hatch and Ryan didn't see fit to even purport to prohibit the Obama administration from using a trade agreement to impose a statutory gun import ban."
The above was reported in Town Hall and you can read the complete article here:
I am truly sorry for this families loss of their daughter because of the theater shooting by a madman in Colorado. However; I am NOT sorry for the $280,000 and counting they now owe when they attempted to sue the manufacturers and lost in court. In Colorado if you lose this type of suit you are responsible for the defendants legal fees. My understanding is the Brady Bunch put them up to this. And why not? Sarah Brady made an excellent living being a "paid victim" for over 30 years. Jim http://www.guns.com/2015/04/23/aurora-theater-victims-family-may-owe-280000-in-lucky-gunner-lawsuit/
If you don't think the UN is actively working to eliminate our 2nd Amendment rights just read this attached article as it's probably an eye opener for many here. Jim
Wednesday, 22 July 2015 UN Calls for RFID Chips and Biometric Tracking of Guns and Ammo Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
UN Calls for RFID Chips and Biometric Tracking of Guns and Ammo
At a recent meeting of government representatives of nations participating in the United Nations’ Programme of Action (POA), the focus was on tracking of civilian weapons, component parts, and ammunition, and how the United States should spend more money helping foreign countries accomplish those goals.
At the Second Meeting of Governmental Experts (MGE2) held at the UN headquarters in Manhattan, the globalists discussed a couple of agenda items that should give pause to Americans.
First, the delegates at the MGE2 deliberated on how to eliminate the threat of technologically advanced weapons, including so-called polymer firearms and 3D printed guns, as well as the tracking of materials used in the “craft-production of small arms and light weapons.”
Not surprisingly, the representative from China called for increased UN-mandated regulations on 3D printers and the weapons they produce.
In the Chair’s Summary, the group united in a call for “strengthening 3D printing regulations in the context of 3D weapon printing,” for “ensuring export licenses [are] in place for 3D printers,” for drawing global attention to “the need to pay attention to the resale of such printers,” and for “strengthening controls over 3D printing technology.”
No one is shocked, of course, that the globalists at the UN want to draw up comprehensive plans to take guns — any and every variety of gun — out of the hands of civilians.
After discussing similar strategies to lock down the manufacture, purchase, sale, and transfer of polymer weapons and modular weapons, the next item on the MGE2 attendees’ agenda warrants an immediate withdrawal of the United States from the world body.
Paragraph 33 of the Chair’s Summary of the meeting calls for urgent tracking of civilian-owned firearms, recommending that manufacturers be forced by the UN to install “RFID and biometric technologies in limiting the access to the weapon to authorized users only,” with authorized users defined as state actors (UN member nations).
That’s right. As part of the Programme of Action (the foundation upon which the Arms Trade Treaty is built), the United States has committed to passing legislation that will require domestic firearms and ammunition manufacturers to equip their products with RFID chips and biometric technologies that will help the government slowly but surely disarm civilians.
That’s not all. At the end of that paragraph, the UN suggests states (member countries) look into combining RFID chips, biometrics, with GPS tracking technologies to be sure to prevent regular people from getting their hands on guns.
Next, in the overview of the published summary of the conference, the UN looks to one source to help pay for the implementation of these new disarmament policies: increased foreign aid.
Specifically, the unelected, unaccountable UN globocrats call for greater “international cooperation and assistance” (read: American taxpayer dollars) to offset the massive cost of the “transfer of technology and knowledge” necessary to make the proposed gun grab a reality.
It should be noted that Paragraph 42 of the summary proposes funding this fascism “through the UN regular budget,” 22 percent of which is paid by the United States, through a process that can be described as nothing less than legalized theft of the wealth of the American worker.
As if the point was already made, the document calls for the cultivating of a “culture of peace,” which is certainly shorthand for flooding the United States with UN-created propaganda linking the civilian ownership of firearms with homicide and other violent crimes.
In the wake of the horrific Chattanooga murders, it doesn’t take too much foresight to predict a panoply of renewed calls for controlling and regulating civilian access to firearms.
Finally, according to the text of the latest draft of the agreement, the POA will serve as an “international instrument to enable states to identify and trace, in a timely and reliable manner,” the small arms and light weapons that are the subject of the scheme.
In practice, this means that the governments of member nations (including the United States) will soon create a massive, all-inclusive database of all parties that manufacture, own, sell, trade, or transfer arms and ammunition.
If recent history is a reliable indicator of how such data would be used, after the catalog is complete, Congress could pass a law (or the president could issue an executive order) compelling “voluntary” surrender of privately-owned weapons, ammo, parts, and components (including reloading equipment). If, after a statutorily-set window, citizens don’t turn in these items to their local law enforcement, then officers will be sent to remind violators of their responsibility under the law to disarm.
Paragraph 32 of the Chair’s Summary lays out the plan for “real-time tracking” of firearms and ammunition “from manufacturer to storage and from storage up to the individual users.”
Once the governments of the member nations begin tracking and confiscating weapons from civilians, the Programme of Action (paragraphs 30 and 31) mandates that member governments take “direct control over transfers of small arms and light weapons.”
This control will require the federal government to begin stockpiling these items and making a database of the recently impounded guns, bullets, 3D printers, plastics, polymers, and component parts.
This database must include "the marking, record-keeping and tracing of weapons, and in this regard considered barcodes, radio frequency identification (RFID) and biometrics for purposes of electronically identifying stored items, collecting data on them and enabling the data to be entered automatically into record-keeping systems."
It is evident from a reading of this latest UN disarmament publication that despite the rhetoric related to ”promotion of a culture of peace,” there are only two reasons the UN is making every effort to disarm the population of the United States: to weaken our sovereignty, and to take from our people their ability to resist those despots (at home and abroad) who would place us under the boot of tyranny and demote us to the ranks of slaves on a “sustainable” global plantation.
The next round of meetings for hammering out the details of the Programme of Action is scheduled for 2016. That gives Americans almost one year to convince their representatives in Congress to pass legislation defunding the UN and forcing the world-government-in-waiting to relocate to a more hospitable home.
This is a leaked tape on H Clinton's private bashing of the NRA, the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court in regards to our 2nd Amendment rights. She leave little doubt of her agenda should she ever occupy the White House again. The attack was NEVER intended to become public knowledge. Jim
Why are they not talking about more gun control in France?
In the USA every time there is a mass shooting the liberals, the mainstream media, and the New York Times lecture us and congress on the need for more gun control.
I have not heard a single person say or write that France needs more gun control.
Great point Mike. And the bad guys not only somehow got access to prohibited full-auto firearms, but grenades and explosives as well. Once again, the bad guys with guns were stopped by good guys with guns. Laws and restrictions on the law abiding people of France did absolutely nothing to prevent this tragedy.
The lessons learned by the participants in the most recent Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate... Zip, Zero, Nada!
It should be noted that it's is almost impossible to own a pistol in Paris and the carrying of firearms for personal protection in France is illegal period. The means that Paris is a "gun free Zone" as became readily apparent as the gunmen shot their victims without any concern regarding return fire until the police arrived. Thank God this is NOT the situation for many of us here. And BTW: If you live in one of these U S cities and are going about unarmed you are IMO a true fool!
An impression of Texas: I was in Texas last week, celebrating Christmas with my daughter and family. On Friday morning I had breakfast in a restaurant in a small town in the oil patch. The parking lot was filled with pickup trucks, the dining room with rough men, mostly bearded, wearing work clothes and muddy boots. I knew by looking at them that each of them owned a gun and knew how to use it. I could NOT visualize this group of men, if faced with an ISIS or a brutal dictator, leaving their home and country, fleeing to another and pleading "go fight my battle". I believe, to a man, they would stay and do this work themselves. God bless men like these, and the USA....WE must protect our 2nd amendment rights.
Ed, this Thread Topic is specifically for posting information pertaining to assaults upon the 2nd Amendment and for preserving it. It is not intended as a place to have discussions with anti-2nd Amendment Trolls like you, King Brown, and nca225. King tried this a couple years ago... probably hoping to get it all deleted, and Dave deleted only his trolling comments.
We all know you support infringements upon the 2nd Amendment. This is not news.
Ed, this Thread Topic is specifically for posting information pertaining to assaults upon the 2nd Amendment and for preserving it. It is not intended as a place to have discussions with anti-2nd Amendment Trolls like you, King Brown, and nca225. King tried this a couple years ago... probably hoping to get it all deleted, and Dave deleted only his trolling comments.
We all know you support infringements upon the 2nd Amendment. This is not news.
Now go back to page one of this thread and read what Dave Weber said in the very first post. Then go down the page to the 5th post and see what Dave had to say when someone tried to do what you are trying to do now. Then PM your fellow anti-gun Troll King Brown and ask him what happened when he tried the same thing.
In October, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her gun control plan, promising that if she’s elected, she’ll ban some guns and impose other restrictive gun control laws, in some cases without Congress’ approval. Clinton’s plan would prohibit Americans from selling a “significant” number of privately owned guns without a license, prevent gun purchases by indefinitely delaying purchasers’ background checks, repeal the federal law that prevents gun control supporters from pursuing groundless lawsuits designed to stop gun sales by driving firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business, ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles (and some other categories of guns), ban the possession of firearms by people in troubled dating relationships without due process of law, and empower the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the licenses of dealers for unintentional recordkeeping errors.
From someone living the other side of the Atlantic, looking at the run up to the election in your country, if Hilary Clinton gets elected, you gun enthusiasts are sunk and no mistake.
With Justice Scalia passing away earlier today, now maybe more than any time in recent memory, do republicans have to step up any resistance they can muster at minimum over the next year.
a quick reading of the above did not include much of the specifics detailed in the daily caller article referenced by keith above...and as the daily caller article provides no source references to substantiate its claims and accusations, its credibility is suspect...
a quick reading of the above did not include much of the specifics detailed in the daily caller article referenced by keith above...and as the daily caller article provides no source references to substantiate its claims and accusations, its credibility is suspect...
Ed Good apparently has either not listened to what Hillary Clinton has actually said in campaign speeches and Democrat Presidential Debates, or he is is Trolling his Anti-Gun nonsense once again.
Here's a link to Hillary Clinton's stated positions directly from her campaign website.
Much of it is utter nonsense, such as saying she will make Straw Purchases a Federal crime. That already is a Federal crime... a felony in fact. Naturally, she wishes to repeal the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act", which stopped the frivolous lawsuits that were being used by anti-gunners in an attempt to bankrupt the firearms industry and drastically increase the cost of guns and ammunition. Hillary has gone much further in attacks on gun owners, the NRA, and the 2nd Amendment in her recent speeches and debates.
well then, can we agree that hillery favors more gun control at the federal level...which is certainly in conflict with the spirit of the second amendment?
Ed, don't over-think the issue. IF Clinton wins and does what she says she will do, it's because Republicans chose their presidential candidate unwisely---a three-peat.
Ed, don't over-think the issue. IF Clinton wins and does what she says she will do, it's because Republicans chose their presidential candidate unwisely---a three-peat.
Actually King, if Clinton wins and does what she says she will do pertaining to gun ownership, it will be largely because of people like you who claim to be pro-gun, yet support and defend the most extreme anti-gun politicians on the planet.
Once again King, you and Ed Good, the two most frequent and egregious anti-2nd Amendment Trolls on this site, are attempting to turn this thread into a debate. Dave Weber has already informed you that this is an Informational Thread after your last attempt to cause an uproar with your anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric. Do you remember when he warned you and deleted your irrelevant posts? I just recently informed Ed Good about Dave's instructions pertaining to this particular Thread on February 2nd... less than one month ago, so he should know better as well. Your intent is obvious.
Originally Posted By: keith
Ed, this Thread Topic is specifically for posting information pertaining to assaults upon the 2nd Amendment and for preserving it. It is not intended as a place to have discussions with anti-2nd Amendment Trolls like you, King Brown, and nca225. King tried this a couple years ago... probably hoping to get it all deleted, and Dave deleted only his trolling comments.
We all know you support infringements upon the 2nd Amendment. This is not news.
Now go back to page one of this thread and read what Dave Weber said in the very first post. Then go down the page to the 5th post and see what Dave had to say when someone tried to do what you are trying to do now. Then PM your fellow anti-gun Troll King Brown and ask him what happened when he tried the same thing.
well keet, i have long ago given up attempting to debate any issue with you, and certainly not anything pertaining to our second amendment rights...
the purpose of my recent post here regarding your posting of suspect content as published by the daily caller, is to suggest to others that your posts here are often suspect as to their truthfulness and grounding in reality...making false accusations and stating untruths about others, reduces you a low level of credibility.
regardless of what we all here may think of hillery and her ilk, you do not have license here to post untruths and fantasy falsehoods...or do you?
You have now accused me of posting falsehoods Ed. Where are those alleged falsehoods? You were only attempting to discredit me and the reporting of the Daily Caller in order to Troll and to support Hillary (not hillery) Clinton. I added additional information from Hillary Clinton's own website to support the information I provided. You, on the other hand, made baseless accusations of dishonesty against me in an attempt to once again cause conflict within this thread.
Everyone knows what you are trying here with this latest attempt at anti-gun Trolling. The only question is why Dave hasn't permanently booted your ass.
"Informational additions to this thread that will help us preserve our 2nd Amendment rights are welcomed and appreciated."
it is suggested that we here consider advocating for the restoration of our second amendment rights...
to paraphrase the tenth amendment and supported by the writings of the founding fathers, the purpose of the bill of rights is to prevent federal usurping of certain powers reserved to the states or to the people...
in 1934, 1968 and 1993, the federal government enacted laws that usurped power by infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as protected by the second amendment...
it is long past time that the constitutionality of those federal laws be challenged in federal court.
From someone living the other side of the Atlantic, looking at the run up to the election in your country, if Hilary Clinton gets elected, you gun enthusiasts are sunk and no mistake.
"Informational additions to this thread that will help us preserve our 2nd Amendment rights are welcomed and appreciated."
it is suggested that we here consider advocating for the restoration of our second amendment rights...
I agree. So why would anyone on this site say this???...
Originally Posted By: ed good
brian: it aint the type of weapons that bother me so much as it is the high numbers of them that are now in the hands of the public...about a half dozen north eastern states have severe restrictions on the possession of hand guns. I see you are from ny as was I until 1998. so, we are both familiar with the Sullivan law...in my opinion, laws that restrict ownership of firearms are geared to limit the number of firearms in the hands of the general public. the theory being, that if there are less guns out there, then there will be less misuse of guns...logically, that makes sense to me.
This post is not intended for improperly using this thread to debate with a Troll. This is every bit as Informational as a link to Hillary Clinton's anti-gun positions from her campaign website, and to illustrate that there are anti-gun Trolls and Trojan Horses like ed, King, and nca225, who insidiously pretend to be supporters of the 2nd Amendment while they also work to undermine it.
I will add this, re the 2A and its preservation, speaking from the standpoint of a former unit commander in the Army Reserve:
Back after the shootings took place in TN--recruiting office and Reserve Center--some well-intentioned "volunteer guards" started showing up outside recruiting centers. On at least one other BB, some people thought that sounded like a great idea--since it is Dept of Defense policy that military personnel in recruiting offices be unarmed. (Note: The law that makes it illegal to carry weapons in federal facilities specifically exempts military personnel, and in fact all federal employees. It's the screwball DoD policy that leaves them unarmed, not the law. Here in Iowa, the governor took immediate steps to rectify that problem where the National Guard was concerned.)
We do have to be somewhat cautious when it comes to how we exercise our rights. For example, especially if there'd just been a shooting at a Reserve facility--especially in my city--and if I were inside, unarmed without access to our military weapons (locked in an arms room controlled by another unit that isn't present)--I would immediately dial 911 and request that the police respond to armed strangers near my building. How do I know who you are? You could be part of the problem--bad guys pretending to be good guys--and trying to get access to the building or to my soldiers. The intentions of those "volunteer guards" may have been good, but unless the military knows what's going on, they might have been viewed as part of the problem rather than a solution.
I would not worry about that. Soon the privileged ruling class will not need secret directives to better insulate and protect them. If "Il Duce Supremo" gets elected he will create powerful military and their problems will go away. It will be "great" you will see. As they say in the Old World how well one sleeps is dependent on how well they made their bed.
A Federal judge ruled that Washington DC must stop requiring people applying for a permit to carry a gun outside their home to have a reason to have the gun. There are more court dates before it is finally decided but in the meantime the judge is requiring the Washington DC police to issue permits without requiring that the citizen having to provide a reason to carry a gun outside his home.
"Judge Leon agreed that the Second Amendment covered the right to carry a pistol in the street as well as in the home. 'The need for self-defense is, of course, greater outside the home than it is within it,' he wrote, adding that the right of 'law-abiding responsible citizens to carry arms in public for the purpose of self-defense does indeed lie at the core of the Second Amendment."
There's an informative and intelligent conversation on the Second Amendment currently on the Parker board, a model of respectful discourse of varying opinions of changing legislation.
There's an informative and intelligent conversation on the Second Amendment currently on the Parker board, a model of respectful discourse of varying opinions of changing legislation.
Are you open to a different opinion?
I see some folks finding 'respectful discourse of varying opinions' informative and intelligent conversation, but is it informational on preserving the 2nd Amendment?
If a fellow says restrictions aren't really so....because I like shotguns or I'm off to a different part of the country, is he providing useful information? How about a couple of folks going back and forth about whose great gramps trained with which militia. Or, how about one of those fellows is asked about where he got his 'opinion' and it couldn't quite be figured out?
I feel bad for the fellow that comes 'here for information and it's pleasing---and a tribute to the board---to see opinions from a community than partisan politics'. Are they getting information, or being conditioned to respond to feelings. I suppose it might be advantageous not to share who's the arbiter of determining 'public interest'. Sorry about the uninformational opinion.
There's an informative and intelligent conversation on the Second Amendment currently on the Parker board, a model of respectful discourse of varying opinions of changing legislation.
King Brown's post above has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this special thread. It does not belong here. It does not conform to Dave Weber's stated purpose. King should know better since his prior attempts to deviate from the stated purpose resulted in his posts being deleted. But just remember, when King says something pertaining to gun rights, it is always best to check the facts for yourself. I believe that the Parker Forum thread he references is this one:
Reading through it, there is one participant, Bruce Day, who appears to repeatedly question the clear meaning of the 2nd. A few others confront his opinions, and one, Dean Romig, in post # 26 of the thread, makes an ad hominem attack on one of Bruce Day's female ancestors by reminding him that his ancestor made an accusation of practicing witchcraft that led to the executions of four other women, including a good wife and mother named Rebecca Nurse. Pretty rough stuff.
Then in post # 29, Double Lab states... in a most civil manner... "You are clear as a bell John. Keep in mind that liberalism IS a mental disorder. Need I elaborate?"
I have used those exact words to describe Liberalism myself, and got accused of uncivil behavior... or should I say "behaviour" since it was King who lambasted me. But he claims that this discussion on the Parker board is a "model of respectful discourse."
Another participant, David Noble, in post # 33 outlines the distinctions between Liberals and Conservatives by accurately describing Liberals as far more likely to support abortion, income redistribution, and GUN CONTROL. The very next post blames a Republican, Ronald Reagan, for signing legislation while governor of California, that may have led to acceptance of new full-auto firearm restrictions within the 1986 FOPA
King Brown made one somewhat rambling post within that Parker thread. He makes an obviously incorrect observation about the Parker Board and partisan politics. I wonder how things would go over there if King started posting his anti-gun Trolling rhetoric such as he does here...
Originally Posted By: King Brown
It's hardly mean-spirited to note that I'm an Obama supporter. I'm proud of it, apparent here as long as he's been around. He's anti-gun but has kept his legislative gun in his holster to position his party for '16.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
I believe there is a connection---as most liberals do--- and that those conservative and liberal countries with exceedingly lower rates are a result of their democratically chosen, more-onerous, freedom-restricting regulations, common-sense or not.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
Well, the answer is easy if you read the rules. King would be banned from the Parker Forum if he posted the same anti-gun, partisan political things he has posted here. This is not the first time that King has attempted to subvert and disrupt Dave Weber's 2nd Amendment Informational thread. His fellow troll Ed has done the same. That's what anti-gun trolls do.
"uh keet/bill, your repetitive misuse of this forum and this thread in particular, to launch personal attacks against me and other members here is improper."
Are there any members of this forum in New York State who would like to be part of a pro-Second Amendment movement? Please contact me and we'll have a chat.
Your notice perhaps more inviting if you said which direction of your pro-Second movement. A distinguishing mark of imperial politics is endless dialogue without a universally accepted conclusion. Americans express their originalist and reformed choices through the laws they make every day. If you've a new wrinkle to protect gun rights, all members should want to hear it.
Ah,good responses from two of our strongest advocates for government intervention and gun control. Ed, how is your pick Bloomberg doing in the presidential race?
Canada and US through their legislatures and courts have expressed their citizen's wishes about government intervention and gun control, James. Neither is moving toward less gun control, and all analyses of trends begins with studies of movements.
You and I may wish for an earlier time of less regulation when shooting and bringing home meat was venerated in our communities. I do. Another generation has made it barely tolerable to disgusting---hell, you know what happened: all downhill.
I noted in Ed's above on the New York Safe Act that the young Cuomo made a similar point to his father's electrifying Democratic convention speech about abortion televised across the nation.
He said who was he as a practising Catholic and governor of all the people of New York to say what others should do when we as Catholics aren't following the church rules on abortion ourselves.
To address an unprecedented epidemic of violence---and the violence of abortion is similarly germane to this issue--- here's the younger Cuomo's explanation of the Safe Act:
“This decision is a victory for common sense gun control laws in New York and across the nation. In 2013, New York rose to the occasion and passed the toughest gun control laws in the nation. We came together, both Democrats and Republicans, to enact strict gun control measures because we fundamentally believed that we could both protect our communities while safeguarding the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners in our state. We continue to hold this view, which was validated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s actions."
Members don't need reminding that easing is unthinkable in a climate of fear manufactured by politicians often for selfish needs. NRA is the major guarantor of US gun rights. Not doing anything stupid to make regulations worse seems best medicine in Canada
Sporting Classics Daily reprinted this morning a story written by Gene Hill called "The Day They Took My Guns Away". I recommend it to everyone who frequents this site, especially those who think we need more gun control laws.
well, we certainly dont need anymore federal gun laws...less would in fact result in a major federal gubnment cost savings, with no ill effect, except to add more people to the unemployment rolls...
however, as the second, ninth and tenth amendments indicate: the states retain their right to regulate internal affairs, so long as that regulation does not conflict with the constitution or its amendments...
so far, with rare exception, challenges at the federal level, to state gun control statutes have been rejected...
if new yorkers dont like their states laws, then let them appeal to their state courts for relief...as it is none of the feds bidness..
Read the first page Dave Weber put on this thread King.
"Informational additions to this thread that will help us preserve our 2nd Amendment rights are welcomed and appreciated.
I will move any post from this thread that does not appear to be headed toward that target.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Quoting and praising that dirtbag anti gun Comrade Coumo is NOT helping anyone here in America preserve the Second Amendment. You are progressive anti gun foreigner who has many times spoken against the NRA and its winning "The Only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun !" . We here in America do not need help from YOU even if you think its your "new job" to get us in the same rigamarole of laws Canada is stuck with !
Dave arbitrates within reason. My posts keep as close to preserving the Second Amendment as most members here. They do not engage in partisan and personal attacks. My last addressed a danger to the Second (of any interpretation) of fear and growing gun violence while pro and con of the enduring debate see little being done because of hung governance.
As a member of our international board who lived and worked in your country for many years, and cares for it immensely and with great affection in these parlous times, I have said the NRA is the only major guarantor of gun rights and have criticized it as I have with our NFA when I considered it insensitive to our particular interests. I don't denigrate anyone for how they vote.
You should not need to be reminded that I'm not a "foreigner" on the board. Our host has invited members as equals from around the world to contribute to the forums---and they do. It should not have passed your notice that members from outside the United States always contribute information and opinions without the name-calling and rudeness you've exhibited here.
King,lying crooked King-you have shown time and time again your are neither a supporter of our-as in American, guns rights or the NRA. Your praising Comrade Coumo and posting his lies- of the [b]unconstitutional Safe Act was passed in the middle of the night with NO support from any gun owners,proves were you stand ! You have never stood with the NRA or supported them so stop lying your fooling NO ONE.
Your a "foreigner" and have no say,thankfully being a liberal,in American our gun rights.
Ah,good responses from two of our strongest advocates for government intervention and gun control. Ed, how is your pick Bloomberg doing in the presidential race?
Thankfully Bloombergs gun control millions have been a misfire-kinda like Ed goods torching business (and lying Kings "new job","full of errors and lies"!
John R. Lott, Jr. says he’s fine with that statement. He just wants people to know the truth about what really reduces violence before they vote. He says, “I can’t find a single study from Bloomberg’s groups that aren’t loaded with errors. They have an anti-gun agenda and will lie to achieve it.”
King Brown's posts have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this special thread. They do not belong here. They do not conform to Dave Weber's stated purpose. King should know better since his prior attempts to deviate from the stated purpose resulted in his posts being deleted.
Same for the recent posts in this thread made by Ed Good. This thread was never intended for discussion. It should be obvious by now that the intent of King and Ed, two of our most persistent anti-gun Trolls, is to disrupt this thread. Here are a few direct quotes made by King Brown and Ed Good. It should be apparent that they are not here to help to preserve the 2nd Amendment:
Originally Posted By: King Brown
It's hardly mean-spirited to note that I'm an Obama supporter. I'm proud of it, apparent here as long as he's been around. He's anti-gun but has kept his legislative gun in his holster to position his party for '16.
Originally Posted By: ed good
does the second amendment prohibit state and local governments from regulating the keeping of arms by the people?
i believe it does not...what say you?
Originally Posted By: King Brown
The Court departed from the original understanding of the Second. The NRA and other groups rejected the original interpretation. Even as late as 1991, the jurist Burger appointed by Nixon said "the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller, what Burger said was fraud was accepted by the court. Interesting stuff.
Originally Posted By: ed good
some view the current version of a well regulated militia as your local unarmed volunteer fire department...augmented by your local armed town police force.
what used to be militia is now your state's national guard, which is under the command of your state's governor... and your state guard is subject to call up and command of the president of the united states...
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By: ed good
as for the gun control issue...we are the only country in the world that seems to tolerate mass murder, in the name of an individual right...its about time that we as a society realize that we are over gunned with too many super dangerous weapons in the hands of too many super dangerous people... it is long past time to do as the rest of the civilized world has done and simply, disarm...
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Gun control doesn't work? I believe gun control works reasonably generally in Canada, providing a less violent society compared to some others, in good part because of our different culture.
Originally Posted By: ed good
disarm...seems to work for the rest of the civilized world...
why not us?
My post here is 2nd Amendment Informational in nature. It is intended to demonstrate that this forum, and many others, are populated with a number of anti-gun Trolls whose only real purpose is to disrupt gun rights discussions and to stab us in the back. We have several here, but Ed Good and King Brown are the most dedicated anti-gunners we have, in my opinion. They may occasionally pretend to be pro-gun, but their own words over the long run show that they are dishonest as well.
The posts above are just a small fraction of the anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric posted by King Brown and Ed Good. I have saved much of it. I plan to post all of it in the Silent Doubles forum when they die as a permanent epitaph so that everyone remembers who and what they really stand for. They are no more help to us than Teddy Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama, or Sarah Brady. This is not dividing gunners into a caste system as King proclaims. This is understanding that it is foolish to allow yourself to be infiltrated and undermined by the enemy.
in a public forum such as this, crass rudeness and vicious personal attacks only serve to scare others into supporting those who would take away our second amendment rights...
Dave set up an “additional information” thread to help preserve Second Amendment rights with a reminder that posts that didn’t move toward that target would be removed.
The first post, from a Washington member with an interest in preserving gun rights, provided an American information source, a Harvard study, that served him as a guide for gun rights.
My contributions citing constitutional debate among Republican and Democrat jurists have not been inaccurate in content although members disagree with their opinions.
Dave didn’t provide the thread to promote divisiveness, one side of a contentious issue or as a sounding board for partisan political interests. Preserving the Second is the objective.
This is done by sharing information: what’s going on in the courts pro and con, cautionary notes where antis are strengthening and giving credit and support where reason prevails.
Dave didn’t make this thread to be a kangaroo court.
Again King-you have shown time and time again your are neither a supporter of our-as in American, guns rights or the NRA. Your praising Comrade Coumo and posting his lies- of the unconstitutional Safe Act was passed in the middle of the night with NO support from any gun owners,proves were you stand ! You have never stood with the NRA or supported them so stop lying your fooling NO ONE.
Your a "foreigner" and have no say,thankfully being a liberal,in American our gun rights.
There are no atheists in foxholes ed. King Brown often pretends to be on our side, but his anti-2nd Amendment, anti-gun, anti-NRA slant always returns with a vengeance... just like you.
King says he is only making accurate contributions here, citing constitutional debate among Democrats and Republicans. But King's own words show us that he is once again telling us lies. Here he is making the totally dishonest claim that Constitutional scholar Mark Levin does not believe in an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Looked up Levin in Wikipedia. Seems like some of my conservative friends. His book on the Court confirms my loosey-goosey characterization of its deliberations. Change and change again, nothing sacred or inviolable, eh?
"Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America Levin authored the 2005 book Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America, in which he advanced his thesis that activist judges on the Supreme Court (from all parts of the political spectrum) have "legislated from the bench." In a review of Men in Black, Commentary magazine's Dan Seligman wrote that Levin asks readers "to identify with 'originalists' who look to the text of the Constitution and the intent of its framers, and to reject the 'activists' who construe the Constitution broadly and are more concerned with getting to their own 'desired outcomes'."
That seems to put him at odds with the NRA-promoted amendment. Senator Stevens, a Republican appointee who served for 35 years on the Court with mostly Republican appointees and under three Republican chief justices, argues for amendments that would reduce the role of federal courts in American political life; in other words, amendments to entrench judicial restraint.
Levin and Stevens, on this evidence, appear to believe that the Second amendment should only apply only to those who keep and bear arms while serving in the militia, and not as an individual right. Stevens goes further in his book, saying democratic processes should decide on the matter, not the judges, as a remedy for "what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy."
All from a Reagan conservative and a Nixon-appointed jurist.
Want to hear what Mark Levin really has to say about the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment? Take 5 minutes to listen to this:[/color]
King is not simply reporting facts here. He is distorting and twisting the truth, and frequently adding his own anti-2nd Amendment commentary. You can try to defend him, but no one with a brain is going to see it as anything more than one anti-gunner going to bat for another anti-gunner. You two do that quite often:
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
People who have the "objective of preserving the Second Amendment" don't make statements like these... ever:
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.
Originally Posted By: ed good
recognize that there are too many guns in too many hands...reduce those numbers and gun related violence will also be reduced...it is as simple as that...too much of anything is not good.
This post is more 2nd Amendment Informational input. It is to demonstrate, using their own words, that anti-gun Trolls often pose as pro-gunners in order to infiltrate our ranks. King and Ed are not our friends. To say we should welcome them into our tent is about as smart as hiring a convicted pedophile to baby-sit your kids.
well, we certainly dont need anymore federal gun laws...less would in fact result in a major federal gubnment cost savings, with no ill effect, except to add more people to the unemployment rolls...
however, as the second, ninth and tenth amendments indicate: the states retain their right to regulate internal affairs, so long as that regulation does not conflict with the constitution or its amendments...
so far, with rare exception, challenges at the federal level, to state gun control statutes have been rejected...
if new yorkers dont like their states laws, then let them appeal to their state courts for relief...as it is none of the feds bidness..
That is not the most recent development on the NYS SAFE Act. If you want the most recent development, you should message me.
well keet, we can agree that i am not your friend...an this aint your tent nor anybody elses, cept dave's.
an smoke, ah don care much one way or thu udder what happens in ny gun wise...i escaped from there in 98 an only wish i had done so sooner...
an as for "preserving the second", that is a worthy goal... however, i do take issue with some here, who attempt to pervert the spirit of the bill of rights, in order to impose their private agenda on all citizens...the purpose of the bill of rights is to specifically limit the powers of the federal gubmint and not to define the powers of the federal gubmint...
the second amendment forbids the feds from infringing on the right of the people to keep an bear arms...however, the second amendment also indicates the states are free to provide for their own security, which logically, does include regulation of arms in the context of a well regulated militia...which according to some is a collective right of the people, subject to the laws of their states, imposed to maintain public security and safety...
so, if some states impose arms restrictions on their citizens and other states do not, then that is their bidness and certainly not the bidness of the feds...
As usual Eddie boy, you are so full of excrement that it spills over on these pages....... SCOTUS, in the Heller decision, affirmed that gun ownership as defined in the 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. In the MacDonald decision, it affirmed that the right of an individual to possess a firearm under the 2nd amendment also applies to the STATES. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states. - Wikipedia You do possess one quality(?)Propane Eddie; that of absolutely making a prime a$$ of yourself with your comments concerning the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the Bill of Rights. The ignorant is strong in you.
w: so, are you now suggesting that existing state and federal statutes regulating arms are unconstitutional and in defiance of federal court edict? if so, then which ones or all?
in a public forum such as this, crass rudeness and vicious personal attacks only serve to scare others into supporting those who would take away our second amendment rights...
Ed the tOrch done sizzled yer brain cells....
The only time speaking the truth has ever "scared others" is when the "others" are brain dead.
Ain't suggesting anything Propane Kid.....just letting you know what the SCOTUS decisions made FACTUAL about the wording and meaning of the 2nd amendment, so's you can get your sh** straight in any future posts about the Constitution. The ignorant is strong in you; also the need for attention, which is why you post crap all the time.
"in a public forum such as this, crass rudeness and vicious personal attacks only serve to scare others into supporting those who would take away our second amendment rights..."
In a public forum such as this,ignorant and utterly meaningless statements posted out of a desperate need for attention only serve to further foster the impression to others that Ed the Torch has some serious screws loose.
response to my letter to our newest Senator. Clearly an independent thinker focused on real world solutions and not political sound-bites. I am particularly impressed by her willingness to look beyond guns to focus on the real problems of mental health and the epidemic of violence in the media:
