Matthews gets Gun Owners of America head to say everyone should pack heat at presidential events
By David Neiwert Thursday Aug 20, 2009 4:00pm
Yesterday on Hardball, Chris Matthews had on John Velleco, who's listed as the "Director of Federal Affairs" for the Gun Owners of America, a gun-rights group that makes the NRA look relatively sane in comparison. (That's probably the reason for their existence.)
And Velleco, of course, does not disappoint. Matthews hammers him for about four minutes, trying to get him to answer a simple question: If you were a Secret Service officer, would you let everyone carry a gun into a presidential event? It seems like an absurd question, but Velleco actually answers it affirmatively.
But then, that shouldn't be terribly surprising. As hate-group expert Brian Levin, the second guest, tries to explain, the GOA has a long history of right-wing extremism, dating back to the days in the 1980s when it was part of Willis Carto's white-nationalist operation. The main figure in all this was GOA's longtime and current leader, Larry Pratt.
Moreover, as the ADL explains, Pratt actually played a critical role in the formation of the militia movement in the 1990s:
In 1992, Larry Pratt, leader of a radical gun- rights group [the GOA] and an advocate of the formation of militias, issued a statement in the wake of the Rodney King riots urging the Los Angeles Police Department to "take advantage of what the Founding Fathers called the unorganized militia" in order to forestall further unrest. Many people initially joined the fledgling militia movement largely as a way to protect more aggressively their right to bear arms; even today, gun-related issues dominate many of the newsletters published by militia groups.
Larry Pratt, a gun rights absolutist whose Gun Owners of America (GOA) has been described as "eight lanes to the right" of the National Rifle Association, may well be the person who brought the concept of citizen militias to the radical right.
In 1990, Pratt wrote a book, Armed People Victorious, based on his study of "citizen defense patrols" used in Guatemala and the Philippines against Communist rebels — patrols that came to be known as death squads for their murderous brutality.
Picturing these groups in rosy terms, Pratt advocated similar militias in the United States — an idea that finally caught on when he was invited for a meeting of 160 extremists, including many famous white supremacists, in 1992.
It was at that meeting, hosted in Colorado by white supremacist minister Pete Peters, that the contours of the militia movement were laid out.
Pratt, whose GOA has grown since its 1975 founding to some 150,000 members today, hit the headlines in a big way when his associations with Peters and other professional racists were revealed, convincing arch-conservative Pat Buchanan to eject him as a national co-chair of Buchanan's 1996 presidential campaign.
The same year, it emerged that Pratt was a contributing editor to a periodical of the anti-Semitic United Sovereigns of America, and that his GOA had donated money to a white supremacist attorney's group.
Pratt is today close to the extremist Constitution Party and its radical theology.
Login or Register to post comments.
When these guys can't get it up or they have inadequate Johnsons, they try to make up for it with a strapon gun.
You beat me to the punch Biggus!
Posing with a firearm outside a presidential event may be allowed within the second amendment, and shouting Nazi, socialists, etc. inside may be in keeping with the first amendment, but the rest of us are asking, “What the hell is your major malfunction wingnuts?”
When has this happened? My understanding is that all of these incidents were well outside of the security umbrella and that the Secret Service has not claimed any breach in security whatsoever.
If there has not been any danger to the President, why are we speaking of these incidents as if there had been such danger?
Matthews just wanted to know how far this guy would go with his "purity" on the 2nd Amendment.
What is Matthews point?
Is it that there are scary right wing people in the world? Because that is always going to be true. You can find a far right wingnut on any day of the week, any year of the century.
Why the focus now?
We keep hearing about wingnuts we should be afraid of, and then there is the predictable backlash against the scary wingnuts.
The "militia movement" referred to in the post and the accompanying law enforcement actions were a circular, self-fueling system. It wasn't just that a bunch of wingnuts just suddenly got dangerous. Many believed and were led to believe that the government was becoming a totalitarian nightmare which would restrict their religion, deprive them of the means to protect themselves, and, at worst, take their homes at gunpoint.
Both the Weavers at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians believed they needed weaponry necessary to keep the government from invading their land and killing them all. Now I believe that both groups can be accurately described as paranoid religious nutcases. But can they accurately be described as having been wrong?
The Right is led to irrationally fear the Left and it's government; the Right arms (or more importantly is seen to be arming); the Left is thereby led to unrealistically fear the, seemingly or not, newly heavily armed Right and demands law enforcement/Homeland Security take measures to protect us from the wingnuts; law enforcement does what it has often done when asked to focus on a specific, politically important area of crime: it harasses and entraps and further inflames the anger and fear.
I'm reluctant to say that "without a Waco there would not have been an Oklahoma City" because I feel it somehow justifies McVeigh which I can't stomach, but I think it's accurate to recognize that Waco made an Oklahoma City event more likely.
I just see us being thrown into this frenzied fear fest again and wonder if it is wise. I am also uneasy when Chris Matthews tells me what to be afraid of. And very uneasy when these stunts get traced back to talk radio. We are betting played.
that there is always a wingnut contingent, but this current manifestation seems more blatant. It is like the fringe is no longer content with their fringe status, and are attempting to invade the middle. Aided and abetted by those whose task is to appear mainstream.
As to Waco and Oklamhoma City, McVeigh would have rationalized his violence regardless.
... well put.
Also, since I can't edit now: that was supposed to be "being" not "betting". Oops.
And I have a right to bring a whoopie cushion to a funeral -
and a right to practice my bagpipe in a library -
and a right to wear a thong when I walk past an elementary school -
and a right to snort boogers out onto the table at Mickey Dee's!
What the hell izza matter with these spoil sports?!?
You sound like a fun guy, Mick!
I'm an embarrasment to my race.
And proud of it, thanks!
But you make great points! Just don't be in my local library. ;)
I play at libraries for free at kids' shows.
Fun!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bpf_WIn51Q&fe...
Homey the Clown seems to have an attitude problem!
I love bagpipes!
You're a nice dude, Mick.
Aww..Shucks; I like you too Calgary.
;)
I prefer the Uillean Pipes myself.....much sweeter sound.
Hardly exaggerating. Google some of the extraordinary measures that have been taken during presidential visits, particularly international visits. They virtually shut down the ordinary traffic and business of major world cities when the Prez comes a-visiting.
Let's remember that we're all invited to pack guns when Jeb Bush becomes president.
that these people are so frightened of everything that they have to pack heat.
The only time that I carry a gun is in the outback of AZ. Because hungry bears CAN run a human down.
It would be a last resort.
If these guys aren't frightened...well, they're not impressing anybody.
impressing EACH OTHER. Can't really have a pi**ing contest in public, can they?
...but I really need some help.
C&Lers,
I come beaten and bloodied and in need of aid.
I'm trying to get my wife's green card and have had to call and deal with USCIS on numerous occasions. There reply to my request for someone to look at how difficult to understand and non-English friendly their process is: "we'd really like to help you, but we can't."
My requests for assistance with what is my next step is, "we'd really like to help you, but we can't."
Finally, tonight, I was hung up on by 3 separate "supervisors" who all claimed they couldn't hear me (4 bars on my phone however). Followed by a recorded message that they are closed.
They just appointed a new director and I'd really like to email him.
Michelle Malkin can get people's personal and business emails...I'd like to get one too, but I don't know how and can't afford a professional service. Can anyone tell me how to contact USCIS director Alejandro Mayorkas?
Please guys and gals. I'm desperate.
Tim
this is what i found
http://www.ccfaj.org/m-AlejandroMayorkas.html
amayorkas@omm.com
at the state and federal levels.
Traditionally, they're supposed to help constituents through the red tape.
Unless your representative is Trent Franks.
Contact your local Unitarian Universalist congregation. Some UU churches are very active politically and have resources.
Some ethnicities have activist organizations in areas where there are large concentrations of their people.
Call a LSW -Licensed Social Worker and ask if they can help.
Go to the nearest INS office and stay there until you get what you need. Be prepared to go very very early in the morning. Like around midnight. Get in line, and don't leave until you get some progress.
Computers will help, but this sounds like you have to go there and be prepared to stay all day . By the end of the day, if anything, you'll probably have an appointment with someone who can further your wifes green card. But, I have to say again, Be Prepared to stay the whole day.
Good Luck.
Kentucky? Hmmmmm? That's a tough one.
I wouldn't go to any Big Cities in the south. Pick a more immigration friendly city. Miami would be a good choice.
Yup. Gotta go in person. And wait.
All,
Wow. Really. I'm in tears as I type this. Some of you probably recognize me as I've been around awhile. This immigration issue for my wife has really caused a lot of problems for me.
I came back from the Navy pretty screwed up in the head (getting help and the meds I need though) and is destroying my marriage and my wife's desire to live in this country.
Mudshark,
Being in Kentucky actually works in my favor. Who in their right mind (and I addressed that above) would immigrate to rural Kentucky?!?! I figure the lines should be O.K. ;-)
Actually, the people in my neighborhood here in KY all love my wife (she cooks Japanese food for them) and are begging us to never move. It's not Kentucky that is my current problem, it's the phone lines at USCIS.
Next week, I will go to Louisville, with my war medals in hand and a lot of people are going to hear about their treatment of "the troops" if I'm not taken care of. Trust me folks, you don't screw the troops or veterans in Kentucky. I was pretty shocked when I got here about how many feel about our 2 wars. They loved Bush but hated his wars (yeah, strange I know).
Thank you all again and Mr. Amato, I'm sorry for hijacking a thread. On the other hand, I think you should be proud at how YOUR people, those of us you brought together, take care of one of their own. I know I'm sure proud of them as I type with tears of happiness flowing freely.
Take your DD214, and your Honors. Stick it in their face . And ask nicely for some help. If you get brushed off, ask to see their supervisor. Be polite, but be determined.
Hey, you could always fly her into Mexico. And drive across and sneak her back in. I know, not a good idea. Plus it's illegal. But it is an option. If it was my wife, I'd do it in a heart beat.
of Laphroaig to you and yours
and wish you are as happy with each other
as me and mine.
May trouble follow you always -
and never catch up to ye.
should be allowed to pack cream pies to Republican town hall meets.
Just as an expression of free speech you understand.
when you might get the munchies...
precisely
the right wing would be near-climax if the fight over health reform turned to a debate over gun rights. instead of talking about the real crime of health-inequality, we are purposefully being distracted by the heat-packers
to see Tweety also drill this Velleco guy on whether or not he is "one of those birthers". It seems to me that Chris is trying to join the dots between the birthers/haters with the gun-nuts that are packing heat at the town hall meetings.
The crazies, who are multiplying by the minute, can not be allowed to simply take over the national agenda. Their methods and dialogue are out of control. If left alone they pose a real danger. Counter measures are necessary. Civility and attempts to deal with them intelligently is failing, badly.
to any of these gun-toting wingnuts that the surest way of having our 2nd amendment rights threatened is by their current behavior?
They're protesting things as issue spokesmen, most likely to the degree of discarding rational thought that doesn't fit in with the point they're trying to make.
There has always been a small but vocal "Open Carry" population among gun owners, and they're the ones with a more fanatical bent. I couldn't say for sure whether or not they've got a higher wingnut-to-true-believer ratio than other kinds of organized protesters, but I'm somewhat hopeful that they're not that overboard.
And there are probably any number of ways to circumvent the problem, yes!!
But I think that the position of the article is:
Carrying guns at an event such as this one is an act of incredibly selfish and inappropriate behavior.
It is almost the ultimate form of passive-aggressive bullshit.
The next step is: someone pulls the bloody trigger.
Lives change irrevokably. Some lives end.
But we sure the hell have proved our point:
"We could legally carry a gun in proximity to the POTUS"
"And We Did"
"Hooray"
"I hear that hydrogen peroxide will get the blood out of the fabric"
Is everybody happy?
The problem is the inherent fear and assumption that someone will pull the trigger. If someone does make an assassination attempt on the President (which I'm actually surprised hasn't happened and been acknowledged yet) then they'll instantly provide exactly which spin any side of any debate wants it to.
Bystander: "Oh my god, the President has just been shot!"
NRA Member: "It's a shame law abiding citizens couldn't have had concealed weapons to prevent this horrible act."
Anti-gunner: "If there were no guns, he'd have never been shot in the first place you a-hole!"
Open Carry Advocate: "His weapon was concealed, we were never a threat because we made ourselves visible!"
(Alternately, if the weapon was carried openly)
Concealed Carry Advocate: "It's a shame law abiding citizens couldn't have had concealed weapons to prevent this horrible act."
Open Carry Advocate: "We fully denounce this tragic, hateful act, and would like to distance ourselves in every possible way."
is the one "If there were no guns, he'd have never been shot in the first place you a-hole!"
The rest? Just fantasy.
These loons have gun powder where their brains should be.
I thought it was shit...
The gunpowder goes between the tongue and cheek
so's they can shoot off at the mouth.
I lol'ed.
Thanks Mick
Can you imagine if one of these gun packing Obama-haters actually managed to get arrested outside of one of these townhalls?
Instant right-wing celebrity status, putting Joe the Plumber to shame...
Might as well just cancel EVERY guest-appearance on Fox for the next month, as whoever it might be that managed to be incarcerated would instantly OWN that pathetic channel as far as the eye can see and beyond.
And don't forget about the book-deal, and the endless tour on the right-wing speech circuit.
Just another version of wingnut welfare.
protect the President Of The United States.
These nuts (and I mean that in the most insane sense) are scaring the rank and file right wing.
I think they are doing more damage to their cause (Obama derangement syndrome) than anything.
Cesar Millan says - calm and assertive makes a pack leader and unbalanced energy is always addressed by the pack.
""I guarantee you," he told the caller, "we are going to get health care reform done. And I know that there are a lot of people out there who have been hand wringing and folks in the press are following every little twist and turn of the legislative process. You know, passing a big bill like this is always messy. FDR was called a socialist when he passed Social Security. JFK and Lyndon Johnson, they were both accused of a government takeover of health care, when they passed Medicare. This is the process we go through because understandably, the American people have a long tradition of being suspicious of government, until the government actually does something that helps them, and then they don't want anybody messing with whatever gets set up. And I'm confident we're going to get it done.""
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/obam...
david, you say
"If you were a Secret Service officer, would you let everyone carry a gun into a presidential event? It seems like an absurd question..."
this statement isn't only absurd it's illegal and offensive as hell as we don't live in a police state, we ostensibly live in a nation governed by laws. the secret service does not have the authority to suspend free carry laws at will. neither does the FBI, nor the ATF, nor state or local law enforcement.
the secret service does not "let" us exercise laws establishing our rights. let that sink in.
since when did exercising one's rights peacefully make one "nuts"?
this is why the democratic party consistently loses any gun owner, including progressive ones they make any gun owner a lunatic.
let me say it simply so even a child can figure it out, if you don't like the laws amend or change the laws. most free carry laws already include bans on people free carrying into prisons or voting areas, amend the laws to include bans on free carry into federal/state/county/municipal meetings. no muss no fuss and totally legal.
FAIL.
so you admit then that you support administrative and not legislative control over our laws? that's good to know. then you support the extra FISA wiretapping and any other abrogation of laws by say signing statements?
My fault - I missed your entire point! My fail!
At its base, I agree with you 100% (administrative vs. legislative change). But, I completely disagree with the Roberts court interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. These people do not have the right to "bear arms." At its core, the right was included by the framers to prevent governmental tyranny.
So, in this case, are they preparing to fight tyranny manifesting itself in the presence of the president?
Hmmnn, interesting discussion point. Never thought of it that way.
trying to assess another's motivation's can be singularly unrewarding. we'll never really know why they are free carrying there on that day, all we know is it's lawful.
we have no business questioning a citizen going about peaceful, lawful activities.
the proper question to ask might be, did the framers of the free carry law intend for the law, at it's core, to be a protection for the populace against their own government's propencity towards tyranny?
the new hampshire state motto is "live free or die".
as much as I agree with what you are saying, the USSS does not have to suspend legal carry at Pres events, they are considered Fed sites while the President is there, and Fed regs apply for carrying in federal facilities.
you're trying to tell me that the presidents's mere presence automatically creates a moving "federalized" zone in which states laws are in effect rendered null and void, superceded by federal statute? like a diplomatic mission in a country is in effect a small parcle of the mission's country?
uhhhh, i think there might be more than just a few governors that would take exception to the fed's land grab here even if it were true. i call shenanigans, citations please.
It seems that you missed that time when the USA became a federal republic and not a coalition of independent states.
In any case, I am actually looking forward to these gun nuts to push their luck with the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I can't wait for the nuts to get their panties all in a twist and sue the federal government when their "rights to gun ownership" are being infringed. And then we can have the federal government finally making the case that "ownership" does not equal to "toting" and that the display was not made under the auspices of a well regulated militia.
Although I must say the gun nuts have gotten some incredible mileage from a completely arbitrary (and bogus IMHO) interpretation of the US constitution.
so completely arbitrary and bogus as a matter of fact that they have the actual law on their side.
you missed the entire point.
what I was saying, I'll try to find the US code for it, I forget just what section it is under and there are 10s of thousands of pages. But basically it is considered a federal building if it is on loan or lease to the federal government. If the Pres has permission to use it for a meeting it is considered "on loan" to the feds. If he were to walk into a Micky Ds for a big mac nope, but if a place grants him permission to use it for official business then yes.
hmmmm....that would explain then why free carry was not in effect inside.
thanks!
It seems as though these gun toting folks have no sense of occasion.
It is very foolish and potentially dangerous to carry heat in an unarmed crowd.
First of all - if I were one of the USSS snipers: I would keep my sights trained on an idiot with weapons. If I heard a shot I would shoot first and ask questions later.
Second - if there is an attempt on the POTUS' life, and I get shot because I was dumb or stubborn or a true believer etc. - I get killed and leave a wife and kids.
This is responsible?!
IMHO some gun owners are trying to make THEIR point by endangering everyone present at a Presidential Visit
AND putting their own family/friends at risk.
I own guns. I am neither proud or ashamed of it.
BUT - when I was protested Bush's visit to Phoenix, I was unarmed.
I was unarmed and my protest was appropriate.
is the operative word. Nothing the wingnuts have done or said lately could be called appropriate.
Someone carrying a firearm isn't endangering anyone. Someone -wielding- a firearm, on the other hand, may be. Just because someone walks down the street with a concealed pistol, that doesn't mean they're automatically a threat. It just means they have a concealed weapon.
I do believe it's irresponsible of these people, but it's not illegal nor is it some kind of added threat in and of itself. The only danger that comes from an armed individual who doesn't intend a criminal act, is the danger of poor judgment should circumstances bring that firearm into his or her hands. Considering the number of people in the United States who do legally carry concealed weapons, and the statistically insignificant number of crimes committed among that demographic, I'd say we're not doing too badly there.
However, these people ARE demonstrating poor judgment by being rather d-baggy so I guess that counts for something.
"WATCH THIS, BUBBA!"
Inappropriate. Not against the law...
Any location that exists as private property, may be designated by the owner as a "no firearms allowed" location, in every state in the union so far as I'm aware.
State and municipal laws frequently list certain types of area as a weapons free zone, primarily courthouses, schools and public buildings. These laws vary, but are considered solid and reasonable by most gun owners who might otherwise protest.
If the President is traveling someplace on private property, all the owner has to do is designate it as a weapons free area and post appropriate signage to comply with local laws. No muss, no fuss.
there are lawful ways around this.
they may designate it as no firearms allowed, but depending on the state your in signs may or may not have force of law. And some of the states where they do, they have exact language, posting and size requirements such as TX 30.06 regulations. In my, state no firearm signs do not have force of law, a person can post as many as they like and if I carry there I am breaking no laws, if they see my firearm and ask to me leave and I refuse then I am in violation of the law, which would be criminal trespass.
I saw Tom Delay on this same broadcast of Hardball and even he said carrying guns to presidential events was extreme. People like this won't be happy until something bad happens.
A nice juicy martyr or two is just fine and dandy. That's been true for thousands of years.
Create another Randy Weaver incident?
Well, one good way is get enough useful idiots to start packing heat at Obama's public appearances. The law of large numbers starts working for you. Odds are that sooner or later, one of these whackaloons is liable to get himself blown to kingdom come by a jumpy Secret Service man.
Instant Horst Wessel.
Should the Secret Service let someone set up a snipers nest at his window if the president is driving by?
I mean the deer rifle is totally legal . . .
We protect our president as a matter of law.
I think there are clear and reasonable limits which include NO FUCKING WEAPONS at a presidential events. This doesn't trump any rights of gun ownership just preserves the safety of our chief executive.
Really the point of this is so that when the first nutball get arested (for whatever reason) the right wing knuckleheads can come out and say that they say "look!!! Obama is taking our guns away!"
never mind the fact that they didn't say shit when Bush ordered the confiscation of American citizens firearms during Katrina. OH, that's right, Bush was taking black peoples guns away. That's why these bigots never spoke up.
say shit during the Katrina gun grab? I remember lots of uproar over it, and a lawsuit filed by the NRA against LA and New Orleans.
And it wasn't Bush that ordered it, Gov Blanco and Mayor Nagin did, oh and they are both Dems.
My understanding is that these people we've been hearing about have been "outside" Presidential events. Have any of these people been within the President's line of sight?
If they haven't, then I honestly don't see a giant problem. Yes, they bear close scrutiny, and I support well-focused proposals of laws to enhance the President's security. However, if these people are just rallying outside a venue where the President is speaking, but not inside said venue with weapons I don't see that it's anything worth freaking out about.
At the end Matthews asked this guy if he was a birther, and he refused to answer, thus proving he was not just 99.9% insane, but full blown ape sh#t crazy.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that these people didn't start doing this until we got us a black president.
I can't help but see this nonsense as anything but racial.
like the black guy with the AR-15 and the I think a Glock was racist against the president? Which half the white or the black?
sorta like Michael Steele.
Or Clarence Thomas.
They are stalwarts in a party that seems to make legislation to send "them darkies" up the river.
Yes, it is racism behind the act and
it is nothing new.
Consider the severe sentencing used by the judiciary against crack cocaine users (black)
against the sentencing of those convicted of using coke.(white)
...next case!
black republican or in this case libertarian is a "tool". Okay I see where you are coming from.
And not sure about where you are, but where I lived coke and crack use wasn't usually divided along racial lines, more along wealth, unless you were a needle freak then it was coke or heroin. Where I live now, from what I hear its mainly meth, unless you wealthy and connected then you can find coke.
Hasn't the word come down that the whole incident of the black man and the AR-15 was staged? I haven't heard anything substantive on this, but am wondering if anyone has.
Okay, found it. Staged Libertarian protest.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/obama....
was staged, but the guy in the video is a libertarian, here is some of the video his friends took.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA&fe...
And thanks for the cnn link
It's mainly Meth?
Where the fuck do you live? Wassila?
Hah! sorry. I couldn't hep mysef.
Man, you live in a shitty place.
they use coke to cut the meth...
as cold as Wassila, small city in rural Indiana. When I lived up in Lake Co. IN, meth was the rarity(not sure now though), 1.5-2 hrs south its the exact opposite. Lake Co, no where near as many farms so a less access to get anhydrous ammonia, where I live now its surrounded by farms.
Lake Co Indiana they use meth to cut the coke. So I've heard anyway, its been many many years since I've touched the stuff(coke that is never done meth).
When Reagan was Prez, There was so much blow around, I saw cops doing it on tables in restaurants. That when I was doing it.
Funny, when Reagan was Prez, that was the most Coke ever in the US. Ever. Funny how all that came about when Ronnie was in Central America.
Then he made it illegal to sell ether in volume.
coke was a bit more "acceptable" back then, it's still all over at least in the more populated areas.
Has come clean. No a one still does it.
In fact, we've turned completely against it and any other drugs like it. Even my pot smokin buddies have backed way off. Funny, the thing is we've all gotten into fine wines, go figure?
Some of these buds of mine I havent seen in over 2o years. But it turns out, that we all got into fine wines. Must be having that grower perspective. I can see why some people really get into growing roses. It's either growing great pot, or growing great grapes.
But the odd thing is, You get in more trouble for drinking now, that you would for possessing pot. You're better off with pot. But I don't like pot anymore. It's too strong. Friends stop by and give me some from time to time. I don't burn it anymore. So, after a few months, we might get a guest or two, and I just give it to them. Hey, it was given to me, so I pay it forward.
But make no mistake, I still remember how to grow it. LOTs of it. Ya never know when that trade will come in handy.:)
Velleco's constant refrain is "If it's within the law."
Where's the fault in that?
At most venues the President might speak at, there are already weapon restrictions. When was the last time you saw a school where you could carry a weapon legally? Those laws don't only apply when school is in session, they apply on school grounds under -all- circumstances. You bring in a gun, you're breaking the law, and by Velleco's answers he has no problem with people being punished for that.
The "birther" nonsense at the end of the interview is just further baiting, as Matthews goes ahead and hammers at a completely unrelated yet incendiary topic. If this was coming from O'Reilly on a liberally friendly subject, people here would be incensed.
people who are compelled to bring lethal weapons to Obama's events -
and the birthers -
totally unrelated?
You must be right!
They might have common beliefs and goals in some respects, but I believe it's better to tackle the debate at hand (gun possession at Presidential events) and leave the "birther" nonsense to die a slow, media-ignored death.
Birthers are idiots.
Some of these gun-toting protesters are idiots.
It's dangerous and harmful to logic to lump them all together.
but it's nice of the gun nuts to play into the hands of the multibillionaire "health insurance" tycoons.
Who said, "there's no honor among jerkwads"
or something very much like that?
Point taken.
The level of insanity over the idea of the government getting further involved in healthcare in any way, shape or form, has reached a level I shall furthermore call "plaid". Ludicrous just seems too normal.
legally carry on school grounds in my state in a few instances, and that would be if I'm operating a vehicle and picking up or dropping someone off. Or if I have been authorized by the school, and I have been given authorization by two pre-schools. Although how the law is worded I could make a good legal defense for most of the time I'm on school property, except I don't want to be a test case.
Unless its college, then there are no laws that prohibit me from carrying. My state laws only apply to pre-schools and k-12 education.
The Constitution:
"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."
The ONLY legal use of 'arms' is in the use within a militia. Not to hunt, not to self-defend, certainly not to walk down the street. The final wording originally came from Hamilton's proposal:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Even the DC Heller case does not support the 2nd Amendmenters.
Whatever, I want me some guns!
the way Fundamentalists misrepresent the Bible and Fox "reporters" misrepresent the truth.
From the PDF of the ruling in the case of DC vs. Heller:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/...
I referred to Scalia's attempt to limit the case's impact:
"... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons ... or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
My point is that 2nd Amendmenters claim they have an unabridged right to carry. They argue that n law is legal that restricts that. But, your point is dead-on correct.
I wish the NRA returned to their roots. They used to be a great organization.
double-posted... now deleted!
shit. Holy shit. Holy shit. That gets the trinity of holy shit.
It's tempting to let succession happen, isn't it at this point? From a comedic and psychological standpoint, it'd be fucking hilarious to watch. Until you realize that the military-industrial-corpo-junta that'd be in charge of the United State of Proud to be a Racist would create a 3rd world nation which would mean huge humanitarian problems like refugee's, poverty, imperialist intentions, etc,... We could build a wall along the border though...., just food for thought.
To see if Obama would crack down on their guns. If he did, They'd say
See! I told you he was going to take away our guns!
Point goes to Obama.
I've been thinkin about all this brewhaha over healthcare.
Obama is up to somethin. We might see single payer.
The GOPers sure did take the bait. He's set them up to paint themselves into a corner.
I know this sounds far fetched.
But the guy isn't stupid. He's far from it.
I can't see him succumbing to the will of the 25%rs.
Now, I know alot of people were questioning his motives on this. Hey, So did I.
But, There is more to this than meets the eye.
He succeeded in riling up his base. He actually got alot of free press from all of this.
Getting back to the gun nuts.
Wear an anti Boosh t shirt to a Boosh townhall, and get denied entrance. And if you made a stink about it. You went to jail.
Oh, one more thing. Who says these people with guns were all GOPers?
Surely there had to be a Dem packing out there.
Just to be able to return fire. I know, that sounds awful. But we're not talkin a civil society any longer.
I sooo hope you are correct!
Here's hoping you're right, mudshark!
Me Too.
it's so far fetched. At this point, Obama can throw up his hands and say to the 'pubs, "OK, you've made it perfectly clear you will unanimously vote against ANY kind of Healthcare Reform, so I might as well put the bill I REALLY want on the table." Zing.
I can hope.
I belong to a ski club that has a member (my friend is 74, I am 49 and still the youngest Vagabond in the club after a 20 year membership BTW) who's grandfather was president of a major envelope manufacturer and lent his personal limousine as the escort for Theodore Roosevelt during a 1912 Presidential Campaign whistle stop in Milwaukee, WI where Mr. Roosevelt was shot by a nondescript bystander.
The would be assassin, John Schrank, casually reached into the car and blasted TR point blank using a .32 cal with only a heavy coat to protect the life of the candidate. Two dollar steak tough TR gave his full speech without medical care to the horror of some of those in the audience. TR was a bloody mess... you can look it up. Even today when telling this story my old friend is gripped with terror.
For any citizen to be armed within 1000 yards of a sitting President should be a Federal offense subject to imprisonment of (25) years to life without parole. As a gun owner I would never think of being anywhere near a politician even, one I cannot stomach, let alone the POTUS. The Secret Service needs to start arresting these people. No one other than that piece of shit Wayne LaFuckface and those ****s at the NRA would oppose this common sense approach. Unfortunately nothing is so easy when a country allows mental retards to be armed.
But the wingers are HOPING for the crackdown.
I fear for Obama.
I got his back and so do you.
hardcore conservative I kinda fear for Obama, I'm not sure which would be worse. Him or Biden.
But Dateline, are you carrying if you go to a event where he is? If not how do you have his back? Do you keep an eye on everyone anywhere near you? I'm just curious.
Was Tweety doing what he's supposed to be doing? Just Wow!
Wonder what this asshat would say if I strapped on the .41 magnum to attend a Denny Rehberg (R-Sleazebag) townhall and yelled "single payer now!" and "Why do Republicans hate America!"? Of course I would have to drive several hundred miles to find one, since he won't even come into western Montana.
for you than a several hundred miles I think, but there is a Repub representative in IN that is having a town hall on the 2nd amendment and is encouraging people to come armed. I'm sure you would be more than welcome to attend.
If you believe, as this guy does, that the nation would be a safer place if every citizen carried a gun, do you think the world would be a safer place if every country had nuclear weapons?
Every law-abiding citizen. Governments by nature would be best described as "lawless" as there is no authority other than that other nations take upon themselves to punish transgressors.
There's no way to make such a comparison valid.
There is International Law, which is the justification for punishing "transgressors", and which also invokes the responsibility to take action. Nuclear weapons are supposed to be a deterrent to attack by other nations. This is the idea behind the belief that a nation of armed citizens is a safer one. That no one will attack someone under threat of annihilation by other people. I believe my analogy was apt.
Governments are in many parts of the world, inherently unstable entities. The more stable governments typically have either learned that they don't need nuclear weapons, or already have them. It is fairly easy to judge the stability of a nuclear capable power, but not so simple to judge the stability of a single individual.
Your analogy works on the surface, but fails when you consider the very nature of the entity utilizing the "deterrent" at hand.
I'm a firm believer in the second amendment, but also a reasonable believer in the need for more careful oversight.
... Right to gun ownership, should not be interpreted as right to gun jackassery.
But let's be clear, the people showing up with loaded guns to a political debate are not really exercising their 2nd amendment under the spirit in which it was written. In fact, the act of carrying those guns has only one purpose: political intimidation. In that sense, they are using the 2nd amendment to carry out the exact opposite for what it was intended. Under such view, I just don't care about their right to bear arms if they are going to use it to intimidate other people out of their right to free speech and assembly.
Furthermore, I fail to see why these idiots considered that it was even remotely appropriate to bring guns (and their issues) to a debate regarding HEALTHCARE. That sort of blows away the perennial "responsible gun ownership" BS the NRA tries to peddle to justify these displays of idiocy.
Can I or can I not carry a firearm while having an abortion?
Can we carry them to football games? Or Baseball games? Or Basketball games?
Or how about concerts? I wonder how the country music artists feel about this?
Hell, any public events.
deleted by poster
of your state. In my state the answer to all of those is yes. Unless it is on pre-school or k-12 school grounds, with some localities restricting carry in parks.
But somehow, I don't think they'd allow Anyone into a sporting event who was armed. In any state.
This debate is ludicrous.
Good Night. Be Well.
who carries into pro football and basket ball games quite often, but then again he is a cop. Off duty going for his own entertainment though. And I have carried to some minor league games myself and I'm not a LEO, I was spotted by a on duty officer, he walked up and I said hello officer, he said hello, do you have a license to carry that? I told him yes he replied okay have a nice day. And I wished him the same.
To carry a firearm to a entertainment venue?
I get the self protection thing.
But why bother going if you're going to let fear dictate to you that you feel the need to carry a gun?
I get it's your right.
It's the fear I don't get.
not really fear, its more like caution, or as the boy scouts say "always be prepared"
I've went to the minor league baseball games in Gary, and I've went armed and unarmed. I wasn't scared either way.
Then why do you feel the need to carry a weapon when you go out for entertainment.
Be Prepared? For what? A good time?
Nope, sorry, not buying it.
No, there is something more to this.
OK, it's your right. I get that part.
But does that mean you have to carry a weapon with you at all times?
I believe you are a responsible gun owner Tim.
From reading your comments, you come of as rational.
Even for a Republican.;)
It's the other people who aren't so rational and that think that carrying a weapon is some kind of status symbol.
Or maybe it's an insecurity complex of some sorts.
Those people are the ones that worry me. So, should I start carrying a weapon? Because I think that their not stable enough to own one let alone carry it in a public place?
It's a circle. Chasing after ones own tail.
I'll pass. But I do feel that there should be more scrutiny applied to people when they try to buy a weapon. And if busted in the commission of a crime with an unregistered weapon, or an illegal weapon, People need to do some serious time.
Serious time.
in case I need it, I do my best to avoid areas and situations where it may be needed, but there are bad people everywhere, along with aggressive dogs, or in one case where I wasn't carrying a deer that got hit by a car. It was lying there with a broken back trying to get up for 10 minutes before a LEO got there to put it out of its misery.
I consider carrying a firearm similar to having smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in your home or vehicle. Or a first aid kit. You hope you never need them, but its smart to make sure you have them. And so do the vast majority of legal citizens that carry, but we're not the ones you hear about.
And I don't carry everywhere I go, but I do frequently.
And I agree that people who use a firearm in commission of a serious crime should do serious time, but I disagree that there needs to be more scrutiny when buying one, when buying from a dealer there is already a federal background check how much more is needed? And none of my firearms are registered, its not required where I live. Oh and for registering guns, do you know that felons cannot be charged with possessing a unregistered firearm? I'm serious, there was a SCOTUS decision on it, they found that requiring them to register their guns was unconstitutional under the 5th amendment, so since they can't be required to register them, they cannot be charged.
Scrutinizing weapons buyers:
Yes, I do feel that people need to pass a more ridged testing program.
Some people should not be able to purchase a gun. Plain and simple.
Illegal guns: Those have to be round up, and taken to a steel mill and melted. That's what they do with them. They used to bring them in by the dump truck load when I worked in the mill.
Buy them from people, make some kind of a deal for them. Like , for every gun turned in, the govt will help get someone in their family a semester in college. Or help them with their school books for college.
Lighten the load on back taxes, Give them a right off of a few hundred dollars,
Give them a credit to go to a Dr or a Dentist.
There's a million things that can be done to get to illegal guns
I have no problem with rational people owning weapons Tim. I have a problem with irrational people owning weapons.
Registered weapons:
If they have a serial number, they're registered. If the serial number has been removed, that makes it an illegal weapon.
They'll never be able to get all of them.
But like I said above, we can try.
I don't understand why rational gun owners
don't want to see the illegal guns swept up and a more ridged testing for possible gun owners. It would be a one time hard test. Completing a safety program and a week at a firing range to qualify.
It takes the military 8 weeks to get guys ready to go, I think one week of gun training isn't too much to ask.
A one time serious back ground check.
After that, The requirements would be relaxed. A simple background check would be sufficient.
Gun owners such as yourself, I would think should be all for this. No one wants to take away your guns. What I want is for the people who aren't emotionally stable enough be denied to own one.
Now, I know you're going to say" Who's to say This person isn't stable enough."
That's where the serious background check comes in. Domestic violence, Assault, Mental medical issues. You know what I'm saying Tim. I could go on, But I'm still on my first cup o coffee.
Or at least be able to prove the can handle the responsibility. Hence the firing range. The instructors should be able to give the final judgment as to who qualifies and who doesn't. I would think that a person like yourself could be an instructor/qualifier .
So, you see Tim, I don't want to take away your guns. And it is a fine line that shouldn't be crossed when it comes the Right to Bear Arms.
But this country has grown in population.
This ain't the same place it was back in the 1700's, 1800's or 1900's.
To many people have them that shouldn't have them. Taking a loaded weapon to an event that the President of the United States is attending is just nuts.
What do you think would have happened if you took a loaded firearm to an event that GWB was attending when he was President?
Quite a few places already have gun buy/turn in programs where people get gift certificates for local stores. Which from what I've heard from officers that have worked them don't do much for the illegal guns on the street, for the most part they get unusable rusted firearms, or weapons that have been used in crimes that the criminals want to dispose of anyway, all of the ones that I've heard of have amnesty/no checks on the firearms. Which leads me to one major problem I have with them, a law abiding citizen has his firearms stolen, some punk turns them in for a quick buck(with no questions asked) and then the firearms get melted down with no attempt to trace the lawful owner. How would you feel if they did that to other property?
Oh and quite a few police departments have auctions for guns that have been confiscated for illegal possession or use in a crime, just like other property such as cars. Which is imo how it should be, it make more money for the cash strapped departments and allows them to get better equipment and training for their officers and or hire new ones. Not including some of the ones I've heard of being destroyed, a LEO I've talked to worked at one of the departments where they were required to destroy seized guns, he said he was close to tears over a few of them, one example a near mint, original 1800's colt.
Registered weapons.
The serial numbers are registered to the ATF when they are manufactured for sale or imported along with the ffl dealer they were shipped to, and the dealer has to keep the form with the purchasers name for I think 20 years. So yes most firearms are or have been registered, but not to necessarily who legally owns them. In quite a few states mine included, private party sales are legal and no registration or record keeping is required. And under current federal law, federal agencies are forbidden from keeping databases of registered gun owners.
With a few exceptions such as NFA items.
And several types of firearms are not required to have serial numbers, those being ones manufactured before they were required to be serialized, reproductions of "antique firearms" and most new black powder ones. And it is legal to build a firearm for personal use without a serial number or registration. You cannot sell it but you may own one. The most common way of doing it is to purchase a receiver blank(and unfinished rough receiver)and finishing it yourself, from what I understand its not that hard to do.
Background checks and training.
Felons and domestic abusers and people who have been adjudicated to be mentally defective are supposed to already be in the NICS database which is what is used for firearm purchases. If they aren't getting reported find out why and fix the problem, don't add additional hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through.
What would you consider a "serious" background check? Interviews with neighbors? The persons family? Bosses and co-workers? Psychiatric evaluation? Neighbors/co-workers can easily have a grudge or be anti-gun and exaggerate or outright lie to the interviewers, same with family members. Bosses can be anti-gun and do the same plus can hold it against the employee for promotions or even keeping their job. For the psych eval the evaluator can be anti-gun and give people bad marks just because of their viewpoints. Heck I know several people that think you have to be insane for keeping a loaded weapon in your house for self defense, or even just wanting a firearm, let alone carrying one.
Training, you said a weeks worth of classes and range time. Who is going to pay for that? Do you know how much a week long firearms class is? I know someone who is a licensed instructor for the state of utah for their required class, its I think 8hrs and his fee is $100 and he is on the cheep side. That is not including the cost of ammo, I know of a 2 day training class they require a minimum of 500 rds of ammo, so for an 9mm your talking about at the cheepest another $125 and thats for a 2 day class and your recommending 5 days. So for what you recommend for just being able to purchase a firearm would cost probably at the minimum $750 and quite possible well more. Who is going to pay? I assume probably the person who wants to buy a firearm, which would place it out of the price range of quite a few of the people who would likely need one for home defense, lower income people in not the best neighborhoods.
Also who sets the standards for the course? Do they just have to know the four cardinal rules of firearm safety, and be able to hit a target at 21 ft? Or do they have to know all the state and federal gun laws, how to properly handle every different type of firearm, and pass the Air Marshall range test?
And who licenses and registers the instructors? It would be very easy for a anti-gun govt to make it nearly impossible to get licensed to teach, or limit the number of instructors.
I do recommend training and refresher courses for gun owners, but for the above reasons I can't get behind it being mandatory.
Most law abiding firearm owners are for getting firearms out of the hands of criminals, but believe there are more than enough laws on the books to do so. And new laws won't make a difference. They just need to be enforced. Making it harder for law abiding citizens to legally own firearms, isn't going to do anything for criminals who by definition don't follow the law.
Actually the military takes I think 14-16 weeks, 8 weeks basic and 8 weeks AIT(can be combined hence the 14 weeks) but the vast majority of that is not in handling firearms.
If your gun gets stolen.
Not if you carried it on you.
And, I would think that If someone like yourself who usually carries it on him, decided to leave it at home, they would more than likely put it in a very safe place.
Like mebbe, a Safe?
After filing a police report, put in the claim to your home ins agent.
Yeah, I'll go with the auctions, Sounds good to me. But for the run of the mill standard used handgun or any weapon that appears to be neglected, sell it as scrap metal. Of course this doesn't apply to antiques . I think both of our suggestions are a good alternative.
If the guns can help some kid to get educated, why not.
All sales of weapons should be reported.
Period. No matter when it takes place or where. If it works for cars, it should work for guns.
Serious background check.
Medical, Legal(Police) a very thorough one.
Training.
Too bad. Guns kill people. People with guns kill people.
Most people who own guns don't know the 4 cardinal rules to gun ownership. Who sets the standards? Weapons experts. From the military and law enforcement.
Instructors. A proven history should be sufficient.
Now, don't go all conspiracy nut case on me. I highly doubt you'd get anti govt' gun nuts wanting to be an instructor in a class like this. Instructors would have to be certified and licensed by the state. But they would have to enroll in a Federal program. They pay for this by themselves.
Who would pay for these classes?
You would. Anyone who wants to own weapons would.
125-300 for the week is cheap.
Law abiding citizens with firearms.
Law enforcement not being able to enforce the laws on the books.
Why is that? Is it because they don't have the funding?
So, they need more money. Or more manpower, which means more money.
So, after this, the need for more funds for the law agencies to be able to enforce the laws on the books isn't enough for you to think that raising a tax for this issue is something you wouldn't be in favor of. Hey, I like the auction idea. But it won't make enough money.
Mebbe some of the antiques. But over all,no.
Nice talkin to ya Tim.
You have a nice night.
Yes you can file a claim with your insurance, but that doesn't do anything for sentimental value, and depending on your insurance may not pay enough to replace the gun. And filing a police report will do nothing because the serial numbers aren't checked at the turn ins.
And yes safes are a good idea, if you can afford one. A decent safe starts around $2500, you can get security cabinets for a good bit less than that but a thief can get into them in very little time, they are good to prevent crimes of opportunity ie your kids friends are over and see one and just grab it.
Oh and a standard run of the mill used handgun sells for about as much as a ton of steel for a lower end gun, heck a used hi-point goes for about 125-150. Clean scrap steel is I think about $200 a ton right now.
All car sales do not have to be reported, yes you do have to get them registered to drive on the street though.
And cars kill about 4x as many people as guns(for just accidental deaths with a firearm it's about 70x) not including suicides. But I don't hear people calling for week long training courses and background checks just to buy a car. Let alone driving one. And people kill others with more than just guns, firearms are the leading cause of death in homicides, but about 1/3 are not caused by them. Do you want all bats, clubs, knifes, peoples hands, etc registered also?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr... Page 35 for the number of deaths.
There already is a legal/mental background check done when you buy a gun from a dealer. Again what do you mean by a "serious" background check? And medical? Do you mean allowing law enforcement access to peoples medical records? Or having a psyc eval done? Or if the person has been adjudicated mentally deficient? If the last it should already be in the records for the check that is done when you buy a gun. If there are problems with the existing one, find out why and fix that.
I wasn't talking about anti-gov nuts trying to be instructors, I was talking anti-gun govt intentionally limiting the amount of instructors. I could see a simple written and hands on test for carrying a firearm, similar to a drivers license test, if there was a way to ensure that is all it would be. And a week long class would be more than $125-300, the 125 I mentioned was just for the cost of ammo for a 2 day class, figure about $100 per day for fees, plus the cost of ammo.
So a five day course would be $500 for fees, and most courses require about 200 rounds of ammo a day so 1000 for a week. 9mm being one of the cheapest self defense rounds cost about $250-350 per thousand for target loads, .38, .357, .40 s&w .45 acp all cost more than that. So a week long class would be about $750 on up. Plus getting the time off of work, finding people to watch your children(if you have any), would make it nearly impossible for lower income/working class families to be able to do it. Plus trying to find 1000 rds of ammo right now at a reasonable price. As I said before I'm all for training, but not mandatory, especially to just own a firearm.
And I didn't say law enforcement can't enforce the laws, just that the laws on the books currently are enough if they are enforced. And that new ones wouldn't make any difference for the criminals.
It has been fun debating this with you also.
And you have a nice day.
I'm just going to say very little at this point.
To be able to drive you need a car.
We agree on that.
To be able to drive, you need a license.
To get that license, you must pass a test.
To take that test you must take a class.
Now, before you reply, I know that some people don't take the class.
But by in large, people either take a private class(Driver instructor) or take it in high school
My point is that there is training involved.
Yes I'm aware that cars do kill many more people.
But we're not talking about cars are we?
Not to mention that are far more drivers than gun owners in the country.
No, what we're talking about is someone who can carry a firearm on their person, and go anywhere he thinks is suitable .
There is just no way you can justify to me, that carrying a loaded weapon to a Presidential rally or public event is acceptable.
As for the fees and training programs and such.
Sorry, Not to sound rude or offensive, but I really don't care. I don't want to purchase any firearms.
And if I did, I'd be willing to take the class and spend the time on a range and learn the proper way to handle a firearm. Yes, I'd be willing to pay the money.
I was trained with a AR15, a 12 gauge, an M60, a grenade( I forget the number on that one.Hey, it was 1975) and a variety of handguns.
I believe in proper training. And I'd be willing to pay for it.
Yes, I'd be willing to go through a serious background check too. They can check my legal backgound and my medical background. I would have no problem with it. It's that important to me.
In closing, I will say this about the medical records.
You raise a very good point with regards to confidentiality.
That's a tough one. I hadn't thought of that.
It seems to me, that some people just aren't mentally stable enough to possess a firearm. We both know that is true.
But how do you restrict them without impeding the rights of others?
Just off of the top of my head I can think of the guy who killed John Lennon
Chapman, then there is, Oswald, Who was the clown who shot Reagan?
I think you see where I'm going with this. These are the types of people who shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.
There has to be away to screen the population who wish to own firearms and be able to restrict those who I feel shouldn't.
I mean no offense by this. You have snookered me with the medical confidentiality. Because I strongly believe in that.
There are medical restrictions that disqualify some people from driving a car.
The DL app asks health questions right on it.
So , Yes, I am for a medical background check for applicants to purchase a firearm. Anyone with psychiatric issues would be disqualified. Period.
We're talkin a gun here. Something the can hide on themselves and whip out and just start shooting.
Now, I know you're thinkin " That's why I carry"
Which in truth, has a foot in reality.
But you can't go through life thinking
"Just in Case". Hell, The odds are most people would shoot themselves or accidentally shoot someone else.
These are the types who shouldn't have guns.
Over 310 million people occupy this country now. There's too many people.
I just can't see how or why anyone should just be able to walk in and by a gun on a whim with no proper training.
Just be glad You don't have t carry liability insurance for that weapon.
That's another topic right there.
Yeah, you guessed it. I think gun owners should have to carry liability ins. You know, in case of an accident.
Damn, I wanted to keep this short.:)
I edited this , so it goes off track a little here and there. sorry about that.
I'll try to be quick also, and sorry for the late reply.
Yes quite a few people do take a drivers ed class, but it is not mandatory. Parents can teach their kids if they want and adults who have never received a license can have friends or family teach them. And I said I could see a test comparable to a drivers test for carrying a gun. If there was a way to make sure that it stayed that way, and was as easily available and comparable in cost.
There were mental health questions on my license to carry app also. If there were any concerns you had to get a letter from your Dr. stating you are no threat to yourself or others. Pretty much the same for a driver lic. And I would trust the persons Dr. more than an a law that states anyone with any history of mental illness is banned from owning a gun. I talked with someone recently that had to go through that, he was treated for depression 15 years ago, under what you propose he would be prohibited from owning a gun, let alone carrying it. And I'm good friends with someone who has a history of mental problems, he is a law abiding gun owner and carrier for the past 20 years or so, I trust him completely.
ETA for the drivers license I don't remember any mental health questions, just have you ever had seizures, been diagnosed with epilepsy, etc. And none of them were automatic dis-qualifiers.
And about the odds of shooting yourself or others, I've heard that claim repeatedly, but have rarely seen any cites to back it up. The few I have seen reference the Brady group that state that out of the 30,000 firearm deaths only 200 or so were justifiable homicide. They included suicides and homicides not just accidental deaths which was much much lower 600 or so if I remember right. I'm not disputing that it may be true that people kill themselves or others more than they kill criminals, but they neglect to mention how often a firearm is used for defense without ever being fired Here is a article that states 2.5 million defensive firearm uses per year.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
And the study it references.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm
I tried to keep it short also, its tough when you feel strongly on a subject though.
ETA I just thought of something, you want the training and testing etc. prior to purchasing the gun. How are they supposed to get the experience without a gun? Yes the training site could provide them, but do you have any idea how many different ones they would need to have? For semi-auto handguns, the differences between them are outrageous, just for safeties alone grip safety, trigger safety, thumb activated safety, internal safeties, etc. and various combinations of them. Not to mention single action only, double action only, sa/da, which applies to both pistols and revolvers and the safe operation of them. Plus the various sorts of long guns, bolt action, pump, single shot, auto loading.... and the different safeties on them.
.
Being a gun owner I have never felt compelled to carry a sidearm to a social event and most certainly not a political event. If there were a situation where I feel as though my safety is in jeopardy if I do not carry a sidearm.........I will stay home and watch the Daily Show. Anyone who shows up at a political event carrying a sidearm is a jackass clown and should be isolated from those who are at the event to engage in legitimate political discourse.
I do not want Wayne LaPierre or anyone who carries a sidearm to a political event to think that they are defending my 2nd Amendment Rights. I refuse to live in fear, I refuse the fear mongering put out by the NRA leadership, I am a sportsman, I do not need armor piercing bullets, sure, automatics are fun to shoot but I do not need one to go to the market to get a gallon of milk.
If someone believes that their life is in danger by all means fill your spare room full of any gun that you can get your hands on. But do not think for a second that because you as an individual lives in fear that you have the authority to protect MY 2nd Amendment Rights.
IMHO
Wouldn't you prefer to conceal carry viles of weapons grade Anthrax?
Its lighter, more compact, and provides one with the argument not to shoot you or the viles fall to the ground and nails everyone.
Why don't they try carrying their guns into Justice Scalia's office or court room?
Anthrax are a bit too non-discriminatory for my taste. If I feel the need to use lethal force to defend myself, my family or other innocents, I prefer to use something that I can control a bit better than that.
And as for carrying into a federal court building, that is against the law so I won't be doing it. Whether I agree with the law or not I try to follow it until it can be changed.
Oh and for being old fashioned, biological warfare predates firearms by many many years, they used it but didn't quite understand it. It was common in the middle ages and before to hurl the dead over the walls of cities under siege or dump them upstream of the source of water for a town.
Ah, poor guy stepped right in the poop and now he's trying to say its chocolate. He is perfectly Republican.
.
SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING
.
The threat does NOT come from professional criminals who get 75% of their guns by burglarizing them from the homes of NRA members and other nitwits who keep guns in their homes for "protection"--it comes from allowing "law abiding people" to own guns.
People who keep guns in their homes for "protection" are FOUR TIMES as likely to be shot or have a member of their family shot than people who do not own a gun.
People living in backward states such as Arizona, Texas and Colorado are TWICE as likely to get shot as are their counterparts in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.
Give a typewriter to each of a million monkeys and one of them will actually write something coherent. Allow a nation of 300 million people to own guns and tens of thousands will be murdered and hundreds of thousands maimed every year. It is time to ban the private ownership of firearms.
That will never happen.
...after the United States collapses under the weight of the stupidity of its own people and foreign troops disarm the dopes.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto WWII
There were enough firearms sold in the US to arm the entire Chinese and Indian armies, in 3 months alone. And 1.5 billion rounds of ammo in just Dec 08.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/22/usa-buys-e...
You also have to take into account that if the US collapses how much military armament will fall into private hands.
Good luck disarming everyone.
Also do you have cites for the stats you listed above? I assume that the 4x figure is including suicides, which the people that commit suicide are going to do it if there is a gun present or not. About half of the suicides in the US are not done with firearms.
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Age%20adjus...
They should have really nice, friendly Secret Service reps handing out cards at the rallies to all the assault weapon carrying nuts:
"Dear Sir/Madam,
The Secret Service respects and supports your right to bear arms.
However, please be advised that Secret Service sniper teams have been advised to shoot to kill should it appear that shouldered weapons are about to be raised, or should a weapon leave its holster.
Thanks, and have a great day.
Your Secret Service"
The right doesn't have a problem with someone being arrested for "disorderly conduct" in their own home for the mere act of yelling at a police officer. I'm sure they won't mind the police rounding up gun toting fools at these rallies to be charged with "disorderly conduct", after all the display of rifles like an AR-15 is an obvious intimidation tactic. We can at least round them up in cages like Bush did to anyone who wore the wrong shirt in the same city he happened to be in.
How many damn gun owner groups are there? I recall seeing a goofy little guy on teevee a few days ago with a lisp and wearing a bow tie. Who the hell is that?
NRA
GOA
JPFO (jewish)
Pink Pistols (glbt)
SCCC (college students)
Liberty Belles (women)
and a few more.
I wonder if 50 or 100 people showed up with AK-15's strapped to their backs would that be just citizens exercising their rights or would that be cause for concern among all of us. You can take the number as high as you want.
All these gun terrorist, braindead nuts, must have been dropped on their heads as babies or terribly abused to hate so much.
What will they do when organized groups of say 20 or 30 people with AR-15s and pseudo-uniforms show up with masks on? I do believe that is guaranteed by the constitution also.
Let's get down to the essential truth here.
The real reason these gun-toting idiots are packing is not to use them on whoever is speaking at event, the guns are there to intimidate those who oppose the gun-toters point of view.
My question is, if a bunch of toughs showed up packing clubs or bats or crowbars, would they be excluded? Of course they would.
The gun is merely another weapon used to frighten and intimidate decent people from attending the event, nothing more, and should be banned and the holder detained. Throw 'em in a paddy wagon and leave it in the hot sun and see how tough they are then.
Login or Register to post comments.