End Times and Current Events
July 04, 2020, 04:47:11 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Politicians respond to Connecticut school shooting

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 21   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Politicians respond to Connecticut school shooting  (Read 13184 times)
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #210 on: January 27, 2013, 04:54:40 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-quiet-force-gun-control-debate-does-want-184500482.html;_ylt=A2KJjb1uoAVR3GEAMG7QtDMD

1/16/13

Pentagon a quiet force in gun-control debate. What does it want?

The Pentagon has already successfully taken on the NRA over a pro-gun congressional measure that it didn't like. Now some retired officials are speaking out in the gun-control debate.

Even as President Obama announced sweeping gun-control initiatives Wednesday, one little-discussed contingent has been quietly influencing the debate behind the scenes: current and former US military commanders.

US military officials have already been successful in reversing one initiative backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Capitol Hill, which they worried could have a dangerous impact on US troops. Now, some prominent retired military officials are backing the administration's calls for "responsible gun ownership," including limits on military-style assault weapons.

Given their background, active and retired US military often have significant credibility in the gun-rights debate – both in Congress and
among the general public.

“I do think retired military officers have a bit more weight than, no offense, the stereotypical ‘knee-jerk New England liberals' do,” says retired Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, a psychiatrist and former mental health adviser to the Army surgeon general. “We’ve got credibility, we’ve worn the uniform, we’ve carried weapons. I like to go to the range and shoot – we’re not anti-weapon, per se.”

Earlier this month, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who served as the commander of US forces in Afghanistan and before that as head of the elite Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees US Navy SEAL and Delta Force missions, said that there is no reason for most Americans to have military-grade weapons.

“I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine,” he told MSNBC. “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round – which is 5.56 millimeters – at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

He added, “I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look – I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want – but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

Military commanders have not been shy about taking on pro-gun laws that they see as detrimental to their troops. For more than a year, they pushed Congress to change the language of a measure that prevented commanders from talking to their troops about weapons that they might be keeping at home.

These were conversations that commanders wanted to have as the suicide rate among US troops was rising amid a decade of war. More US troops now die as a result of suicide than in battle.

“A majority of [suicides] have two things in common – alcohol and a gun,” said retired Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli last year, when he was the No. 2 officer in the US Army. “And when you have somebody that you in fact feel is high risk, I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to tell that individual that it would not be a good idea to have a weapon around the house.”
In December, lawmakers voted to change the language to clearly allow commanders to talk with troops about firearms.

Dr. Ritchie's research has led her to deeper questions about guns and troop safety. She says troops are often at risk of harming themselves and others because of the easy access they have to firearms, both on base and at gun stores off-base.

As part of a team investigating military bases with escalating suicide rates, Ritchie found that one factor common to all these installations “is that they are in states with relatively permissive gun laws.”

She advocates for more gun safety education for troops. “I talk about things that I think might work,” she says. “I know it’s obviously a very emotionally charged issue, so I don’t use the term ‘gun control’ but ‘responsible gun ownership.’ ”

On Thursday, as President Obama was announcing new gun-control proposals – including a ban on assault weapons – Ritchie and McChrystal said that the conversation on weapons in America needs to continue. “I think it has gained a lot more traction now,” Ritchie says. “But there’s a lot further to go.”
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #211 on: January 28, 2013, 08:52:33 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/background-checks-peak-week-conn-shooting-215045463.html

1/28/13

Background checks peak in week after Conn shooting

WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI said Monday it conducted more background checks for firearms sales and permits to carry guns the week following the Newtown, Conn., shooting massacre that it has in any other one-week period since 1998.

The second highest week for background checks came earlier this month as President Barack Obama announced sweeping plans to curb gun violence. The FBI started keeping track of federally mandated background checks in 1998.

The newly released FBI data confirms what many gun dealers around the country have said about sales going up after the deadly Connecticut shooting that left 27 dead, including 20 children, as gun enthusiasts braced for stricter controls. The number of background checks does not represent the number of firearms purchased, but gun manufacturers use these statistics to measure the health of the gun industry in the U.S.

After the Dec. 14 shooting at a Newtown elementary school, the FBI conducted 953,613 background checks between Dec. 17 and Dec. 23. The highest number of background checks in a single day since 1998 was Dec. 21, just one week after a gunman shot and killed his mother at their Connecticut home using weapons his mother had legally purchased before he drove to the school and shot his way into the building. The second highest day for background checks was December 20.

During the week that Obama announced his plans to curb gun violence, the FBI conducted 641,501 background checks. The 10th highest single day for background checks came Jan. 19, three days after Obama spoke about gun violence and new gun control measures. Obama has announced a $500 million plan to tighten federal gun laws, and he is urging Congress to pass new laws that would ban "military-style assault weapons."
Nationally, there were nearly twice as many more background checks for firearms between November and December 2012 than during the same time period one year ago.

Background checks typically spike during the holiday shopping season, and some of the increases in the most recent FBI numbers can be attributed to that. But the number of background checks also tends to increase after mass shootings, when gun enthusiasts fear restrictive measures are imminent.

One gun store owner in Nashville, Tenn., said people in the business are calling this rush to buy guns after the Newton shooting a "banic," meaning people are panicked that Obama would ban guns.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #212 on: January 28, 2013, 11:03:59 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/police-push-background-checks-gun-purchases-023655912--politics.html

Police push for background checks on gun purchases

1/28/13

WASHINGTON (AP) — Law enforcement leaders who met with President Barack Obama Monday urged him to focus on strengthening gun purchase background checks and mental health systems, but did not unify behind his more controversial gun control efforts.

The message from sheriffs and police chiefs gathered at the White House reflected the political reality in Congress that the assault weapons ban in particular is likely to have a hard time winning broad support. The president appeared to recognize the challenge of getting everything he wants from Congress as well, participants in the meeting said.

"We're very supportive of the assault weapons ban," as police chiefs, said Montgomery County, Md., Police Chief J. Thomas Manger in an interview with The Associated Press. "But I think everybody understands that may be a real tough battle to win. And one of the things that the president did say is that we can't look at it like we have to get all of these things or we haven't won."

Opinions over an assault weapons ban and limits on high capacity magazines — two measures the president supports — were divided in the room. While Manger said the police chiefs from the large cities support that kind of gun control, some of the elected sheriffs who were in the meeting may not.

"I think what was made clear was that gun control in itself is not the salvation to this issue," said Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald of Story County, Iowa, one of 13 law enforcement leaders who met with the president, vice president and Cabinet members for more than an hour, seated around a conference table in the Roosevelt Room.

Among the participants included three chiefs that responded to the worst shootings of 2012, including Aurora, Colo., where 12 were killed in July; Oak Creek, Wis., where six died in an assault on a Sikh temple, and Newtown, Conn., scene of the most recent mass tragedy that left 20 first-graders dead.

The White House recognizes that police are a credible and important voice in the debate over guns that has developed following last month's elementary school shooting in Connecticut. Obama opened the meeting before media cameras and declared no group more important to listen to in the debate.

"Hopefully if law enforcement officials who are dealing with this stuff every single day can come to some basic consensus in terms of steps that we need to take, Congress is going to be paying attention to them, and we'll be able to make progress," Obama said.

Obama urged Congress to pass an assault weapons ban, limit high capacity magazines and require universal background checks for would-be gun owners in a brief statement to the reporters. But participants said after the media was escorted from the room, the focus was not on the assault weapons ban.

"He did not ask us if we do or do not support an assault weapons ban," said Hennepin County, Minn., Sheriff Richard Stanek, president of the Major County Sheriffs' Association. "He did not ask us if we do or do not support high capacity magazines."

"I told him very candidly that this isn't just about gun control alone," Stanek said. He said the bigger issue is that the Justice Department's system for background checks is incomplete since many states don't report mental health data or felony convictions. He mentioned how in his home state of Minnesota, a 14-year-old shot and killed his mother with a shot gun, but was later able legally to buy additional handguns and automatic weapons because the background check did not reveal his history. "There's example after example after example like that across the country," Stanek said.

Fitzgerald said the mental health system needs to be better funded because jails across the country are becoming "dumping grounds for the mentally ill."

"I was not the only sheriff that spoke up on that issue," Fitzgerald said. "To me, that is the No. 1 thing if we are going to impact that kind of violence that's happening in America."

All the law enforcement participants interviewed said they appreciated the president's attention to the issue and found the meeting constructive. Manger said the president did a lot more listening than talking and heard about the need to fund more police officers to protect school safety and a proposal to restrict the sale of ammunition on the Internet besides the broad calls for stronger mental health and background check systems.
Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, said he's never been more encouraged about the prospect of gun control legislation of some sort, even if the assault weapons ban his group supports is an uphill battle.

"You're not going to get 100 percent of people to agree on anything as it relates to gun control, and we're no different, but a majority of people in the room recognize that something needs to be done," he said. "This was not just a passing thing as far as the president and vice president are concerned. This is something that they are determined to keep in front of the American people until they get something passed."

While the assault weapons ban was not a major focus of the White House meeting, participants say it was discussed at length at a later meeting with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who sponsored a ban in 1994 that lasted for a decade and last week introduced a renewal of the ban in Congress.

"I would say her message was not well received overall by the group," Stanek said. "Everyone has an opinion on it one way or another."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #213 on: January 28, 2013, 11:08:01 pm »

Mat_12:30  He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #214 on: January 29, 2013, 04:47:32 am »

See, here's the real problem with the way guns are being dealt with; government isn't giving the public the opportunity to vote on such things. They just meet amongst themselves, write up a bill, and vote on it. No public involvement at all, and that to me is unconstitutional itself.

Seriously, since when did the public tell their representatives to ban anything? They haven't. In fact, the public opinion is just the opposite of what government says. I'm not sure how else one defines government tyranny!
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21636



View Profile
« Reply #215 on: February 02, 2013, 05:55:04 am »

Armed Guard Stops School Shooter Who Shot Classmates...
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55742445-68/shooting-atlanta-police-says.html.csp

Metal detectors fail to stop shooter...
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/02/01/metal-detectors-at-georgia-school-where-student-shot/

Newtown Calls for Armed School Officers...
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Newtown-Votes-for-Armed-School-Officers-189320221.html?dr
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21636



View Profile
« Reply #216 on: February 03, 2013, 05:33:07 pm »

I just want to say that the exploitation of those Sandy Hook kids s reaching just epic levels of disgusting. Really? at the Super Bowl? wow!
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #217 on: February 04, 2013, 03:03:06 am »

Yeah, saw that, and had the same thought, shameful. Exploiting dead children to further corrupt political causes. THAT is the style of the US government these days. No morals, just an attitude that they will take advantage of whatever opportunity exists.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #218 on: February 06, 2013, 04:36:02 pm »

I just want to say that the exploitation of those Sandy Hook kids s reaching just epic levels of disgusting. Really? at the Super Bowl? wow!

Yeah, saw that too - as much as I like watching the football games, that part before the game(and during the pre-game show) really disgusted me as well. It's as if you saw subliminal gun control messages as well(ie-James Brown from the CBS crew talked about trying to curb gun violence as well - shouldn't his job be to discuss the games, and nothing else?).

And speaking of that "power outage" after halftime, it likely had nothing to do to help the 49ers get back in the game - it was probably another attempt to condition the public for an imminent EMP attack.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21636



View Profile
« Reply #219 on: February 07, 2013, 10:30:32 am »

Friday, February 1, 2013
GOVERNMENT GUN GRAB
http://srcwm.webcastcenter.com/src/src_020113.wma

Hosts: Noah Hutchings, Larry Spargimino, and Bob Glaze
Guest: Larry Pratt

The president and his allies are attacking the Second Amendment and our rights to have guns as never before. Larry Pratt from Gun Owners of America talks about our rights as Americans and why the freedom to bear arms is essential to keep America free.

Bible in the News: Planned Parenthood Sets Abortion Record


Monday, February 4, 2013
GOD, GUNS, AND LIBERTY, Part 1
http://srcwm.webcastcenter.com/src/src_020413.wma

Host: Larry Spargimino
Guest: Michael Hoggard

Many law-abiding Americans are fearful that the president will find some way to seize their guns. Michael Hoggard explains the history of our gun rights and why it is so important to defend them.

Bible in the News: TBA


Tuesday, February 5, 2013
GOD, GUNS, AND LIBERTY, Part 2
http://srcwm.webcastcenter.com/src/src_020113.wma

Hosts: Noah Hutchings, Larry Spargimino, and Bob Glaze
Guest: Larry Pratt

The president and his allies are attacking the Second Amendment and our rights to have guns as never before. Larry Pratt from Gun Owners of America talks about our rights as Americans and why the freedom to bear arms is essential to keep America free.

Bible in the News: Planned Parenthood Sets Abortion Record


Monday, February 4, 2013
GOD, GUNS, AND LIBERTY, Part 1
http://srcwm.webcastcenter.com/src/src_020413.wma

Host: Larry Spargimino
Guest: Michael Hoggard

Many law-abiding Americans are fearful that the president will find some way to seize their guns. Michael Hoggard explains the history of our gun rights and why it is so important to defend them.

Bible in the News: TBA


Tuesday, February 5, 2013
GOD, GUNS, AND LIBERTY, Part 2


Host: Larry Spargimino
Guest: Michael Hoggard

Many law-abiding Americans are fearful that the president will find some way to seize their guns. Michael Hoggard explains the history of our gun rights and why it is so important to defend them.

Bible in the News: TBA

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #220 on: February 07, 2013, 04:25:27 pm »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/sylvester-stallone-gun-control_n_2602644.html

2/1/13

Sylvester Stallone Supports Gun Control: 'Bullet To The Head' Star Doesn't See Value In Assault Weapons

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Sylvester Stallone says that despite his "Rambo" image and new shoot-em-up film "Bullet to the Head," he's in favor of new national gun control legislation.

Stallone supported the 1994 "Brady bill" that included a now-expired ban on assault weapons, and hopes that ban can be reinstated.

"I know people get (upset) and go, `They're going to take away the assault weapon.' Who ... needs an assault weapon? Like really, unless you're carrying out an assault. ... You can't hunt with it. ... Who's going to attack your house, a (expletive) army?"

The 66-year-old actor, writer and director said he also hopes for an additional focus on mental health to prevent future mass shootings.

"It's unbelievably horrible, what's happened. I think the biggest problem, seriously, is not so much guns. It's that every one of these people that have done these things in the past 30 years are friggin' crazy. Really crazy! And that's where we've dropped the ball: mental health," he said. "That to me is our biggest problem in the future, is insanity coupled with isolation."

Stallone is now in production on his next project, pairing up with the former "Raging Bull" Robert De Niro for "Grudge Match," about two aging boxers.

"People think it's going to be some geezer brawl. Really? OK, they're in for a surprise. I'm telling you. I've been working on the fight, the choreography. He's taking it deadly serious. Because no one wants to be shown up," Stallone said of De Niro. "It's going to be like a `Rocky' fight. This will be `Rocky 7,' with me fighting – with Rocky fighting the `Raging Bull.'"
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #221 on: February 07, 2013, 08:53:59 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/calif-seeks-adopt-nations-toughest-gun-laws-220030130.html

2/7/13

Calif. seeks to adopt nation's toughest gun laws

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Weeks after New York enacted the nation's toughest gun laws, California lawmakers said Thursday they want their state to do even more in response to recent mass shootings, particularly the Connecticut school massacre.
 
Democrats who control the state Legislature revealed 10 proposals that they said would make California the most restrictive state for possessing firearms.
 
They were joined at a Capitol news conference by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, along with several police chiefs.
 
"California has always been a leader on the issue of gun safety," Villaraigosa said. "New York has stepped up and stepped forward. California needs to answer the call."
 
Among the measures is one that would outlaw the future sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The restriction would prevent quick reloading by requiring bullets to be loaded one at a time.
 
Lawmakers also want to make some prohibitions apply to current gun owners, not just to people who buy weapons in the future.
 
Like New York, California also would require background checks for buying ammunition and would add to the list of prohibited weapons.
 
Those buying ammunition would have to pay a fee and undergo an initial background check by the state Department of Justice, similar to what is required now before buyers can purchase a weapon. Subsequent background checks would be done instantly by an ammunition seller checking the Justice Department's records.
 
The legislation also would ban possession of magazines holding more than 10 bullets, even by those who now own them legally. All weapons would have to be registered.
 
Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, promised that gun proponents will fight the measures in court if they become law.
 
"It strikes me as if these folks are playing some sort of game of one-upsmanship with New York at the expense of law-abiding citizens, and that's just unconscionable," he said about lawmakers.
 
Three bills have been introduced, with others to come before this month's deadline for submitting legislation.
 
The measures are the most stringent to date among numerous proposals introduced this year to strengthen California's firearm regulations.
 
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said he is confident Democrats can use their majorities in the Assembly and Senate to send the measures to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown this year.
 
Brown has declined to comment on weapons legislation before it reaches him.
 
Steinberg said the measures are designed to close numerous loopholes that gun manufacturers have exploited to get around California's existing restrictions.
 
Those measures had been the strongest in the nation until Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed New York's new law last month.
 
Other proposed measures in California would ban so-called "bullet buttons" that can be used to quickly detach and reload magazines in semi-automatic rifles, and update the legal definition of shotguns to prohibit a new version that can rapidly fire shotgun shells and .45-caliber ammunition.
 
The state also would restrict the lending of guns to keep weapons from felons, mentally ill people and others who are prohibited from ownership.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #222 on: February 08, 2013, 12:21:12 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/senators-seek-deal-gun-sale-background-checks-083943375--politics.html

2/8/13

Senators seek deal on gun-sale background checks

WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with "F'' ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks.
 
A deal, given a good chance by several participants and lobbyists, could add formidable political momentum to one of the key elements of President Barack Obama's gun control plan. Currently, background checks are required only for sales by the nation's 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun show, person-to-person sales or other private transactions.
 
The senators' talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, said people who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to describe the negotiations publicly.
 
The private discussions involve liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is the No. 3 Senate Democratic leader; West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, an NRA member and one of the chamber's more moderate Democrats; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., another NRA member and one of the more conservative lawmakers in Congress; and moderate GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois.

more
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #223 on: February 08, 2013, 02:00:00 pm »

Quote
Currently, background checks are required only for sales by the nation's 55,000 federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun show, person-to-person sales or other private transactions.

And that shows you where the real problem is; at the federal level.

Again, the federal government is trying to infringe on the rights of the states, wanting to impose on them requirements that violate the Constitution. And the only way to stop it is for the state's representatives to stop doing the bidding of the federal level, and return to doing as their constituents tell them. The House and Senate would need to basically clean house of a bunch of laws, unraveling decades of unconstitutional legislation, and disband multiple "federal agencies" such as the Department of Education, that are nothing but redundant, invasive, over budget, unaffordable, and in many cases, unconstitutional.

Ultimately, we know what the federal motivation is, and that nothing will change it but Jesus in the end. Until then, I suspect the governments of the world will continue to encroach more and more on citizen's rights, and moving from legislative options to mandates.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21636



View Profile
« Reply #224 on: February 11, 2013, 06:53:17 am »

Surprise investigations aimed at homeschoolers
Connecticut cites need for 'confidential behavioral health assessment'


In what critics are seeing as an ultimate power grab, state officials in Connecticut are pushing forward a bill to require state investigations of children like never before – calling for a “confidential behavioral health assessment” of every public school student in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12, and every homeschool student at ages 12, 14 and 17.

The proposed Bill 374 is being described as the ultimate home invasion.

“It’s outrageous that state officials could come into private homes and potentially remove children if they are assessed as a threat as a result of the investigation,” Home School Legal Defense Association Senior Counsel Dee Black told WND in an interview.

“Regardless of what state officials claim, I don’t believe the results [of the investigations] will be held confidential.”

Black, who provides legal assistance and advice for HSLDA members in what is ironically nicknamed the “Constitution State,” sees this proposed measure as anything but constitutional.

And when asked if the psychological tests given by the social services hands the state too much unchecked power – enabling government officials to seize and tag children as mentally unfit or maladjusted – Black answered definitively.

“No question about it,” asserted the Memphis State University School of Law graduate. “I don’t think people who live in a free society should be forced to give into mental evaluations of their children.”

He contends such intrusions are both unwarranted and unconscionable.

“Proposed Bill 374 would essentially authorize the state to conduct regular social services investigations of homeschooling families without any basis to do so,” asserts Black, who earned a Master of Laws degree at Georgetown University Law Center. “This outrageous legislative proposal must be stopped in its tracks before it gains any momentum.”

The key motivation behind such a bill including homeschoolers?

“The alleged [Sandy Hook] shooter was allegedly homeschooled for a while, but I’m not sure if it could have anything to do with it,” said Black, who has educated all four of his children at home with his wife. “The bill only covers homeschool and public school students – not conventional private school students. The heightened sensitivity in Connecticut about safety in schools could certainly be a factor [behind the bill] … trying to identify threats before they become a tragedy.”


And just what takes place during these in investigations?

“According to the Connecticut Behavioral Health Partnership, a state organization made up of the Department of Children and Families, Department of Social Services, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, and others, a behavioral health assessment is quite comprehensive and invasive,” reports Black, who’s been practicing law for 36 years.

“It includes ‘a review of physical and mental health, intelligence, school performance, employment, level of function in different domains including family situation, and behavior in the community.’”

Putting things into perspective, Black warns that parents could see social services following their children around their neighborhoods, observing them interacting at home with their families, showing up at their work, inspecting their classroom performance, administering IQ tests, psychologically analyzing them and physically examining their bodies.

When would students be subjected to all of this?

“Proposed Bill 374, filed in the Connecticut General Assembly, would require all homeschooled children ages 12, 14, and 17 to undergo a behavioral health assessment,” said Black, who has served with HSLDA as senior counsel for nearly two decades. “These assessments would be conducted by an unspecified health care provider and would be conducted even though there was no indication whatsoever that these children had a behavioral problem.”

And Black warns that the results might not be as private as the state claims.

“The bill states that the results of the assessments are to be disclosed only to the child’s parent or guardian, but that the health care provider must submit a form to the State Board of Education verifying that the child has received the assessment,” he said.

He urges homeschoolers and any Americans concerned about the violation of children’s constitutional rights to act now.

“Immediately contact members of the committee and express … opposition to this unwarranted invasion of family privacy,” Black said. “This legislation is sponsored by Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp (10th Dist.) and Rep. Toni E. Walker (93rd Dist.), [and] the bill is presently in the Public Health Committee.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/surprise-investigations-aimed-at-homeschoolers/#8BibHtr1Jt4tQHSl.99
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #225 on: February 11, 2013, 03:45:17 pm »

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/11/16926184-gabby-giffords-stars-in-new-gun-control-tv-ad

2/11/13

Gabby Giffords stars in new gun-control TV ad

Americans for Responsible Solutions, the organization founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) and her husband Mark Kelly, has released a new TV ad in the campaign to curb gun violence.

"We have a problem -- where we shop, where we pray, where our children go to school," Giffords says in the ad. "But there are solutions we can agree on, even gun owners like us. Take it from me: Congress must act. Let's get this done."

Video link inside

The ad -- at a six-figure buy -- will air this week in DC, as well in the cities represented by congressional leaders: San Francisco (Nancy Pelosi); Cincinnati, OH (John Boehner); Louisville, KY (Mitch McConnell); and Las Vegas, NV (Harry Reid).
 
And it comes after Giffords and her husband recently sat down with the New York Times for an interview. "Ms. Giffords, a former Democratic congresswoman from Arizona, a gun owner, an astronaut’s wife, a shooting survivor and an incipient gun-control advocate, is settling into the third act of her public life. Her career as a lawmaker is behind her, but so is her role as the fragile, slightly mysterious victim in the months after she was shot point-blank in a parking lot here just over two years ago. Now, she is the face and emotional dynamism behind a new advocacy group and a separate political action committee, Americans for Responsible Solutions, dedicated to reducing gun violence. It is an effort, she said, that gives her 'purpose.'"

Giffords and Kelly also will attend President Obama's State of the Union on Tuesday.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21636



View Profile
« Reply #226 on: February 12, 2013, 04:03:10 am »

Biden: We’re counting on ‘legitimate media’ for successful gun control effort

During a press conference on gun safety in Philadelphia, Vice President Joe Biden said that any reports that suggest that he was trying to take weapons away from gun owners was a “bunch of malarkey.”

"I know that's a word that you've never heard before, although it's now in the dictionary," Biden boasted.

Biden said that it was important for the media to dissuade the American public from the idea that the Obama administration was prepared to do something unconstitutional on guns.

“To be very blunt with you, we’re counting on all of you, the legitimate news media to cover these discussions because the truth is that times have changed,” Biden added, warning that people would continue to “misrepresent” the White House's plans for gun control.

"The social media that exists out there, the tragedies that have occurred, the Supreme Court decision affirming that its an individual right to bear arms - all give a lie to the argument that what we're trying to do is somehow unconstitutional, or somehow goes after the legitimate right to own and bear arms and to hunt and protect yourselves," Biden added.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/biden-were-counting-on-legitimate-media-for-successful-gun-control-effort/article/2521184

Wow, he means he is expecting the media to support and change Americans minds, just like with their propaganda just as they have done with gay marriage and anything else that is left oriented, like global warming.

‘legitimate media’ that means anything that is MSM oh and fake news programs that stupid sheeple think is real, like the daily show. Is comedy not news!!!
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #227 on: February 12, 2013, 04:52:50 am »

Quote
“To be very blunt with you, we’re counting on all of you, the legitimate news media to cover these discussions because the truth is that times have changed,” Biden added,

possible translation:

"Listen up scum, you need to tow the socialist line we have implemented, and make sure you put out plenty of misinformation so the useless eaters get the idea guns are bad, and only criminals want to own guns, and seeing we have changed the way we do government in the US, the media is expected to play along with their comrade leaders."
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21636



View Profile
« Reply #228 on: February 14, 2013, 01:15:56 pm »

Missouri Democrats Introduce Legislation to Confiscate Firearms – Gives Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Weapons

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Dana Loesch Radio reported on the new legislation being pushed by Missouri Democrats:

    Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

    4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

    (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

    (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

    (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

    5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #229 on: February 14, 2013, 11:36:32 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/homeland-security-cache-bullets-190840538.html

Homeland Security and its cache of bullets

2/14/13

WASHINGTON (AP) — Online rumors about a big government munitions purchase are true, sort of.
 
The Homeland Security Department wants to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the next four or five years. It says it needs them — roughly the equivalent of five bullets for every person in the United States — for law enforcement agents in training and on duty.
 
Published federal notices about the ammo buy have agitated conspiracy theorists since the fall. That's when conservative radio host Alex Jones spoke of an "arms race against the American people" and said the government was "gearing up for total collapse, they're gearing up for huge wars."

more
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #230 on: February 15, 2013, 10:17:51 am »

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/senate-gun-grab-bill-could-be-more-disastrous-than-feinstein-bill_022013

Senate Gun Grab Bill Could Be More Disastrous Than Feinstein Bill

2/14/13

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 54 on January 22, 2013. The bill, titled Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013, is a cleverly disguised gun grab. How so? According to Gun Owners of America (GOA) the bill “could end gifts and raffles of firearms, and possibly ‘necessitate’ gun licensure across the country.”

GOA’s Michael Hammond writes

Quote
At its core, Section 3 would send a person to prison for 20 years if you ATTEMPTED or PLANNED (“conspired”) to buy a firearm as a gift for another person or to conduct a raffle of a firearm, and negligently failed to note that the gift recipient or the winner of the raffle was, for instance, a veteran with PTSD who had been placed by the Department of Veteran Affairs onto the NICS list.
 
Note that you don’t have to actually transfer the firearm to go to prison for 20 years, nor do you have to know that the proposed recipient is a prohibited person. It is enough that you acted negligently, that you planned to gift or raffle the firearm, and that you engaged in one “overt act” necessary for conspiracy to take effect (e.g., getting in your car to drive to the gun shop).
 
In fact, the veteran or “prohibited person” doesn’t even have to be on the NICS list and doesn’t have to know they are a prohibited person. A marijuana smoker is a “user of … [a] controlled substance.” If you buy a gun with the intention of gifting or raffling to one of those, you can go to prison for 20 years, be subject to draconian forfeiture provisions (933(a)), be prosecuted and sued under RICO (933(c)), and be prosecuted for money laundering (933(d)). In other words, unless you’re “feeling lucky,” the bill would effectively outlaw gifting and raffling firearms.
 
Finally, buying a gun for any other person — even though it’s perfectly legal for him to own a gun — is illegal under all circumstances except for a gift or a raffle. Hence, if a person buys an AR-15 in another state where he has a vacation home (under 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3)) and leaves it with a friend in that state for safekeeping — 20 years.

But there are other issues in the bill.
 
For instance Section 5 could theoretically prohibit anyone in the country from owning a firearm without a license. Yes, it’s bizarre to say the least seeing that this would be state legislation that would cross state lines.
 
The text of Section 5 reads,

Quote
Section 922(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
 
(1) in paragraph (Cool, by striking `or’ at the end;
 
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and inserting `;’; and
 
(3) by striking the matter following paragraph (9) and inserting the following:
 
`(10) is prohibited by State or local law from possessing, receiving, selling, shipping, transporting, transferring, or otherwise disposing of the firearm or ammunition;
 
`(11) intends to sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm or ammunition to a person described in any of paragraphs (1) through (10); or
 
`(12) intends to sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm or ammunition in furtherance of a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense or to export the firearm or ammunition in violation of law.
 
This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925.’.

So if you are a person who is prohibited by State or local law from possessing a firearm, according to the emphasized portion of the legislation, you are not banned by federal law and presumably it would be mandated that you were placed in the NICS system.
 
I suppose the laughable part of the legislation is Section 7, which deals with someone who “smuggles or knowingly brings into the United States, a firearm or ammunition, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined under this title, or both.”
 
I’m guessing this would apply to the Obama Justice Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Eric Holder and many subordinates, maybe even Barack Obama himself. Yeah, I’m not holding my breath on that one.
 
GOA also pointed out, in an action alert, that “Gun Owners of America today submitted testimony at the request of the Ranking Member of the Senate Constitution Subcommittee. GOA took a strong stance against all the gun control legislation on the table and urged the Senate to put forth real solutions to school violence — like letting teachers and principals protect their students.”

The pro-Second Amendment group also warns,

Quote
The Judiciary Committee bill will probably not contain the Feinstein semi-auto gun ban, and it may or may not have a magazine ban which would render most of the nation’s guns unusable, at least for the foreseeable future.
 
But the Judiciary Committee bill will almost certainly ban all private sales of firearms — or any private exchange where the gun buyer does not first get permission from the FBI. And it’s this background check requirement that will inevitably set up a framework for a universal gun registry.
 
The Leahy bill will most certainly have a “gun trafficking” section that is based on other legislation (S. 54) that he’s already introduced. This would turn everyone who lives under repressive state gun laws into a federal “prohibited person,” as well. Hence, if your state requires a license to possess a gun, you would also become a federal prohibited person. Oh, and the Leahy bill would also send you to prison for 20 years for unknowingly selling a firearm to a marijuana user. So, the next time you’re thinking of selling a gun, all we can say is: “Are you felling lucky?”
 
Anyway, here’s Harry Reid’s strategy: He has at least eleven Democratic senators running for reelection in pro-gun states in 2014 — and they don’t want to SEEM anti-gun. The eleven Democratic senators in pro-gun states are: Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mark Udall (Colorado), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Al Franken (Minnesota), Max Baucus (Montana), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Tom Udall (New Mexico), Kay Hagan (North Carolina), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), and Mark Warner (Virginia).
 
All of these Democrats will vote for the national gun registry and gun licensure. And, in exchange, Reid will allow them to vote against the Feinstein gun ban, which will be the sacrificial lamb to the more important gun control which Democrats really want.

The solution to the wave of gun control legislation is simple. GOA concludes, “First, we cannot allow one word of gun control to move to the Senate floor; not one word.”
 
“Second, the way we keep gun control from reaching the Senate floor is to defeat the “motion to proceed” to the Leahy Bill,” GOA adds. (The “motion to proceed” is usually offered by the Senate Majority Leader — in this case Harry Reid — to bring up a bill for consideration. The Senate quite often brings up legislation under a Unanimous Consent agreement, but if there is not unanimity, the “motion to proceed” can usually be debated, if not filibustered.)
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #231 on: February 16, 2013, 04:00:35 am »

Quote
All of these Democrats will vote for the national gun registry and gun licensure. And, in exchange, Reid will allow them to vote against the Feinstein gun ban, which will be the sacrificial lamb to the more important gun control which Democrats really want.

Since when did a majority leader, or any politician, get the authority to tell fellow politicians how they are "allowed" to vote? See just how far we have drifted away from how the system is suppose to work? It's suppose to be what the citizens want of their representative, not determined by what one person wants.

This country is so in trouble.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #232 on: February 17, 2013, 01:47:41 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-lawmakers-move-forward-gun-control-measures-233724875.html

2/16/13

Colorado lawmakers move forward on new gun-control measures

DENVER (Reuters) - The Democratic-controlled Colorado House of Representatives approved a package of strict gun-control measures late on Friday, in a state rocked by two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history.
 
After a marathon session that stretched late into the evening, the state House voted to advance the proposals with little support from Republicans, but with a boost from Vice President Joe Biden, who called several wavering Democratic lawmakers and urged them to vote for the measures.
 
The proposals passed on a voice vote, with a formal vote scheduled for Monday. The bills must also pass a final vote in the state Senate, also controlled by Democrats, before it heads to Governor John Hickenlooper's desk.
 
Among the proposals are bills that would require background checks for all gun purchases - paid for by applicants - a ban on ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds and a measure to allow colleges in the state to ban concealed weapons on campus.
 
"We had a full and fair debate, which is exactly how the process is supposed to work," House Speaker Mark Ferrandino said in a statement. "Opinions were sharply divided, but we got our work done, and I thank members on both sides of the aisle."
 
House Republican leader Mark Waller characterized the bills as a "knee-jerk reaction" to last year's massacre of school children in Connecticut and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado.
 
"They (Democrats) are passing these without any evidence that there will be any impact on public safety," Waller told Reuters on Saturday.
 
Colorado has been shaken by two of the worst mass shootings in recent U.S. history. In 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton shot dead a teacher and 12 students before turning their guns on themselves.
 
Last July, a gunman opened fire inside an Aurora theater, killing 12, and wounding 58 others. The accused shooter, James Holmes, is awaiting trial on multiple counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder.
 
Emotions ran high during debate in Denver on Friday.
 
Several Democrats said they had received death threats for supporting gun control bills, and a gun-rights lobbyist was escorted out of the Capitol after a Republican lawmaker complained she was told a gun-rights group would run ads against her if she supported any of the bills.
 
And a Colorado-based manufacturer of ammunition magazines threatened to leave Colorado if a ban on high-capacity magazines becomes law, taking some 600 jobs with them.
 
Democrats amended the magazine-limit bill to allow the company to continue to sell the magazines for out-of-state use, leading Waller to call the Democrats hypocritical.
 
"Democrats stood in the well of the House and recounted all the mass shootings nationwide, then put in the amendment that says the company can sell magazines in every other state, including those that had tragic shootings," he said.
 
Biden's call to lawmakers during the debate asking them "to stay the course" is evidence state Democrats are being pressured to advance the president's gun-control agenda, Waller said.
 
Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said this week he supported the magazine limits and universal background check measures, but was undecided on the college campus ban.
 
(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Todd Eastham)
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #233 on: February 18, 2013, 07:55:36 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/colo-house-passes-gun-control-measures-211816177.html

2/18/13

Colo. House passes gun-control measures

DENVER (AP) — Limits on the size of ammunition magazines and universal background checks passed the Colorado House on Monday, during a second day of emotional debates that has drawn attention from the White House as lawmakers try to address recent mass shootings.
 
The bills were among four that the Democratic-controlled House passed amid strong resistance from Republicans, who were joined by a few Democrats to make some of the votes close.
 
The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to 15 rounds for firearms, and eight for shotguns. Three Democrats joined all Republicans voting no on the bill, but the proposal passed 34-31.
 
"Enough is enough. I'm sick and tired of bloodshed," said Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields, a sponsor of the bill and representative of the district where the shootings at an Aurora theater happened last summer. Fields' son was also fatally shot in 2005.
 
Republicans argued that the proposals restrict Second Amendment rights and won't prevent mass shootings like the ones in Aurora and a Connecticut elementary school.
 
"This bill will never keep evil people from doing evil things," said Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg.
 
The House also approved a bill requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those between private sellers and firearms bought online.
 
Other proposals would ban concealed firearms at colleges and stadiums, and another requires that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks. Democrats eked out the closest vote on the background check measure, which passed on a 33-32 vote.
 
Democratic Rep. Ed Vigil, who represents rural southern Colorado, voted against the four bills, saying his decision was rooted in the state's rugged history.
 
"This is part of our heritage. This is part of what it took to settle this land. I cannot turn my back on that," he said.
 
But even though a few Democrats joined Republicans in voting no for the bills, the Democrats' 37-28 advantage in the House gave them enough leeway.
 
The Senate still needs to consider the proposals. Democrats will need to be more unified in their support there because their advantage is only 20-15. That means Republicans need only three Democrats to join them to defeat the bills.
 
House lawmakers began debating the bills Friday. Lawmakers debated for 12 hours before giving initial approval to the bills, setting up the final recorded votes Monday. During the debate Friday, Vice President Joe Biden called four Democrats, including two in moderate districts, to solidify support for the measures.
 
Democratic Rep. Dominick Moreno, who represents a district in suburban Denver, was among the four lawmakers. He said Biden "emphasized the importance of Colorado's role in shaping national policy around this issue."
 
Castle Rock Republican Rep. Carole Murray brought up Biden's calls during Monday's debate, saying she didn't appreciate "East-coast politicians" trying to influence Colorado legislators.
 
Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper supports the expanded background checks, and thinks gun buyers should pay for them. He also said he may support limits on the size of magazines, if lawmakers agree to a number between 15 and 20. He said he hasn't decided whether to support banning concealed firearms on campuses and stadiums.
 
Republicans say students should have the right to defend themselves.
 
"Do not disarm our young adults in general and our young women in particular on our college campuses in the name of a gun-free zone," Republican Rep. Jim Wilson said.
 
The gun debate highlights a fundamental philosophical difference between many Democrats and Republicans.
 
"I resent the implication that unless we all arm ourselves we will not be adequately protected," said Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, the Democrats' leader in the House.
 
Republican Rep. Christ Holbert became emotional while explaining his opposition to the bills. He said he understood Fields cares about the bills, because of her district and because her son was shot and killed in 2005.
 
"But I care passionately about the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state, and the oath that we have taken," Holbert said.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #234 on: February 19, 2013, 01:27:53 am »

Background checks on private sales ain't going to fly. That's about as unreasonable and unrealistic as it gets. No, it's downright stupid, not to mention an attempt by government to close the noose even further.

No law will ever stop people from doing evil things. Never has, never will.

Seriously, consider that it is illegal to shoot somebody. And it's illegal to commit murder, but people still do it every day, even when there is a death penalty at risk.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #235 on: February 19, 2013, 04:55:18 pm »

http://news.msn.com/us/comcast-pulls-all-gun-ads-from-cable-network

Comcast pulls all gun ads from cable network

2/19/13

Gun shop owners are taking issue with the cable company's new policy banning firearms-related ads.

Gun shop owners are miffed that Comcast has decided to stop accepting firearms-related ads on its nationwide cable television network.

Tom Wright, owner of Williams Gun Sight in Davison, Mich., said he'll take his advertising business elsewhere.

"I thought it was ridiculous; we are a legitimate business, we have been here for 80 years," he told ABC12.

Wright said Comcast last week rejected his request through an ad agency to rerun a 30-second ad — a spot that it ran last fall — on local cable television.

"Obviously, this is an attempt on the part of Comcast to help promote an anti-gun agenda," the gun accessories company said on its Facebook page. "Williams is encouraging all of our customers and friends to voice your concerns directly with your local Comcast provider and consider cancelling your subscription."

Eric Elliott of VIP Marketing told The Post and Courier of Charleston, S.C., that he wanted to buy local spots on the night of Feb. 12, coinciding with the presidential State of the Union address, to advertise "ladies night" at the ATP Gunshop and Range in Summerville, S.C. He said he was informed by Comcast that the ads would not be accepted due to the new policy.

"Is it that they are trying to make a statement? If so, what is the statement? The most popular programs on these cable systems are shows with guns in them," Elliott told The Post and Courier.

In a statement provided to MSN News on Tuesday, Comcast Spotlight, the advertising sales division of Comcast Cable, said:

"Consistent with longstanding NBC policies, Comcast Spotlight has decided it will not accept new advertising for firearms or weapons moving forward. This policy aligns us with the guidelines in place at many media organizations."

Comcast is the largest cable television company in the United States, with 22 million subscribers in 39 states. It recently announced that it would become the sole owner of NBC Universal, purchasing the 49 percent stake it doesn't already own from General Electric for $16.7 billion.

Comcast declined further comment on the new ad policy.

Comcast joins a list of media companies, including ESPN and Time Warner Cable, that have banned or restricted firearms-related commercials in the aftermath of the shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December. Twenty first-graders and six adults were killed by a 20-year-old gunman, Adam Lanza, who then committed suicide.

Comcast's new ad policy also didn't sit well with gun-rights supporters, one of whom wrote on Williams Gun Sight's Facebook page:

"Just called Comcast and cancelled. I am tired of my $$ going to support anti 2nd amendment corporations. I can't believe the way they talk out both sides by showing gun violence every single night but won't accept $$ from a legitimate, legal, honest business like Williams! ENOUGH! Time to take a stand!"
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 05:05:34 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #236 on: February 20, 2013, 02:29:37 am »

Comcast was just ranked as one of the most complained about companies for poor customer service. Typical.

More people need to stop using their service, and all cable companies, satellite too. What a rip off. We pay way too much for too little service.

A bunch of junk channels they push on you in their "packages" that nobody would watch if they were individual channels and wouldn't make it on their own, plus they keep showing the same movies over, and over, and over, movies that have been shown on free network tv multiple times! And they expect people to keep paying for that stuff? Why pay an extra monthly fee for a movie channel that shows movies over and over again every month? It's stupid.

And what really gets me is this new extra charge for "HD" service. Pay extra monthly for a signal that is already HD? Really? And to top that, DirecTV wants you to pay $99 upfront for a HD receiver, plus the extra $10/month just to get HD signal (and you must sign a 2 year contract like the cell companies do which I refuse to do). You no pay extra, you no get HD service on any channel.

Now they are ripping people off on that, but if you get an HD antenna, you can get around 20 channels free, over the air, in true HD. Now how can the broadcast channels blast out HD signals for free, yet we have to pay DirecTV extra for a HD box, plus an extra fee each month? Theft is how.

Personally, I'm setting up my living room tv (run through home theater) with internet service (browsing the internet on a 55" screen is awesome!), and got a HD antenna to check how the channels are locally, and I must say they are an awesome picture. Definite HD signals, for free. We recently got a new 55" HD LCD, and are seriously considering dropping DirecTV completely and just use internet, and free broadcast tv. We already pay $50/month for internet, so we aren't happy paying right at $70/month (no movie channels at all for that price!) for DirecTV for their next to basic service.

Out of the channels we get in our package, we watch MAYBE 20 of the channels, and the ones we watch the most, maybe 10 channels. The rest are a waste of money, and I don't think most of those channels would make it if it were not for being part of a channel package where you must take the channel. Most cable channels wouldn't be around long at all if it were a la cart.

Like so many things in this world, tv service is bad and getting worse.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 02:34:03 am by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21636



View Profile
« Reply #237 on: February 20, 2013, 03:41:55 am »

Gun-owner home searches 'Orwellian'
Democrats scramble to explain unconstitutional 'inspection'


A provision in a Washington-state gun-control bill is so draconian that even its sponsors backtracked or denied any knowledge of it when they were confronted by a left-leaning local columnist.

The “Orwellian” measure, reported Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat, would allow the county sheriff to inspect the homes of owners of so-called “assault weapons” to ensure they’re storing their weapons safely.

A long-time Seattle radio talk-host, Dori Monson of KIRO, commented that whether the Democrat sponsors had no knowledge of the provision, as most claim, or whether they intentionally tried to pass it, Washington voters should be concerned.

“Either way, we have put control of our state in the hands of some really dangerous people,” he said.

While there is fierce debate over whether gun-control laws violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, the bill’s home-inspection provision appears to be a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches.

The bill’s chief aim is to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. It would prohibit clips that contain more than 10 rounds.

The provision that has even lawmakers on the left concerned addresses the thousands of semi-automatic weapons already owned by state residents.

Senate Bill 5737 states: “In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

Failure to comply could result in a year in jail.

Westneat cited the Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the bill to his attention.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder,” said Lance Palmer.

Palmer noted he’s a liberal Democrat who voted for a Republican only once in his life.

“But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover,” he said.

“It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

A sponsor of the bill, a Seattle Democrat, told Westneat he didn’t know the bill authorized police searches.

“I made a mistake,” Adam Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, confessed it’s probably unconstitutional.

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

Murray explained to Westneat he came to realize an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year, so he inserted the provision as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.”

Monson said one of his listeners received a reply from another sponsor, Democratic Sen. Jeannie Kohl-Welles, who called the provision “an error in the preparation of the bill.”

She said that if she had known it was in the bill, she wouldn’t have signed on as a sponsor.

“Of course I should have read the bill in its entirety prior to signing onto it; however, I received a briefing on it without mention of the warrantless search language,” the lawmaker said.

New York was the first state to pass strict controls on guns after the Sandy Hook shooting, banning assault weapons and magazines.

But as WND reported yesterday, Democratic lawmakers in gun-friendly Colorado, under pressure from the White House, have proposed a flurry of gun control bills, including one that would hold gun makers and owners responsible for any crimes committed by their weapons.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/gun-owner-home-searches-called-orwellian/#KVi4Ox1VRvUhOY7F.99
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #238 on: February 20, 2013, 01:50:45 pm »

Quote
While there is fierce debate over whether gun-control laws violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, the bill’s home-inspection provision appears to be a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches.

The problem with this angle is that they already have provisions for such inspections when you get a FFL, and it is up to the sheriff to inspect how you store your weapons. That's for a federal firearms license, but that still doesn't make it legal under the Constitution.

Not sure it's a 4th violation, seeing it's under the terms of standards, which I suspect would be their "probable cause". Now if there is not specific reasons for police entering the home, that's a different story.

Is it a 2nd Amendment violation? Personally, I understand the Constitution to say any regulation or restrictions on what arms a person bears is a violation. Restrictions and regulations clearly ignores "shall not be infringed".
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #239 on: February 21, 2013, 12:28:11 pm »

It seems like the anti-gun lobby and the NWO-runned media will do everything they can to get their agendas through. This case has NOTHING to do with guns(or lack thereof). ZERO.

http://news.yahoo.com/pistorius-applied-licenses-6-more-guns-182418063--oly.html

Pistorius applied for licenses for 6 more guns

2/21/13

JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Oscar Pistorius applied for firearm licenses for six more guns weeks before the shooting death of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp inside his house on Feb. 14, according to official records obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday.
 
The applications were made on Jan. 22, just over three weeks before Pistorius shot his girlfriend dead in his home with a licensed 9 mm pistol.
 
The athlete says the killing of Steenkamp was accidental as he thought she was a dangerous intruder inside his bathroom. Prosecutors say the double-amputee athlete intended to kill his girlfriend and have charged him with premediated murder.
 
In details obtained from the South African Police Service's National Firearms Center and given over the telephone, Pistorius applied for licenses for a Smith & Wesson model 500 revolver, a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver, a Vector .223-caliber rifle and three shotguns: A Mossberg shotgun, a Maverick shotgun and a Winchester shotgun.

more
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 21   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy