End Times and Current Events
September 24, 2022, 07:47:33 pm
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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 21   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Politicians respond to Connecticut school shooting  (Read 26113 times)
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #510 on: May 19, 2014, 12:17:21 pm »

Quote
Since 2011, regulators have increased scrutiny on banks’ customers. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2011 urged banks to better manage the risks of their merchant customers who employ payment processors, such as PayPal, for credit card transactions. The FDIC listed gun retailers as “high risk” along with **** stores and drug paraphernalia shops.

And the banking system is also doing the same to churches in America - instead of the normal 30 or so year mortgage that homeowners, business owners, etc would get for their homes/buildings, they ONLY get 5 years(where they have to pay everything back, principal + interest, at the end of the 5 years).

With that being said - it's been going on since 2011? And even the "conservative" media outlets like the Washington Times, FOX, etc wait until NOW to say anything about it?
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21752



View Profile
« Reply #511 on: May 23, 2014, 07:16:49 am »

A Durham, North Carolina restaurant with a sign on its front door reading, "No Weapons, No Concealed Firearms," was robbed at gunpoint on May 19.

Gunsnfreedom.com published a photograph of the sign on May 21, making "The Pit" restaurant a self-declared gun free zone--the same kind of zone Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America pressure other restaurants into becoming.

According to Durham's ABC 11, around 9 PM "three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor." The armed men "also assaulted two employees during the crime."

The suspects are still on the loose.

When Chipotle announced their intended gun ban by saying the sight of law-abiding citizens carrying guns caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," Breitbart News responded with a simple question:

    If law-abiding citizens caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," what will those customers feel like when a criminal enters Chipotle, now confident that no victim in the restaurant is allowed to have a gun which which to fight back?

Perhaps the armed attack on "The Pit" can be of some help in answering this question.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/22/Restaurant-With-No-Weapons-No-Concealed-Firearms-Sign-Robbed-At-Gunpoint
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: 21752



View Profile
« Reply #512 on: May 23, 2014, 04:32:27 pm »

Armed Robbers Find A New Hangout In Jack In The Box
Third robbery in a month


What seems to be the new hangout spot for gun-toting villains, Jack in the Box, suffered their 3rd armed robbery in the few short weeks since they caved to Shannon Watts and her Everytown for Gun Safety campaign calling on the restaurant to restrict its gun-owning and law abiding patrons from carrying firearms into the establishment.

The latest robbery happened for a second time in Houston, where four armed men wearing masks robbed the store in broad daylight.

According to click2houston.com, “the men rushed into the restaurant around 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, at the height of the lunch rush, and demanded money from two customers and employees,” before rushing out and driving away in a black Toyota 4Runner.

A patron who was there followed the men, eventually helping officers detain the driver.  The other three armed men are still at large.

Brian Luscomb, the Jack in the Box Vice President of Corporate Communications, said after caving to the pressure of the anti-gun group, “Creating a warm and inviting environment for all of our guests and employees is a top priority for Jack in the Box. The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences. While we respect the rights of all our guests, we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurants.”

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/armed-robbers-find-new-hangout-jack-box
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 #513 on: May 23, 2014, 04:59:28 pm »

I worked in retail 20 years ago(Blockbuster Video) - pretty much, these retail stores are the last stores anyone would want to rob b/c the cash registers are only allowed to carry so much(ie-when it gets up to a certain limit like $400 or so, they clean it out and put it in a safe, and do as best as they can to keep a max of $200 in them).

IOW, anyone who wants to rob any of these stores SHOULD know that it's NOT worth spending 15 years in jail over a meaningless couple of hundred of bucks. I once knew someone in New Orleans who was sentenced to 40 years for robbing a convenience store.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #514 on: May 24, 2014, 05:24:54 pm »

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspected-california-gunman-identified-son-movie-director-n113841
Suspected California Gunman Identified as Son of Movie Director
5/24/14

Elliot Rodger, the 22-year-old man suspected of having gone on a killing rampage Friday night near the University of California, Santa Barbara, may have done so out of intense frustration at his rejection by women, which he detailed in shocking online videos.

Alan Shifman, an attorney for Rodger's father, Peter Rodger — an assistant director on the blockbuster "Hunger Games" movie series — confirmed to NBC News on Saturday that Rodger was the man suspected of having killed six people and wounded seven others Friday night as he stalked the streets of Isla Vista, an unincorporated community adjacent to Santa Barbara about 100 miles northwest of Los Angeles.

The gunman also died following the shooting spree, but the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office doesn't know whether he died in a shootout with officers or from a self-inflicted wound. A semiautomatic handgun was recovered in the vehicle, investigators said.

"It's obviously the work of a madman," Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown said at a news conference early Saturday.

The Rodgers family is cooperating with investigators, said Shifman, who said it was Rodger's own parents who alerted authorities to the distressing videos their son posted to YouTube — videos in which Rodger, a student at nearby Santa Barbara City College, complains that his college years have been torture because he could never get a date.

In the chilling videos, nine of which were posted Thursday, he vows "retribution" and "revenge against humanity" — specifically against the residents of a sorority house, all of whom he threatens to kill.

"I'm 22 years old, and I'm still a virgin. I've never even kissed a girl," Rodger says. "College is the time when everyone experiences those things such as sex and fun and pleasure. But in those years, I've had to rot in loneliness. It's not fair.

"If I can't have you girls, I will destroy you," he says, sometimes laughing at his own audacity. Afterward, he promises, "I will take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there."

"You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one — the true alpha male," he boasts.

Peter Rodgers' attorney told NBC News that Elliot Rodger lived with a form of Asperger syndrome, a disorder on the autism spectrum. There is no known link between Asperger's and violent behavior.

Before he and his family moved to the U.S. in 1996, Peter Rodger was an acclaimed film photographer in Britain, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported. His wife — Elliot Rodger's stepmother — is Soumaya Akaaboune, an actress who appeared in "Green Zone" in 2010 with Matt Damon and stars in the French version of the "Real Housewives" television series.

The Hollywood connection eerily recalls a similar rampage in the same town 13 years ago, when David Attias, the son of director Dan Attias — whose credits include "Entourage" and other well-known TV shows — ran down and killed four people with his car near the university after having being spurned by a woman.

A memorial to those four victims sits in a park in the center of Isla Vista.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #515 on: May 25, 2014, 02:13:31 pm »

Uhm...California has the TOUGHEST gun control laws in the entire country! You have to wait FIFTEEN days to obtain a firearm!(something which never even crossed Obama's and Clintons' minds, FWIW)

http://news.yahoo.com/tearful-plea-victims-dad-deadly-rampage-233719408.html
Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage
5/25/14

GOLETA, Calif. (AP) — A man whose son was among the victims killed in a shooting rampage near a California university quaked with grief and rage Saturday as he described his "lost and broken" family and the proliferation of guns he believes led to his son's death.

"Our son Christopher and six others are dead," Richard Martinez told reporters gathered outside a sheriff's station for a news conference the day after the shootings near the University of California, Santa Barbara, where the 20-year-old son was a sophomore. "You don't think it'll happen to your child until it does."

Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, of Los Osos, Calif., was the last of six people killed by suspect Elliot Rodger before the gunman apparently shot and killed himself, authorities said.

Martinez choked back tears as he spoke, then grew angrier as he talked about gun laws and lobbyists.

"The talk about gun rights. What about Chris' right to live?" Martinez said. "When will enough people say: 'Stop this madness! We don't have to live like this! Too many people have died!"

He then punctuated his words as he said, "We should say to ourselves: 'Not! One! More!'" before dissolving into tears and falling to his knees as he stepped from the podium.

Martinez said he talked to his son just 45 minutes before he died inside the IV Deli Mart, where bullet holes and blood could still be seen on Saturday. After already killing five others at his apartment and outside a sorority house, Rodger walked into the deli and shot Michael-Martinez, authorities said.

Michaels-Martinez was an English major who planned to go to London next year and to law school after graduation, his father said.

He pulled out a photo of his son as a small child in Chicago Cubs baseball uniform and said they used to call him "mini-Sammy Sosa," referring to the former Cubs star.

"Chris was a really great kid," Martinez said. "Ask anyone who knew him. His death has left our family lost and broken."

Friends said Michaels-Martinez, who served as residential adviser at a dorm last year, was the kind of guy who welcomed strangers into his home.

It's not clear whether Rodger knew Katherine Cooper and Veronika Weiss, but they were standing outside a sorority house he was targeting and square in the path of his rampage, authorities said. They became the first ones fatally shot.

Rodger had stabbed and killed three male victims at his apartment already, then drove to the Alpha Phi sorority house, where he fired from across the street and shot three women who were nearby. One of them, whose name has not been released, was injured. Cooper, 22, and Weiss, 19, both UC Santa Barbara students, were killed.

Cooper, who was from Chino Hills, Calif., was about to graduate with a degree in art history. Her friend Courtney Benjamin said Cooper was a painter with an outgoing side.

"She was a self-proclaimed princess and I love her for that," Benjamin said. "And I know she has a crown on her head today."

Weiss was first-year student from Westlake Village.

"She was always a happy person," said Eric Pursley, who worked with Weiss at a Target store in Thousand Oaks last year.

A pile of flowers grew on the lawn Saturday as crying students wandered up to the spot, shook their heads and hugged each other.

UCSB senior Kyley Scarlet, who lives next door and has served as president of her own sorority, said all three who were shot are sorority members, but neither of Alpha Phi nor her own.

Scarlet said she was very disturbed by the video describing his anger at sorority girls.

"It's hard thinking my actions, being part of a sorority, led him to do this," she said. "When I saw that video I was shaking and crying."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #516 on: May 25, 2014, 09:19:24 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/three-shot-dead-south-carolina-oceanfront-hotel-174952304.html
Three shot dead at South Carolina oceanfront hotel
5/25/14

(Reuters) - Three people were killed and a fourth wounded in a shooting at a oceanfront hotel in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, one of the most popular tourist destinations in the U.S. Southeast, police said on Sunday.

Officers responded to a call of shots fired at the Bermuda Sands resort on the Myrtle Beach boardwalk around 11 p.m. EDT on Saturday, according to the Myrtle Beach Police Department.

Two men and one woman were pronounced dead at the scene and the fourth was transported to a local hospital in unknown condition, he said.

The shooting came on a weekend when Myrtle Beach was packed with visitors for the Memorial Day holiday weekend, the unofficial start of the summer season, and for an annual sports rally called the Atlantic Beach Bikefest.

"We certainly don't like to see any type of incident where somebody dies during this event, or any event that Myrtle Beach has," Myrtle Beach Police Captain David Knipes told WISTV. "To have three people (killed) in one night is kind of a big thing; we only had two homicides for a total last year," he said.

Two of the victims were gunned down in the hotel's breezeway, authorities said.

There was no immediate word on a motive and there had not been any arrests by early Sunday, police said.

Witnesses told the Sun News they heard fighting on a sidewalk outside the hotel before gunshots were fired.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21752



View Profile
« Reply #517 on: May 27, 2014, 09:02:37 am »

CNN Exploits Father's Grief For Gun Control Push
"My kid died because nobody responded to what happened at Sandy Hook."


Did CNN learn nothing from ghoulish Piers Morgan's exploitation of the murdered children of Newtown, CT? Apparently not.

Proclaiming Richard Martinez the "public face of gun control advocates in the aftermath of the six killings in Isla Vista," CNN turned on their camera and prodded the grieving father into a fit of emotional fervor and outrage so they could have compelling, dramatic video that fits their anti-2nd amendment agenda:

    “What has changed? Have we learned nothing? These things are going to continue until somebody does something, so where the hell is the leadership? Where the hell are these people we elect to Congress that we spend so much money on? These people are getting rich sitting in Congress, what do they do? They don’t take care of our kids.

    My kid died because nobody responded to what happened at Sandy Hook. Those parents lost little kids. It’s bad enough that I lost my 20-year-old, but I had 20 years with my son, that’s all I’ll have. But those people lost their children at six and seven years old. How do you think they feel? And who’s talking to them now? Who is doing anything for them now? Who is standing up for those kids that died back then in an elementary school? Why wasn’t something done? It’s outrageous!”

No doubt Mr. Martinez is grieving, angry and emotional. And he is looking for answers to a horrific event that makes no sense to him. At no point is the fact that just as many innocent victims Friday evening were killed with a knife as with a gun raised by the CNN interviewer. It should be noted that those grieving parents were not given a TV forum to advocate for "knife control."

Meanwhile, CNN dramatically produced a video package showing photos of Martinez' dead son and the emotionally heart-wrenching fury of Mr. Martinez so that all CNN viewers can participate in the ghoulish exercise of watching a father go through the anger phase of the grieving process. 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/cnn-exploits-fathers-grief-gun-control-push
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: 21752



View Profile
« Reply #518 on: May 27, 2014, 09:06:15 am »

Peter King Exploits California Shooting, Calls For Expanded Background Checks (But Shooter Passed Background Check)
Rep. King ignored the fact that Elliot Rodger, the man behind the murder spree, passed the background check needed to buy the firearm he used in the shooting


I In the wake of Friday's horrific murder spree in Santa Barbara California, Congressman Peter King (R-NY) called for expanded background checks. What Rep. King ignored is that Elliot Rodger, the man behind the murder spree, passed the background check needed to buy the firearm he used in the shooting.

Like the Democrats exploiting the horrible attack to push their anti-gun agendas, King, a Republican, joined the charge of politicians calling for a review of gun control legislation on Sunday.

    King, a longtime advocate of stricter gun control policies, told the Washington Post that the incident reinforces the argument for expanding background checks for gun owners.

    “This tragedy demonstrates once again the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,” he said.

    King added that any effort to convince House leadership to bring gun control legislation up this summer will be "very difficult," saying gun control advocates in Congress need to "focus the discussion" surrounding mental illness and access to firearms.

    The Republican said his party should not give up efforts to thwart powerful gun advocacy groups, according to the Washington Post.

    “Even though this issue may not be popular in particular congressional districts, if we want to be a national party, we ought to be looking closely at it,” he said.

King was either unaware or purposely ignoring some of the facts of the case:

    Rodger passed the background check needed to buy the firearm used in the shooting, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation told CNN. The official said nothing had been found in the gun trace to indicate Rodger shouldn’t have qualified to buy a gun.

Some other facts: Rodger's parents, who called the police about his instability, recognized Rodger’s mental illness. A gun was not the only weapon in Rodger's murder spree; he began by stabbing three men repeatedly at his home, and tried to kill people with his car.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/peter-king-exploits-california-shooting-calls-expanded-background-checks-shooter-passed
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: 21752



View Profile
« Reply #519 on: May 27, 2014, 09:08:02 am »

Democrat Wastes No Time Calling For Federal Gun Ban
"I am going to urge that we bring back those bills, maybe reconfigure them to center on mental health."


In the wake of the tragedy that left 3 stabbed to death and another 3 shot to death in Santa Barbara, Democrats wasted no time in calling for a new push for federal gun control.

After intoning that tens of thousands of people have been killed by guns since Sandy Hook, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation and said:

    I hope, I really sincerely hope, that this tragedy, this unimaginable, unspeakable tragedy, will provide an impetus to bring back measures that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who are severely troubled or deranged like this young man was.

Blumenthal continued:

    We need mental health resources, and that initiative I hope will provide common ground, a point of consensus, that will bring us together in the Congress and enable the majority — 90 percent of the American people want background checks — to be heard.

The host informed Blumenthal that “the sheriff told us that there were no flags that would have prompted a check on the legally purchased weapons that Elliot Rodger had, and he didn't seem to have large or larger than normal size magazines for his weapons. Do you believe legislation the Senate did not pass would have made any difference in this case?"

Blumenthal answered that the legislation that failed would have given more resources to law enforcement to have a greater screening for this kind of derangement:

    The legislation that failed to pass support from 55 senators would have provided a mental health initiative with more resources, greater ability for the Santa Barbara police to intervene, to use the sheriff's word, to have professionals trained in diagnosing and detecting this kind of derangement. Obviously not every kind of gun violence is going to be prevented by laws out of Washington but at least we can make a start and I am going to urge that we bring back those bills, maybe reconfigure them to center on mental health, which is a point where we can agree.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/democrat-wastes-no-time-calling-federal-gun-ban
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 #520 on: May 27, 2014, 11:24:54 am »

And remember last year when Rick Warren was craftily pushing for gun control when his son committed suicide(or supposedly) - Warren himself, as we all know, is from California.

None of this is a coincidence.

And again - CA has the STRICTEST gun control laws in the nation!
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #521 on: May 30, 2014, 06:00:35 pm »

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/30/us-usa-college-evacuation-idUSKBN0EA21E20140530
5/30/14
Los Angeles college evacuated after report of man with gun

(Reuters) - A Los Angeles college and nearby occupational center were being evacuated and locked down on Friday after reports that a missing and suicidal man could be armed and in the vicinity, police said.

A Los Angeles Police Department spokeswoman said officers were searching for the missing 22-year-old man near Pierce College, a community college located in Woodland Hills in the San Fernando Valley. The school issued an "emergency alert" on Twitter telling students not to come to campus.

The West Valley Occupational Center was also placed on lockdown, police spokeswoman Norma Eisenman said. The missing man was described as wearing all black clothing and carrying a backpack and a skateboard, she said.

The incident comes a week after 22-year-old Elliot Rodger shot and killed three students near the University of California, Santa Barbara, campus. Rodger had earlier stabbed three people to death in his apartment.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #522 on: June 02, 2014, 02:25:11 pm »

Make no mistake - the bad guys comes come from WITHIN - so let's be careful in terms of focusing too much attention on these Obama-types.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-02/nra-decides-good-guys-with-guns-are-weirdos?cmpid=yhoo
NRA Decides Good Guys With Guns Are Weirdos
Jun 2, 2014 12:46 PM EDT
By Francis Wilkinson

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," said National Rifle Association chieftain Wayne LaPierre. Unless, apparently, the good guy with a gun is in Texas and obeying the state's open-carry law while hunting down some Mexican food or a cup of joe.

According to a May 30 post on the NRA website, exercising one's rights in such a manner is, well, a little weird.

It's hard to imagine where open-carry advocates got the notion that they must be armed and ready at every minute of the day. Perhaps LaPierre can provide a clue. Here is his threat analysis of life in the U.S., delivered in the days after the Newtown, Connecticut massacre:

   
Quote
The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters -- people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school he’s already identified at this very moment?

    How many more copycats are waiting in the wings . . . . A dozen more killers? A hundred? More?

LaPierre has detailed the overwhelming threats Americans face from "terrorists, home invaders, drug cartels, carjackers, 'knockout' gamers, rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse as a society that sustains us all."

Is it any wonder that open-carry advocates would fear going into a Chipotle or Starbucks without a loaded semi-automatic rifle to keep themselves safe from the horrors LaPierre so exhaustively describes?

Yet here is the NRA last week discouraging Texans from being on their guard at every moment.

   
Quote
Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms.

    Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it's downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself.

Not practical? Downright weird? What's not practical about behaving like you're in a war zone in a land terrorized by monsters, robbers, rapists, shopping-mall killers, terrorists and -- well, it's a long list. Open carry in Texas represents precisely the world the NRA's leader has envisioned: a fully-armed, powder-keg democracy where anyone can kill at a moment's notice. It's heartening to learn the NRA doesn't really want that after all.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #523 on: June 02, 2014, 05:49:54 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-gun-groups-clash-nra-armed-protests-public-203030317.html
Texas gun groups clash with NRA on armed protests in public spaces
6/2/14

 DALLAS (Reuters) - Texas gun rights groups that have toted rifles and shotguns in public in campaigns to show support for the open carrying of weapons blasted the NRA on Monday for calling those appeals "foolish" and "counterproductive."

Open Carry Texas, Texas Carry, Come And Take It – Texas and Gun Rights Across America accused the National Rifle Association, the nation's largest lobbying group for firearm ownership, of not supporting all gun rights and vowed to withdraw their support if the NRA did not retract the criticism.

"It is unfortunate that an organization that claims to be dedicated to the preservation of gun rights would attack another organization fighting so hard for those rights in Texas," the groups said in a statement.

The groups are advocating unlicensed, open carry of handguns, pointing to laws in places like Texas that allow for the unlicensed, open carrying of long guns, such as rifles.

The NRA statement, issued on their website on Friday, said tactics used by some groups "can be downright scary" to people not used to seeing others arming themselves.

"Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. That's not the Texas way. And that's certainly not the NRA way."


It added that while Texas may be second to none in gun culture in the United States, "a small number have recently crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness."

On Saturday, Open Carry Tarrant County, helped lead a campaign at a Home Depot parking lot in suburban Fort Worth attended by about 150 people with rifles, shotguns and military-style weapons.

Open Carry Tarrant County, a group seen as being among the most active in the campaigns, has parted ways with Open Carry Texas after disagreeing with the statewide group's call to members to stop carrying long guns in restaurants.

The Tarrant County group said it wants to make people feel safe being around law-abiding citizens carrying guns.

The NRA statement comes as Sonic Drive-In and Chili's Grill & Bar issued statements last week asking that customers refrain from bringing firearms into their establishments, saying the weapons can create an uncomfortable atmosphere for other diners.

A number from national eateries, including Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc, and Jack in the Box Inc, have also asked patrons to keep their firearms at home.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, where are Obama and Diane Fienstein in all of this? Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #524 on: June 06, 2014, 11:17:22 am »

Again, beware of all of the enemies that come from WITHIN!

Texas Gun Group: No More Carrying Rifles in Target, Wal-Mart
6/5/14
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/05/texas-gun-group-no-more-rifles-in-target/?mod=yahoo_hs

The president of the Texas gun group scolded by the National Rifle Association for bringing rifles into restaurants and retail stores said his group has already quit carrying large guns through Target Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.WMT -0.11% locations.

“It was distracting from our mission,” C.J. Grisham, the president of Open Carry Texas, said Thursday. “Our purpose and goal is to get open carry of handguns to pass into law. The conversation was allowed to shift by gun-control extremists to whether guns could be carried at all.”

Mr. Grisham said the NRA’s piece — which called the rifle demonstrations “downright weird” — was  “ignorant.” He said his group has received no direct apology from the NRA, which has since removed the essay from its website and replaced it with a 12-minute interview of NRA Executive Director Chris W. Cox apologizing for the essay’s publication.

“If the NRA wants to work with us to get open carry passed, that’s great, but were going to fight to get open carry passed with or without the NRA,” Mr. Grisham said. “They are not the copyright or patent holders of the Second Amendment.”

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said the group had nothing to say about the saga beyond Mr. Cox’s statement.

In the midst of the Open Carry Texas-NRA spat, the Mike Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America on Tuesday launched a petition drive to ask Target to forbid guns in its stores. Mr. Grisham said pictures used by Moms Demand Action of Open Carry members toting rifles in a Dallas-area Target were taken in January and posted to the Internet in March.

Open Carry Texas, Mr. Grisham said, stopped bringing its rifles into stores like Target because Texas law forbids firearms in places where alcohol is sold. Mr. Grisham said rescinding the alcohol-guns prohibition is among his group’s top priorities.

“What Moms Demand Action is doing is digging into our photo archives and trying to smear us,” Mr. Grisham said. “Really, they’re desperate, and that’s why they’re going off into our photo archives.”

Moms Demand Action spokeswoman Erika Soto Lamb said the group is only using the photos Open Carry Texas posted online.

“This isn’t about the guns – it’s about the people carrying the guns. How are we to know whether they are ‘good guys’ or ‘bad guys’?” Ms. Soto Lamb said. “When we’re shopping with our kids at Target, how are we to know if the guy carrying a rifle is a political activist or if we should duck and cover?”

Now, instead of going into retail outlets, Open Carry Texas’s members meet in public spaces like parking lots or in stores and restaurants that give them permission to demonstrate, Mr. Grisham said. Most restaurateurs have no problem with Open Carry Texas members dining with their guns, he said.

“More than 95% of our local press is very positive,” Mr. Grisham said. “We’re getting to the point now where really it’s a non-story. There’s no controversy in Texas. The controversy is based out of New York.”
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21752



View Profile
« Reply #525 on: June 10, 2014, 11:04:26 am »

Official with Multnomah County, Ore., Sheriff's Office confirms 'tactical incident' at Reynolds High School - @BrentKOIN

More than 60 law enforcement, 19 medical personnel on scene of Reynolds High School in Oregon after reports of shots fired - @KOINNews

Response at Reynolds High School is for an active shooter, Multnomah County, Ore., sheriff's office spokesman confirms - @KGWNews


Parents told to stay away from Reynolds High School as police respond to reported active shooting - @KOINNews
Read more on koin.com
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 #526 on: June 12, 2014, 07:25:57 pm »

Yeah, it's as if this has become the "new norm" now.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #527 on: June 16, 2014, 10:52:04 am »

DON'T be fooled into thinking that it's LARGELY OBAMA spearheading gun control...

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-140713053--finance.html
Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law
6/16/14

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.

The ruling settles a split among appeals courts over federal gun laws intended to prevent sham buyers from obtaining guns for the sole purpose of giving them to another person. The laws were part of Congress' effort to make sure firearms did not get into the hands of unlawful recipients.

Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the federal government's elaborate system of background checks and record-keeping requirements help law enforcement investigate crimes by tracing guns to their buyers. Those provisions would mean little, she said, if a would-be gun buyer could evade them by simply getting another person to buy the gun a fill out the paperwork.

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the language of the law does not support making it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner.

The case began after Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using a police discount.

Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Police later arrested Abramski after they thought he was involved in a bank robbery in Rocky Mount, Virginia. No charges were ever filed on the bank robbery, but officials charged him with making false statements about the purchase of the gun.

A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. The administration said that even if the purchase is made on behalf of someone eligible to buy a firearm, the purpose of the law is frustrated since Congress requires the gun dealers — not purchasers — to run federal background checks on people buying guns.

Abramski claimed Congress' goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.

The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #528 on: June 27, 2014, 03:04:02 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-upholds-colorado-gun-laws-dismisses-lawsuit-000320932.html
Federal judge upholds Colorado gun laws, dismisses lawsuit
6/26/14

DENVER (Reuters) - A federal judge upheld gun laws on Thursday introduced by Colorado in the wake of deadly shooting rampages there and in Connecticut, dismissing a lawsuit brought by sheriffs, gun shops, outfitters and shooting ranges.

The two laws, passed in 2013 by Colorado's Democratic-controlled legislature with scant Republican support, banned ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and required background checks for all private gun sales and transfers.

The bills were introduced in response to a shooting spree in 2012 that killed 12 people at a suburban Denver movie theater, and the slaying later that same year of 20 children and six adults at an elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

But they immediately met resistance from critics, including most of Colorado's elected sheriffs, who said they severely restricted citizens' constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Last year, voters recalled two key Democratic members of the legislature that approved the controversial measures.

After a two-week civil trial, U.S. District Chief Judge Marcia Krieger ruled the lawsuit lacked standing and said no evidence had been produced which showed limiting magazines to 15 rounds seriously diminished the ability to defend oneself.

"Of the many law enforcement officials called to testify, none were able to identify a single instance in which they were involved where a single civilian fired more than 15 shots in self defense," she said in her ruling.

Responding to complaints about expanded background checks, she said there were more than 600 firearms dealers in the state which actively perform private checks, and that it takes an average of less than 15 minutes for a check to be run by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who signed the bills into law, was named as the defendant in the lawsuit.

Colorado has seen two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history. In addition to the 2012 theater shooting, it was the site of a 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, where two teenagers shot dead a teacher and 12 other students before committing suicide.

But it is also a state where gun ownership is treasured.

Colorado's Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, said his office never claimed the laws were "good, wise, or sound policy," but that it had fulfilled its responsibility to defend the constitutionality of the state law in question.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #529 on: June 28, 2014, 09:39:48 pm »

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/27/300-thousand-connecticut-gun-owners-face-jail-time-under-new-law
3/27/14
300 Thousand Connecticut Gun Owners Face Jail Time Under New Law

TownHall.com:

The scene above isn't from a foreign country.  It's happening right here in America.

Law-abiding gun owners in Connecticut were recently forced to line up and register their firearms with the state government by January 1 of this year.

Now, citizens who either missed the deadline, or simply refused to submit to the blatantly unconstitutional law, are facing felony charges and up to five years in prison.

In fact, anti-gun groups and their allies in the state media are outright campaigning for authorities to "use the background check database" to round up an estimated 300,000 gun owners, fine them $5,000, and put them behind bars.

"If this can happen anywhere in America, it can happen everywhere," warns Chris Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

"And right now, Barack Obama and his gun control allies in Congress are plotting new ways to bring Connecticut's freedom-crushing policies to every corner of America."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #530 on: July 06, 2014, 06:49:12 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/states-look-gun-seizure-law-mass-killings-152120496.html
States look to gun seizure law after mass killings
7/6/14

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — As state officials across the country grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown and near the University of California, Santa Barbara, some are turning to a gun seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.

Connecticut's law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year.

The 1999 law, the first of its kind in the country, was in response to the 1998 killings of four managers at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters by a disgruntled employee with a history of psychiatric problems.

Indiana is the only other state that has such a law, passed in 2005 after an Indianapolis police officer was shot to death by a mentally ill man. California and New Jersey lawmakers are now considering similar statutes, both proposed in the wake of the killings of six people and wounding of 13 others near the University of California, Santa Barbara by a mentally ill man who had posted threatening videos on YouTube.

Michael Lawlor, Connecticut's undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, believes the state's gun seizure law could have prevented the killings of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, if police had been made aware that gunman Adam Lanza had mental health problems and access to his mother's legally owned guns.

"That's the kind of situation where you see the red flags and the warning signs are there, you do something about it," Lawlor said. "In many shootings around the country, after the fact it's clear that the warning signs were there."

Gun rights advocates oppose gun seizure laws, saying they allow police to take people's firearms based only on allegations and before the gun owners can present their side of the story to a judge. They say they're concerned the laws violate constitutional rights.

"The government taking things away from people is never a good thing," said Rich Burgess, president of the gun rights group Connecticut Carry. "They come take your stuff and give you 14 days for a hearing. Would anybody else be OK if they just came and took your car and gave you 14 days for a hearing?"

Rachel Baird, a Connecticut lawyer who has represented many gun owners, said one of the biggest problems with the state's law is that police are abusing it. She said she has had eight clients whose guns were seized by police who obtained the required warrants after taking possession of the guns.

"It's stretched and abused, and since it's firearms, the courts go along with it," Baird said of the law.

But backers of such laws say they can prevent shootings by getting guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people.

"You want to make sure that when people are in crisis ... there is a way to prevent them to get access to firearms," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the nonprofit Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence in Washington, D.C.

Connecticut authorities report a large increase in the use of gun seizure warrants involving people deemed dangerous by police over the past several years. Officials aren't exactly sure what caused the increase but believe it's related to numerous highly publicized mass shootings in recent years.

Police statewide filed an estimated 183 executed gun seizure warrants with court clerks last year, more than twice the number filed in 2010, according to Connecticut Judicial Branch data. Last year's total also was nearly nine times higher than the annual average in the first five years of the gun seizure law.

Connecticut police have seized more than 2,000 guns using the warrants, according to the most recent estimate by state officials, in 2009.

Police in South Windsor, about 12 miles northeast of Hartford, say the law was invaluable last year when they seized several guns from the home of a man accused of spray-painting graffiti referencing mass shootings in Newtown and Colorado on the outside of the town's high school.

"With all that we see in the news day after day, particular after Newtown, I think departments are more aware of what authority they have ... and they're using the tool (gun seizure warrants) more frequently than in the past," said South Windsor Police Chief Matthew Reed. "We always look at it from the other side. What if we don't seize the guns?"
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21752



View Profile
« Reply #531 on: July 10, 2014, 12:47:51 pm »

Target's gun ban backfires: Here come the robbers
Major retailer's firearms policy creates danger for customers


Within three days of a new policy asking customers not to bring their guns to Target stores, reports have surfaced of armed attacks on customers.

Two Target shoppers at two different stores in Georgia have been robbed by armed thugs since the discount retailer announced on July 2, in a letter from its CEO, that it would “respectfully request” that customers leave their guns at home when they visit Target. Spokeswoman Molly Snyder said it was not a ban on guns, just a “request” that the Minneapolis-based retailer hoped its customers would honor. She said no signs would be posted banning guns, nor would any customer legally carrying a gun in Target stores be asked to leave.

On the very same day that CEO John Mulligan issued his public statement, a man was robbed at gunpoint in the parking lot of a Target in Gainesville, Georgia.

Three days later, on July 5, a woman in the Edgewood area of Atlanta had just parked her Mercedes Benz in a Target parking garage and exited her vehicle when she was approached by a black man who punched her in the head, knocking her to the ground. He took her purse and car keys, then warned her to “stay on the ground or I will f—ing kill you,” according to police reports. He then put her car in reverse and would have run her over if she hadn’t rolled out of the way, she told police. She said she obeyed his commands, according to Decaturish.com.

Just days earlier, the Gainesville Police Department arrested three men on charges of robbing a man of his cash at gunpoint in the parking lot of the Target on Shallowford Road in the city about 50 miles northeast of Atlanta.

Officers were able to get a vehicle and suspect description, according to police spokesman Cpl. Kevin Holbrook. The alleged robbers were arrested later that same day. The victim, Kyle Bledsoe, reportedly had more than $500 cash on him. Officers confiscated one handgun when they made the arrest, Holbrook said.

Jerry Henry, executive director of GeorgiaCarry.org, said he thought Target made a poor decision.

“That’s what happens in gun-free zones,” he told WND. “They actually should be called victim-enrichment zones because that’s what they are. If anyone wants to commit a crime with impunity, take your gun where there are no guns. You can do what you want, get in and get out and there’s nobody to stop you.

“If you notice where most of the so-called mass shootings are happening, they’re in gun-free zones,” Henry continued. “You don’t see them at gun shows or at gun stores. You don’t see people walk in there and start shooting. They’re not going to do it because they know everybody in there is armed.”

Mulligan’s message to Target customers asking them to keep their firearms at home appeared July 2 in the retailer’s online magazine which, as irony would have it, is named “A Bullseye View.”

The alleged gunpoint robbery in Gainesville occurred about 6 p.m. on July 2, followed by the Atlanta robbery on July 5.

Mulligan said in his letter that the company had “studied the nuances” of the gun-rights issue from both sides and decided that it didn’t want its customers to carry weapons into its stores, “even in communities where it is permitted by law.” Georgia is one of those states where carrying a gun at a retail store is legal for those possessing a concealed-carry permit.

Mulligan said this was a complicated issue, but the company’s decision came down to its belief that carrying firearms at Target “creates an environment that is at odds with the family friendly shopping and work experience.”

Read the Target CEO’s complete letter asking its customers not to carry.

The carefully worded statement stopped short of banning guns.

“As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit ‘open carry’ should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.”

Henry, the GeorgiaCarry.org director, said he believes Target issued the “no guns” request in an effort to assuage Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a group backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that is pushing for stricter gun-control measures in both the public and private sectors.

“Moms Demand Action was bombarding them with calls and letters telling them that they needed to change or they were going to leave and go elsewhere (to shop),” Henry said. “They were getting a lot of pressure from Bloomberg’s group, and now they’re going to be pressuring somebody else to make the same kind of statement. This will go on until his money runs out.”

Snyder told WND she could not disclose who the company may have consulted with prior to making its decision.

“We typically don’t discuss interactions with specific groups or individuals,” she said. “However, what I would say is that we received feedback from our guests who have shared their varied perspectives on this topic.”

Henry said his group held a “We beat Bloomberg” party when Georgia’s HB 60 law went into effect July 1 and he told Georgia Carry members, “Now we’re going to celebrate with a big sugary drink,” since “he [Bloomberg] wants to ban those, too!”

The former New York mayor infamously led a campaign to restrict the sales of soft drinks there to 16-ounce sizes and smaller. It recently was thrown out by the courts.

Target’s new policy follows that of Starbucks and other major retailers that have issued similar policies. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz used the same language in a September 2013 letter to customers in which he made a “respectful request” that they not carry guns in his stores.

“Most of them, especially the large companies, say ‘we follow the state law, if you’re allowed to carry you can do so,’” Henry said. “Starbucks started off the policy that Target just adopted, saying we’re not going to ban guns but we request you don’t bring them. Bloomberg’s ladies, the Moms Demand Action, call it a ban. ‘Oh yay, we won, we got bans approved for the stores.’ That’s what they say. But it’s not a ban. They got the companies to issue a letter saying we don’t want you to bring them in here. Target even followed up with a statement saying, ‘This is not a ban, but we just ask you not to bring your guns in here.’”

Henry said he believes at least two groups are operating in Georgia with financial backing from Bloomberg.

“He’s paying a couple of groups down here. One is Moms Demand Action and the other is Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” he said.

Henry said he refers to the latter group as “Illegal Mayors Against Guns” because its members are far more likely to commit a felony than any licensed gun holder in states like Georgia or Texas.

“Somebody did the math, and if you are a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns then you are 82 times more likely to commit a felony than a licensed gun holder in Texas,” he said. “If you Google ‘gun owners against illegal mayors’ you’ll see all those mayors who have been convicted of or arrested (on charges of) felonies.”

Target’s no-guns “request” sparked more than 4,800 customer comments on Target’s website. The back-and-forth debate between Second Amendment advocates and gun-control progressives reached a fevered pitch.

“Thank you, Target for displaying #gunsense and promoting public safety as a civic duty,” wrote S.K. Boss of Arkansas.

“Public safety is removing my ability to defend myself? Are you on drugs?” responded another customer, Bob Jones.

Boss then struck back with the comment that only police should be allowed to carry guns in a “civilized” society.

“Civilized societies hire police for this purpose (of protecting the public) and don’t rely on random individuals among us,” Boss wrote. “If you are a cop, thanks for taking on that task. We all appreciate the work you do.”

Georgia’s new law, known as House Bill 60, went into effect July 1, allowing permit holders to carry in shopping malls, stores, restaurants and government buildings where there is not a security checkpoint.

“The timing of our announcement was in no way tied to the new law in Georgia. As our interim CEO John Mulligan noted, this was something the leadership team had been monitoring for some time,” said Snyder.

Henry likes to remind skeptics that very few businesses, even those owned by gun-control advocates, will post a sign advertising that guns aren’t allowed.

Taco Mac, an Atlanta-based Mexican eatery, did that several years ago and it backfired.

“They’d been in business for 29 years and never had a robbery,” Henry said. “After we passed our update to the Georgia carry laws in 2008 allowing us to carry in restaurants that served alcohol, as long as we didn’t consume alcohol, Taco Mac posted a sign, and within nine months they had their first robbery.”

It didn’t take that long when Jack in the Box restaurants made a similar demand.

In fact, there have been four robbery reports in the few weeks after the change was announced.

One incident was in Liberty, Texas. Only a few weeks earlier, a Jack in the Box in northwest Houston was hit. The second in the series also was in Houston, but the first one after company officials announced their changed policy, only about a month ago, was in Tennessee, where a man was shot in the restaurant’s parking lot.

The incidents began shortly after an anti-gun group, Moms Demand Action, put pressure on the company to ban guns.

Jack in the Box announced the new policy with an explanation: “Creating a warm and inviting environment for all of our guests and employees is a top priority for Jack in the Box. The presence of guns inside a restaurant could create an uncomfortable situation for our guests and employees and lead to unintended consequences. While we respect the rights of all our guests, we would prefer that guests not bring their guns inside our restaurants.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/armed-robbers-shopping-for-victims-at-target/#V3PtlzfPxdEMGyQB.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
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21752



View Profile
« Reply #532 on: July 10, 2014, 12:57:02 pm »

On a personal note about TARGET stores. I once caught a shop lifter at a TARGET store, he stole a usb drive, ripped it out of its packaging and stuffed it in his pants as i watched. Being who i am, i called him out on it, and harassed him all the way out of the store. I tried to get the actual target personnel to actually do their job and apprehend the thief but, none would do anything about it. They stood there just like sheep watching. After the guy left the store i asked the supervisor who stood their and watched why his people didnt stop the guy, he said it was store policy not to stop a robber.  Shocked

So Target does nothing but approve the sheeple lifestyle of the acceptant victim.
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 #533 on: July 23, 2014, 05:09:16 pm »

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/07/22/justice-kennedy-unsure-on-bearing-arms.html
7/23/14
Justice Kennedy ‘Not So Sure’ on Guns

The Supreme Court’s swing justice isn’t so sure about the meaning of the Second Amendment. “The Constitution of the United States is a flawed document,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said at a conference of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday. In 2008, he voted in the majority to overturn a ban on handguns, saying the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess certain firearms at home. Previously, the court interpreted the right to bear arms as applying to a “well-regulated militia.” Critics say because the court took centuries to declare an individual right to bear arms, it doesn’t exist. “I’m not so sure” about that argument, Kennedy said.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #534 on: August 05, 2014, 07:25:09 pm »

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/05/opinion/webster-james-brady-law-guns/index.html
8/5/14
What James Brady did for gun control
By Daniel Webster
updated 4:03 PM EDT, Tue August 5, 2014

(CNN) -- In 1981, James Brady was shot in the head and gravely wounded in a shooting that also wounded President Reagan -- despite their both being surrounded by plenty of extremely well-trained "good guys with guns." At that time, federal law set conditions, such as a felony conviction or being involuntarily hospitalized for a mental illness, that prohibited a person from possessing firearms.

**Yes, don't believe these gun control advocates nowdays when they say "We need to take guns out of the hands of the mentally ill" propaganda - guess what...it's BEEN LAW for a LONG TIME!

The 1968 Gun Control Act had established record-keeping requirements and regulated interstate transactions of firearms, but there was no federal law requiring proof from a prospective buyer that he or she was not prohibited from possessing firearms.

It was, in essence, an honor system. You could purchase as many firearms and as much ammunition as you liked, as long as you signed a form stating that you didn't meet any of the disqualifying conditions.

While James Brady started his long road to recovery from his brain injuries, he and his wife, Sarah, began what has been a three-decade endeavor to strengthen America's gun laws and prevent others from becoming victims of gun violence. The Bradys and the organization they have helped lead have been successful in:

--Expanding disqualifiers for firearm possession to include perpetrators of domestic violence


--Advancing laws to prevent gun violence at the state level

--Litigating legal cases to protect the public from unsafe business practices in the gun industry

--Educating the public about how to protect children from being shot

But Brady's best-known legacy will be the federal law he championed and that bears his name, the Brady Gun Violence Prevention Act.

The Brady Act was a huge leap forward toward fulfilling the objectives of the Gun Control Act of 1968: keeping guns from dangerous people. It required licensed gun dealers to submit information on the identity of prospective gun buyers to the FBI, which could then determine through searches of databases of criminal records whether the purchaser was prohibited.

Through this law, millions of prohibited buyers have been identified and prohibited from purchasing firearms from licensed dealers.

What impact the Brady Law has had on public safety is debatable and, in my opinion, very difficult to assess. Because some states had background check requirements in place before the Brady Law, one way to estimate the policy's effects is to contrast changes in homicide trends in these states at the time the law was implemented with changes over the same period in states newly implementing background checks for sales by licensed gun dealers.

But the accuracy of the estimates depends on having states that are similar except for the policy change or having states with similar crime trends before the law was implemented. If the pre-law trends differ between those sets of states, you must control for those differences. Those conditions haven't been met in studies of the Brady Law.

But I believe the Brady Law is the foundation upon which we should build a complete system for vetting all firearms transactions to keep guns away from people identified by laws as being too dangerous to possess them. Some consider background checks for all gun sales a pipe dream, based on the flawed logic that gun laws won't work when criminals don't obey them. This argument ignores the important linkages between legal and illegal gun markets and what research has shown about the ability of sensible regulations to prevent diversions of guns into the illegal market.

We can't directly observe a homicide prevented because of background checks, but we can see what happens in their absence. After Missouri repealed its system for vetting all handgun sales through a permit to purchase background check system in 2007, firearm homicide rates increased sharply while rates declined nationally and in states surrounding Missouri.

A study that I conducted to assess the effects of this policy change controlled for a host of other factors that might explain Missouri's spike in gun homicides and determined that Missouri's repealed handgun purchase permit law was associated with nearly 50 additional homicides per year.

The last 33 years of James Brady's life were marked by courage and perseverance, not only to regain what gun violence had taken from him, but to curb the nation's extraordinary high level of gun violence. He has been an inspiration to many who are committed to completing what he started, so we can have far more effective policies for keeping guns from dangerous people.

If his vision of a comprehensive background check system is realized, we will have many fewer lives lost and damaged by gun violence.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #535 on: August 11, 2014, 11:09:04 pm »

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_26307683/gun-background-checks-spike-after-legislation-mass-shootings?source=rss
Gun background checks spike after legislation, mass shootings
8/9/14

NEW HAVEN, CONN. >> A tragedy that generated a national debate on gun control would appear to be behind the biggest jump in federally mandated background checks for firearm purchases in two decades.

An examination of background checks going back to 1998 shows the numbers consistently peak and drop throughout a calendar year, tied to hunting season, holidays and more recently, panic buying around legislative efforts on gun control.

There also are increases in checks in states where mass shootings occur.

Each check of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System doesn't necessarily represent a sale of a single gun, because not all buyers pass the screening, but there is a relationship with weapons purchases, according to the FBI.

The greatest surge in FBI checks across the country began in November 2012, when President Barack Obama was elected to a second term in office, and hit a then-record monthly high of more than 2 million. But that number was dwarfed when the checks leapt another 39 percent nationwide the next month after 20 first-graders and six educators were slain at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Over the next few months, the numbers dropped, but remained high as the U.S. Senate attempted to pass legislation to mandate background checks at gun shows where dealers are not federally licensed.

According to analysts, the seemingly cyclical spikes in firearm background checks are due to a combination of consumerism and fear that the government will take away weapons or restrict their purchase.

"It is clear that there are sharp peaks, especially after elections, and especially elections in which (President Barack) Obama prevailed," said Alfred Blumstein, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University.

**But there was NO fear when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were in office? With Reagan supporting universal background checks, and the whole gun confiscation fiasco in New Orleans after Katrina udner W. Bush?

The FBI conducted more than 186 million background checks between 1998 and May of this year. Of those, the system rejected 1 million requests, usually because the would-be gun buyer had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years. That jumps to closer to 2 million when rejections by the states are factored in, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The highest number of FBI background checks in one day took place on Dec. 21, 2012, one week after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, when the federal government reviewed more than 177,000 background checks.

There were 21,537 background checks in New Mexico in December 2012, the highest ever.

After the Newtown shootings, there was a national discussion of changes around gun control, which opponents saw as a threat to the Second Amendment. Ultimately, a number of states tightened access to firearms, while others made it easier to obtain them.

This year, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said it is tracking more than 1,300 firearms bills in state legislatures, about half of which would strengthen firearms laws and half weaken them.

The center ranks New Mexico 38th in the nation in terms of how strict its gun laws are. California and Connecticut have the strictest laws, according to the center.

The only gun restriction New Mexico legislators considered this year was whether to ban guns in the Roundhouse. The measure failed in the Senate Rules Committee before reaching the full assembly. In 2013, legislators proposed a law requiring background checks on sales of all guns at gun shows and another prohibiting felons from receiving, transporting or possessing firearms. Neither made it to both chambers.

Last year, a vote in the U.S. Senate fell six votes short of passing a bill to expand background checks to cover firearms sales at gun shows and over the Internet. It would have exempted private sales between friends and acquaintances, but a heavy campaign by the National Rifle Association spreading incorrect information that it would criminalize these actions led to its defeat. Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA, said the organization continues to reject applying the background checks to gun shows.

**And remember how Rick Warren said his son(who committed suicide last year) bought an unregistered gun illegally over the internet. IF he did buy a firearm over the internet, he did so LEGALLY. This isn't the first time this propaganda was put out - don't ever fall for this!

He said people found to be lying about their criminal backgrounds or other impediments to buying firearms are not punished. "Where are the repercussions?" he asked.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System began in late 1998, a few months before the horrific shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. In the ensuing 16 years, with the exception of Newtown, mass killings have not set off significant, nationwide spikes in the background checks.

In individual states, however, where tragedy struck, there would be an increase in the background checks that would be required to buy a gun. In Colorado, there were about 23,000 background checks in December 1998, but they nearly doubled to about 45,000 by a year later, after the Columbine killings.

But the state's one-month record came last year after Gov. John Hickenlooper signed legislation that required universal background checks on gun purchases and transfers; limited most ammunition magazines to 15 rounds and stipulated that buyers pay for those background checks.

The national debate on background checks is stalled at the moment.

"I think we are stuck right now on expanding the number of sales subject to background checks," said U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who along with Connecticut's senior senator, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, has led the effort to amend the federal background checks.

In the meantime, Murphy said there are still ways to make it a better system. He suggested the government provide more law enforcement resources to upload mental health data and also add additional violent crimes, such as temporary domestic violence restraining orders, that would stop the sale of a firearm to an individual. This is now covered by state law, but not federal law.

The next arena will be the voting booth, with two state senators in Colorado already losing recall elections with a third resigning in light of the gun legislation he voted for. How gun restrictions will play out in this year's midterm elections remains to be seen.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #536 on: August 26, 2014, 08:40:18 pm »

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/26/the-nra-pissed-off-the-wrong-nerd-genius.html
8/26/14
The NRA Pissed Off the Wrong Nerd Genius

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg already had the gun lobby in his sights. Now Bill Gates is donating $1 million for universal background checks—and there’s more where that came from.

Somewhere in a large glass tower in Northern Virginia, there’s a guy who runs guns with a French name having a bad day. With good reason.

It was reported Monday that Bill Gates, Microsoft co-founder and incredibly wealthy guy, and with his wife, Melinda, have given $1 million to Initiative 594 in Washington state. The ballot initiative, if passed by voters on November 4 (and it currently enjoys overwhelming support), will require universal background checks for all firearm purchases in the state.

Gates is only the latest Washington billionaire to give to the effort, with original Amazon investor Nick Hanauer providing crucial early funding, and more recently upping his overall donation to $1.4 million. Additionally, Gates’s Microsoft co-founder, Paul Allen, has provided $500,000 for the cause.

But Gates’s fame brings more attention and further legitimizes the initiative in a way that almost nobody else could. Once the Gates Foundation made it a priority to combat malaria around the world in 2000, it brought down deaths due to the insect-borne disease by 20 percent in 11 years, saving the lives of 1 million African children in the process.

Gates has the ability to grab headlines and make an issue go viral with the constant media coverage he receives, and the financial ability, if he wins, to fund similar efforts around the country. His involvement could be the answer to the public health crisis that makes American children 93 percent of those murdered in the 26 high-income countries around the world.

Meanwhile, the NRA has…Chuck Norris, doing its “Trigger The Vote” Campaign. An actor, in the sense that he showed up in films, who was last seen round-housing Vietnamese extras in B-movies in the ’80s, back when he was only pushing 50. In more recent times, the more Methuselah-esque-appearing Norris has spent his time warning us of 1,000 years of darkness if President Obama is reelected. (He was. Boo!)

That, in short, is why the guy with the French-sounding name, National Rifle Association head honcho Wayne LaPierre, is probably somewhere drowning his sorrows in his Pernod. Because Gates’ involvement in this issue is just about the last thing LaPierre needs.

Already, the NRA has shown its disdain for anyone with the guts and resources to take on its political cartel of legally bribed legislators around the country. It was used to having the field to itself financially in the 2000s, until along came New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. After seeing his constituents and police force victimized by lax gun laws out of state, lobbied for by the NRA, he decided it was time to do something.

The now former mayor’s activism had led to the ire of LaPierre & Company, who’ve just released a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign blasting Bloomberg, replete with his supposed sneering at “flyover country” in between the coasts. Which LaPierre clearly doesn’t do while receiving his million-dollar-plus compensation in the wealthy Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Ironically, it was in Virginia where Bloomberg’s organization, Everytown for Gun Safety, had one of its biggest victories, when it elected a governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general in 2013. None of whom thought a 12-year old should be able to open-carry an Uzi in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, because of, you know, freedom. Suddenly those who agree with the 90 percent of the country who support universal background checks had access to similar, if not greater, financial resources than those who pledged their allegiance to an arms dealer-funded front group.

Bloomberg is worth $33 billion, but if that’s not enough, Gates is worth well over two times that amount. Who knows, with that kind of dough, maybe even measures that “only” enjoy 56 percent support like bans on assault weapons and/or high-capacity magazines could pass via direct voting by uncorrupted American citizens. Or perhaps state legislators and members of Congress who bend easily to the will of these Lords of War could be swapped out for those who live in a closer neighborhood to the best interests of the American populace.

Likely the NRA will try to do to Gates what it has attempted to do to Bloomberg for a few years now, and seek to make this fight about him and not its right-wing radicalism in the service of avarice. He’s a billionaire trying to influence our political process, after all, unlike Manhattan resident David Koch, who along with his brother Charles has polluted our political process to no end, including funding the NRA.

Sure, in an ideal world big money wouldn’t play such an outsize role in our elections, such as this hugely important ballot initiative in Washington state. But that’s not what the NRA wants. It just wants its big money still to be all that decides the outcome, and it isn’t. Which is why Wayne LaPierre’s having a bad day.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #537 on: September 12, 2014, 02:23:23 pm »

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/11/One-Percenters-Gun-Control-Initiative-Means-Handgun-Registration-For-Washington-State
9/11/14
One-Percenters' Gun Control Would Mean 'Handgun Registration' for Washington State

Initiative-594, the universal background check initiative being bankrolled by millionaires and billionaires in Washington state, will lead to "universal handgun registration" if passed.

Page 2 of the 18-page initiative opens the door to such registration by "extending the requirement for a background check to apply to all gun sales and transfers within the state." This means record keeping, and record keeping means the formation of a database to compile the location of all known guns and the names of all known gun owners.

The NRA reports: "Every time a handgun is transferred, the person receiving the handgun will have their name added to the government database being maintained by the state Department of Licensing."

The text of I-594 lists slight exceptions to the background check requirements, but they are often tedious. For example, "the temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death" is allowable without a check. But the transfer can only be done without paperwork granting that "it only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent immanent death or great bodily harm."

If the friend to whom the gun was loaned wishes to hold on to it beyond the immediate threat period then he or she, as well as the gun owner, will have to find a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder and undergo a background check to transfer the gun. This, in turn, will add a new name to the gun owner database.

When Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) tried unsuccessfully to push universal background checks at the federal level in 2013, Breitbart News argued then that such checks were unenforceable without the creation of a gun registry. What was true for such legislation in Washington, D.C. is also true for I-594 in Washington state.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #538 on: September 14, 2014, 09:39:30 pm »

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/09/charles-krauthammer-assault-weapon-ban.html
9/14/14
Charles Krauthammer, the Assault Weapon Ban, and Shannon Watts

 On April 5th, 1996, Charles Krauthammer gave his reasons for supporting the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapon Ban.   The column was called "Disarm the Citizenry.  But Not Yet." in the Washington Post. 

    Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

    Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

    De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

The column came to mind because even the Bloomberg funded Moms Demand Aciton has decided to step away from the idiotic "Assault Weapon Ban" for much the same reasons that Charles Krauthammer mentioned:

    While many gun control groups still officially support the assault weapons ban — "we haven't abandoned the issue," as Watts said — they're no longer actively fighting for it.

Krauthammer has changed his thought a little bit since then.   This is from his column "The roots of mass murder" published in December of 2012:

    I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.

But Charles has never really explained why he thinks that gun bans are necessary for domestic tranquility.   They have never reduced the homicide rate anywhere else.    The homicide rate in England increased with increasing gun control, including homicide with guns.  Nowhere have gun bans been shown to decrease homicide rates.   The closest place is Australia, where a massive, intrusive, gun control scheme was pushed onto the public in a rush after a mass shooting in  1996.   The legislation had been planned in advance, just waiting for the right trigger.

The only problem is that academics agree:  the legislation had no effect on Australia's homicide rate, which was already dropping before the ban.

An excellent counterexample is Switzerland, which had far less gun control than the United States for decades, up until 1998.   Facing immense pressure from the European Union to impose restrictive gun laws, Switizerland implemented gun control that brought it close to the United States in some areas, more restrictive in some ways, less restrictive in others.   Yet Switzerland has always had one of the lowest homicide rates in Europe.

The evidence that restricting guns lowers crime simply does not exist.   So why does Charles Krauthammer think it is necessary?  Does his idea of "domestic tranquility" mean something other than crime reduction?

I have one explanation.  It is because citizen disarmament has become an article of "progressive" faith, not logic or reason.    Perhaps part of that is simply that "progressivism" is built on the idea of a powerful state protecting and providing for its citizens.   If the state is your god, limits on it, such as the second amendment, are intrinsically offensive.

But limits on state power have proven to be necessary everywhere. Even socialistic European nations have found that they must limit state power. All of them have far lower corporate tax rates than the United States, for example. Unlimited state power leads to disasters such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and most recently, Venezuela.  Expecting a "world government" to be an exception to the abuse of state power is the worst kind of pollyannism.

I would like to have Charles Krauthammer explain what "domestic tranquility" would be enhanced by a gun ban.   Perhaps he will, some day.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #539 on: September 15, 2014, 07:09:02 pm »

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/12/finally-waving-the-white-flag-on-the-assault-weapons-ban/
9/12/14
Finally Waving the White Flag on the Assault Weapons Ban

My Comment: Not really...

Twenty years after the since-expired assault weapons ban passed Congress, Washington’s leading liberal think says it’s no longer an idea worth pursuing.

The Center for American Progress is waving a white flag on banning assault weapons in a study out Friday titled “Assault Weapons Revisited.” CAP authors Arkadi Gerney and Chelsea Parsons argue that gun control advocates focus their energies primarily on expanding background checks and firearms licensing laws instead of pushing to prohibit assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle.

“The answer is not that assault weapons aren’t dangerous and people having access to them is a good thing,” Mr. Gerney said in an interview this week. “There are other things that we can do to lessen the risks of assault weapons short of banning them. … When you’re making policy, it’s always a mix of what’s going to have a biggest positive impact and what is practical and politically possible.”

Banning assault weapons, which Congress did for a decade as part of the 1994 crime bill, was a centerpiece of the policy prescriptions President Barack Obama sought in the wake of the December 2012 school massacre at Newtown, Conn. Mr. Obama also sought to implement universal background checks for gun purchases, ban high-capacity ammunition magazines and restrict on gun trafficking. Only background checks received a serious hearing in Congress – only 40 senators voted for an assault weapons ban. Background checks fell five votes short.

The 1994 assault weapons ban expired in 2004 when Congress did not reauthorize it. Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, when they addressed the issue, spoke passionately about the need to ban the sort of weapon used during the Newtown shooting.

“We should restore the ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines,” Mr. Obama said during a February 2013 speech in Minneapolis. “Weapons of war have no place on our streets or in our schools or threatening our law enforcement officers. Our law enforcement officers should never be out-gunned on the streets.”

But advocates who worked with the White House said even that push was designed as a threat to force negotiations on expanding background checks, the real gun control goal. It didn’t work.

“On this larger question of assault weapons, let’s take a fresh look and look at a combination of things we can do short of a ban that would make it much harder for criminals and mentally ill to acquire guns,” Mr. Gerney said.

While the White House has done virtually nothing to focus attention on gun violence In the 17 months since the failed background checks vote, gun control advocacy groups have sought to reframe their focus away from Washington. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a grass-roots organization funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, now spends its time pressuring corporate entities to forbid the open carrying of guns in their establishments.

Mr. Bloomberg has pledged to spend $50 million to support friendly candidates in the 2014 election, but evidence of his groups backing House and Senate candidates has yet to emerge. Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group launched by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, in June announced it would back a handful of incumbents who support gun control efforts. They are airing advertisements to back Rep. Ron Barber, an Arizona Democrat who was shot alongside Ms. Giffords and won her seat when she resigned.

The CAP report makes official what advocates have aimed for since the post-Newtown focus landed on background checks. A ProPublica report this week quoted a series of advocates saying they officially support an assault weapons ban but have abandoned the fight for it.

“We’ve very much changed our strategy to focus on public safety measures that will save the most lives,” Shannon Watts, the founder of Mr. Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action, told ProPublica.

Instead, CAP makes an argument for six policy prescriptions that are equally unlikely to receive a hearing in a Congress with zero appetite for any gun restrictions: implement background checks for all gun sales, force dealers to report to the federal government multiple sales of long guns, expand the prohibition on interstate handgun sales to include shotguns and rifles, forbid the use or possession of machine guns by people younger than 16, and require licenses and permits to possess an assault rifle or manufacture guns using 3D printers.

None of those proposals are likely to get a serious hearing with the current Congress. The National Rifle Association successfully fought against the post-Newtown proposals and stands opposed to any new federal restrictions on gun ownership or licensing of gun owners.

“You want to be ready for when there is an opportunity to move federal legislation,” Mr. Gerney said. “Once in a while you have to take the long view and take a look at what are the problems we’re facing, what are the set of policy solutions? Do the solutions match the problem and have we taken a fresh look at the problem?”
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 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