Those Damn Guns Again

You can't de-link the two. It's like thoughtone's infantile logic when he screams about Liberty without Justice. One implies the other with Justice being a necessary, not sufficient, condition for Liberty. You can't respect reality then shit on the only way humans have to perceive it.

No wonder you get bored easily, you don't find any value in reality beyond what's in front of your face. That's actually very consistent with your, it doesn't affect me, logic.

That's funny because I don't de-link the two but it's become clear to me that while I try to let reality affect my philosophy, you and others seem to not let reality faze you at all and just stick to your oft-disproven by that same reality philosophies and rhetoric. So if it's just going to be me banging my head against the same wall all the time, why do it?

I didn't say I get bored easily but that's a great example of how you project what's going on in your head to my posts because that's the only way you seem to be able to cogently argue against them. Actually arguing against what I type is seemingly difficult for you.
 
That's funny because I don't de-link the two but it's become clear to me that while I try to let reality affect my philosophy, you and others seem to not let reality faze you at all and just stick to your oft-disproven by that same reality philosophies and rhetoric. So if it's just going to be me banging my head against the same wall all the time, why do it?
Maybe your idea of reality is more limiting than other people's perception. Did that bore you?

I didn't say I get bored easily but that's a great example of how you project what's going on in your head to my posts because that's the only way you seem to be able to cogently argue against them. Actually arguing against what I type is seemingly difficult for you.
You feel I avoid confronting what you type?

I reacted to your statement regarding why you get bored. You offered no differentiating degree, but it comes off as a really low bar.
 
Maybe your idea of reality is more limiting than other people's perception.

It might be. I'm limited to what actually has happened and what's actually said. It puts me at a disadvantage debating those that rely on assumptions and wild hypothesis.


You feel I avoid confronting what you type?

I reacted to your statement regarding why you get bored. You offered no differentiating degree, but it comes off as a really low bar.

Yes, I feel you do, otherwise why not address it directly without projecting?

Don't care how it comes off. I typed it in plain English. If someone wants to go off into the wilderness with it, that's on them. I couldn't use any smaller words.
 



2SVdy.SlMa.91.jpeg




 

Senators predict another vote on gun control legislation



WASHINGTON — Two top senators predicted Thursday that gun legislation will come up again for a Senate vote - possibly before the end of the year - as public attitudes shift toward stricter controls.

Their assessment comes after the defeat last week of a widely popular bipartisan background check measure that was drafted in response to the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., after a gunman opened fire killing 26 people, mostly children.

"I think we're going to bring this bill back before the end of the year and I think you may find some changes," said Sen Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief backer of the bill, at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

"Lots of senators who thought it was safe to vote against it" he said, "are not so sure anymore" because of changing attitudes.


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/25/189667/senators-predict-another-vote.html#storylink=cpy

 
You call it feelings because I don't consider, the government fucks with everyone (who's not rich of course), a valid reason to fuck with this storeowner.

The DA said he was trying to prove a point by sending this to the grand jury. Prove that point on a case that fits his idea of abuse of the principle of self-defense.


Do you realize that you've taken huge-ass leaps over what the prosecutor in this case is doing; what the storeowner must be feeling, etc., and there aren't enough FACTS in the article for anyone to make those kind of hard judgments ???

Seriously, there are only a couple of actual quotes in the whole story and those cast in the context that author chose. 99.9% of the article is just the opinions of the author. Do you not see that ???

How the fuck do you jump so hard to conclusions without hardly a fact to support those feelings ???




Thats a hell of a reality you live in where you think the actions of government lean towards the "right ones."

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. But, why would you just presume in this case, without any factual basis, that its otherwise ???


As you said, grand juries generally result in whatever outcome the government wants. So nothing about your logic protects against the abuse you cited as being made unlikely through this process.

The system isn't perfect -- and I don't know of one that is. If you do, please stop fucking with us and just name the ones that are.

Obviously, there are either aspects of my explanation that you don't get (or, perhaps, there are aspects of my explanation not well articulated). I would have been happy to explain further and in more detail, but it seems you've opted instead to just talk outta your ass and insult my and other's intelligence.

If at some point in the future you decide to re-engage in a dialogue, I'm available. But I've tired of going back and forth with your cynicism.



Once again the county DA isn't even asserting that the store owner did anything wrong. He said he wants to stress that people shouldn't think having a trespasser is a license to kill. The grand jury choice is a political point independent of this particular case.

Is that a valid reason to send shit to the grand jury?

Another case in point. Where are the FACTS in this story that support what the prosecutor is really thinking ??? Hence, most of what you're doing here is guessing, supposing, etc., over the motives, thoughts, etc., of the district attorney, the store owner and some respondents in this thread.


Oh, I'm sorry. What is your opinion that will not be predictable in the slightest?
I don't know where you got that cynical hair up your ass, but its not a substitute for reasoned discussion. However it got there, its becomming obvious that its affecting your vision.


The criminalization of self-defense using a gun (which is the only valid use) is why I posted it and why you and Dave completely see the government as reasonable in this situation.

More dumb shit. I could explain the nuances of the defense and how prosecutors, in general, have to balance and articulate its application to a wide range of fact patterns so as not to promote misinterpretation or create misconceptions of the defense among the general populace. The result could be disastrous to both innocent people and those who misunderstand. But, obviously in your dimmed-view, I would simply be articulating the government's response, so I defer.


And you're labeling those people as kooks because they don't see eye-to-eye with you.

Yes I'm labeling them, but not just because they don't see eye-to-eye with me, but because in my opinion (I think I'm entitled to hold that opinion) that they, with respect to gun control, appear to be falling for the fear and paranoia of "losing their guns" spread by those who have a huge-ass pecuniary interest in spreadiing that fear and paranoia -- so that they can manufacture and sell more guns until not only every man, woman and child has a weapon -- but until all of the known creatures in the animal kingdom become armed and dangerous, as well.


This is one of many threads where those "kooks" are right not to trust that you're concerned about their welfare or safety.

Gotcha. So, we have just another of the many post in which you've made judgments without any FACTUAL basis. You're making quite a habit of that!!!

Not only that, but you've concluded by building another strawman, irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion, absent any factual basis, and too small for your weak-ass arguments to hide behind.

:smh:
 
Do you realize that you've taken huge-ass leaps over what the prosecutor in this case is doing; what the storeowner must be feeling, etc., and there aren't enough FACTS in the article for anyone to make those kind of hard judgments ???

Seriously, there are only a couple of actual quotes in the whole story and those cast in the context that author chose. 99.9% of the article is just the opinions of the author. Do you not see that ???

How the fuck do you jump so hard to conclusions without hardly a fact to support those feelings ???
The only "huge-ass leap" I took was taking what a lawyer said at face-value but I did it anyway.

The DA took another case, where a trespasser was shot, to the grand jury when the trespasser was a threat to property but no physical harm was inflicted on the property owner. Or is that the author's opinion?

That fact plus the DA's statement, taken at face value, shows it's a political point and he isn't assessing things on a case-by-case basis. You find value in that. I don't. Earlier I called him a waste of space if he feels it isn't his job to make judgements on who should be referred to the grand jury.

Of course, we both know he doesn't send everything that comes into his office to the grand jury, just the cases where he can score points and keep his name in the news.

Regarding this storeowner, as long as you aren't promoting that he's an unstable psychopath, of course it would be traumatic for an average person to have his spouse threaten, himself shot at, and then had to take a life in return.

You think it's rocket science and a great leap of faith to say what he went through is enough and having his case considered by a grand jury is a unnecessary?

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. But, why would you just presume in this case, without any factual basis, that its otherwise ???

The system isn't perfect -- and I don't know of one that is. If you do, please stop fucking with us and just name the ones that are.
You're another master of the understatement with "the system isn't perfect." A perfect system doesn't and will likely never exist because people will always give the benefit of the doubt to a governmental authority rather than to the individual. That's according to your misguided belief that, regarding policy, "right ones" are being pursued.

Obviously, there are either aspects of my explanation that you don't get (or, perhaps, there are aspects of my explanation not well articulated). I would have been happy to explain further and in more detail, but it seems you've opted instead to just talk outta your ass and insult my and other's intelligence.

If at some point in the future you decide to re-engage in a dialogue, I'm available. But I've tired of going back and forth with your cynicism.
I thought I had an accurate grasp of everything you were going for. I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence. I was trying to insult your motivations for believing government knows best.

More dumb shit. I could explain the nuances of the defense and how prosecutors, in general, have to balance and articulate its application to a wide range of fact patterns so as not to promote misinterpretation or create misconceptions of the defense among the general populace. The result could be disastrous to both innocent people and those who misunderstand. But, obviously in your dimmed-view, I would simply be articulating the government's response, so I defer.
You seem to put a high value on what they are trying to do rather than the end results.

Yes I'm labeling them, but not just because they don't see eye-to-eye with me, but because in my opinion (I think I'm entitled to hold that opinion) that they, with respect to gun control, appear to be falling for the fear and paranoia of "losing their guns" spread by those who have a huge-ass pecuniary interest in spreadiing that fear and paranoia -- so that they can manufacture and sell more guns until not only every man, woman and child has a weapon -- but until all of the known creatures in the animal kingdom become armed and dangerous, as well.

Gotcha. So, we have just another of the many post in which you've made judgments without any FACTUAL basis. You're making quite a habit of that!!!

Not only that, but you've concluded by building another strawman, irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion, absent any factual basis, and too small for your weak-ass arguments to hide behind.
Over the last 5 months, we've been flooded with information and polls regarding this issue, but the best you can make sense of it is people fear "losing their guns" and that's why they disagree with you.

You definitely show alot more respect to the government than you do to any person.
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://projects.propublica.org/guns/#bill1" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1100>
<A HREF="http://projects.propublica.org/guns/#bill1">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 





LOL




<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/79092426@N08/7084468605/" title="Dick Cheney Hunting Accident by AshTom2, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7198/7084468605_9b4f7e01ac.jpg" width="470" height="398" alt="Dick Cheney Hunting Accident"></a>

 


"Why would a media-savvy and clever man like Dick Cheney delay notifying the press and the police about an accident when

a) he knew it would eventually be covered by the press and

b) he knew he would be criticized for delaying release of the story?​

A simple cost/benefit analysis suggests that he (or those advising him) must
have believed that there was more to be gained than lost by a 14 hour delay
that would eventually be made public. It is likely, therefore, that something
happened during that 14 hour period which was worth the negative costs of
the delay.


What is the most likely thing to happen during a 14 hour delay that is worth the negative publicity? One possibility is that it takes approximately that period of time for alcohol to dissipate in the body and no longer be subject to accurate testing.​

- Alan Dershowitz: Dick Cheney's Delay - LMBAO @ Dick Cheney


 
Tenant Shoots, Kills Man Who Tried To Break Into Apartment

Tenant Shoots, Kills Man Who Tried To Break Into Apartment
May 28, 2013 11:52 AM

CHICAGO (STMW) — A resident of a Far South Side West Pullman area apartment fatally shot a man who allegedly tried to break into the apartment early Sunday.

The man — identified by the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office as 27-year-old Malcolm Dobbey — allegedly tried to force his way into an apartment in the 12100 block of South Indiana Avenue through a back door about 2:10 a.m. Sunday, police said.

The resident shot Dobbey, who officers found unresponsive in the backyard, police said.

Dobbey, of the 600 block of East 92nd Street, was declared dead at 3:20 a.m. at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, according to the medical examiner’s office. An autopsy determined Dobbey died from a gunshot wound to the chest and the death was ruled a homicide.

Area South detectives initially questioned the resident, but determined the shooting was justified, and no charges were filed.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/28/tenant-shoots-kills-man-to-tried-to-break-into-apartment/
 
Now this shit is Nazi!


source: CNN

Threatening letters to Bloomberg test positive for ricin


<EMBED height=234 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=416 src=http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_embed_2x_container.swf?site=cnn&profile=desktop&context=embed&videoId=us/2013/05/29/tsr-ricin-letters-bloomberg-anti-gun-mayors.cnn&contentId=us/2013/05/29/tsr-ricin-letters-bloomberg-anti-gun-mayors.cnn wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" bgcolor="#000000"></EMBED></OBJECT></P>

NYPD: Ricin letter sent to Bloomberg

New York (CNN) -- Preliminary tests indicate ricin was found in letters sent this past weekend to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York deputy police commissioner Paul Browne said Wednesday.

Browne said the letters to Bloomberg contained a threat to the mayor and mentioned the debate on gun laws.

"The letter obviously, referred to our anti-gun efforts but there's 12,000 people (who) are going to get killed this year with guns and 19,000 that are going to commit suicide with guns, and we're not going to walk away from those efforts," Bloomberg said.

One letter addressed to the mayor's office was opened at the city government's mail facility, Browne said.

The suspicious material found in the two letters was a "pink-orange oily substance," he said, adding that it was the second of two tests that showed what appeared to be trace amounts of ricin.

The substance is being tested at the National Bioforensic Analysis Center in Maryland, with conclusive results expected by Friday.

Some of the emergency services workers who touched the letter Friday were examined after they showed minor intestinal symptoms of ricin exposure on Saturday, Browne said. The symptoms have since subsided.

Civilian workers showed no symptoms, Browne said in a statement.

"We take a lot of security measures as you know," Bloomberg said. "The men and women that open the mail for example ... they are well trained."

The second letter to the mayor was opened by Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns -- founded and co-chaired by Bloomberg -- in Washington on Sunday. Browne's statement appeared to indicate Glaze showed no symptoms.

A spokeswoman for the organization declined to comment Wednesday.

Both letters were postmarked in Shreveport, Louisiana, on May 20, the American Postal Workers Union said on its website.

Bloomberg is an outspoken critic of current gun laws. In March, he said nationwide background checks on all gun sales would save lives.

"We know that's true, because in states that already require background checks on private sales, the rate of women murdered by an intimate partner armed with a gun is 38% lower than in states that don't have such background checks," he said.

FBI spokesman Jim Margolin told CNN the agency is working to determine from where the letters were sent and who sent them.

If inhaled, injected or ingested, less than a pinpoint of ricin can kill a person within 36 to 48 hours because of the failure of the respiratory and circulatory systems. There is no known antidote for the toxin, which is derived from castor beans.

It has been included in letters in the past few months sent to President Barack Obama and other officials.

In April, letters were sent to Obama; Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi; and Sadie Holland, a judge in Lee County, Mississippi. James Everett Dutschke of Tupelo, Mississippi, has been charged with possession and use of a biological agent in connection with the case.

Last week, FBI agents arrested Matthew Ryan Buquet after a grand jury charged him with mailing threatening communication to a senior judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington state.

The FBI said in a statement that tests -- conducted by that agency and the Spokane Regional Health District -- showed that a suspicious substance found with the letter was "active ricin toxin."

There are no indications the cases are connected.
 
Now, You Can’t Ban Guns at the Public Pool


gt_nra_meeting_630x420_130531.jpg
An attendee wears a 2nd amendment shirt while inspecting a rifle during the 2013 NRA Annual Meeting
and Exhibits on May 5, 2013 in Houston, Texas. In a decades-long campaign to deny cities the power to
regulate guns, even the smallest local rules are now coming under attack. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)



If you feel unsafe at a public pool in Charleston, W.Va., you may soon have the right to lie there on a towel with a handgun at your side.

For 20 years, Charleston has been an island of modest gun restrictions in a very pro-gun rights state. But its gun laws — including a ban on guns in city parks, pools and recreation centers — are now likely to be rolled back, the latest victory in a long-standing push to deny cities the power to regulate guns.

Since the 1980s, the National Rifle Association and other groups have led a successful campaign to get state legislatures to limit local control over gun regulations. These "preemption" laws block cities from enacting their own gun policies, effectively requiring cities with higher rates of gun violence to have the same gun regulations as smaller towns.

Before 1981, when an Illinois town banned the possession of handguns, just a handful of states had preemption laws on the books. Today, 42 states block cities from making gun laws, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Even Illinois, which has long allowed its cities to pass gun control measures, is about to invalidate local restrictions on concealed handguns and ban any future local regulation of assault weapons.

Gun rights advocates argue that allowing cities to have their own gun laws creates an impossible situation for law-abiding gun owners, who cannot be expected to read ordinances for every town they might pass through.

The preemption campaign has racked up so many victories nationwide, it's now focusing on holdouts like Charleston, population 51,000.

Charleston's current gun restrictions include a three-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and a limit of one handgun purchase per month, as well as bans on guns on publicly owned property, such as parks and pools.

West Virginia Delegate Patrick Lane crafted an amendment to an unrelated state bill, now passed, that will likely force Charleston to erase those restrictions.

"Crime could happen anyplace. You obviously want to be able to defend yourself and your family if something happens," Lane said, when asked why anyone would want to bring a gun to a public pool.

The NRA did not respond to requests for comment, but its website calls Charleston's restrictions "misguided" and "unreasonable." Its site has closely tracked the progress of the repeal of the ordinances, which it states "would have no negative impact whatsoever on Charleston." The site has repeatedly criticized Charleston's Republican mayor for "speaking out publicly against this pro-gun reform."

It's not clear what effect the spread of preemption has had on public safety. "It's very hard to determine what causes crime to go up and down, because there are so many variables," said Laura Cutilletta, a senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

But in Charleston, Police Chief Brent Webster says he's worried about losing the city's current restrictions, in particular the law banning guns at city pools, concerts and sporting events.

"You will have some citizens say, 'I can do that now, so I'm going to do that,'" Webster said. "I am greatly concerned."

"When they're diving off the diving board, is that [gun] going to be in a book bag? Is that going to be lying under their towel and an eight-year-old kid is walking through the pool area and picks it up?"

Two of the city's former police chiefs also say they're worried about losing the ban on guns in public places that attract kids.

"That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment right. It has to do with public safety," former Chief Dallas Staples said.

Charleston's mayor, Danny Jones, who's fought to keep the gun restrictions, said the city now has no choice but to do what the state legislature wants and roll them back. The state legislature packaged the rollback requirement with a popular measure giving Charleston more leeway in how it raises taxes.

"I'm still reeling from all this, because it's going to affect us in a very negative way," Jones told reporters after the law passed.

Keith Morgan, president of the West Virginia Citizen's Defense League, a gun rights group, said the group been pushing for an end to Charleston's ordinances for years, and that the change would protect law-abiding gun owners from a "minefield" of conflicting local laws.

Lane, the West Virginia delegate, also said that gun-owning commuters were put at risk as they traveled through different cities with different rules.

But neither Lane nor Morgan could cite an example of a gun owner being prosecuted for accidentally breaking the law during their commute, or by accidentally wandering into a city park. When Morgan himself once showed up at the Charleston Civic Center with a gun, he said, he was simply asked to leave, and he did. In lawsuits the West Virginia Citizen's Defense League filed against gun ordinances in Charleston and Martinsburg, the plaintiffs cited their fear of potential prosecution.

The main burden of Charleston's laws for gun owners has been the inconvenience of waiting three days to purchase a handgun, and only being able to buy one handgun at a time — something that can be particularly troublesome "if you're buying a present for your family and there happens to be a Christmas sale at the retailer," Lane said.

Former Charleston law enforcement officers say the handgun restrictions, passed in 1993, helped the city tamp down on the drugs-for-guns trade that was rampant at the time. But since then, gun stores have sprung up right at the city's borders, said Steve Walker, a former Charleston police officer and now president of the West Virginia branch of the Fraternal Order of Police.

"Honestly, I don't know whether with them repealing it, it is going to help them or hurt them," Walker said of the handgun restrictions.

State legislators said that city officials are overplaying their fears.

"I don't see everyone with a concealed carry permit deciding to go to a pool and carry a gun," said Democrat Mark Hunt, a state delegate, "So what if they do? They're law-abiding citizens."

Charleston’s mayor said he has a plan if somebody brings a gun poolside: “We're going to close down the pool."



SOURCE: ProPublica



 
Senate Defeats Background-Check Plan, Imperiling Gun Bill

By Heidi Przybyla & James Rowley
Apr 17, 2013 8:50 PM CT


The NRA had said expanded background checks would lead to a national gun registry. Federal law bars such a registry, and licensed gun dealers have kept sales records since 1968.

Five Democrats voted against the background-check measure: Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Baucus, Pryor and Begich face re-election in 2014 in states carried last year by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Reid also voted no, allowing himself under Senate rules to seek reconsideration of the vote.


Mayor Bloomberg to donors: Don’t give
to Democrats who blocked gun bill



New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is asking big-money donors to withhold contributions to Democratic senators who voted against stricter gun-control laws.

Bloomberg is sending a letter to more than 1,000 top New York-area campaign donors on Wednesday specifically urging them not to contribute to four Senate Democrats – Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) – who voted against a bipartisan gun bill that failed to advance in the Senate.

By asking campaign donors to withhold funds, the mayor — who also has deep pockets — is going against the will of his congressional Democratic allies who tried, but failed to advance gun legislation in April and have warned that increased public criticism of vulnerable Democratic lawmakers could lead to Republican gains.


FULL ARTICLE


 

NRA targets old ally Joe Manchin​






<param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=2475646029001&playerID=1409164951001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdRjek0MS21pRzf_GTDAM-xj&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=2475646029001&playerID=1409164951001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdRjek0MS21pRzf_GTDAM-xj&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>


The National Rifle Association is going after Sen. Joe Manchin in a new 30-second ad.

The ad plays footage from one of Manchin’s 2010 campaign ads for senate, where the West Virginia Democrat boasts his NRA endorsement as he loads a rifle and shoots a copy of the cap and trade bill, while saying he’ll “protect our Second Amendment rights.”

“That was Joe Manchin then. But now, Manchin is working with President Obama and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg,” an announcer says. “Concerned? You should be. Tell Senator Manchin to honor his commitment to the Second Amendment and reject the Obama-Bloomberg gun control agenda.”

In a statement to POLITICO, Manchin defends the bill and said he is still ”the same proud gun owner and NRA member that I have always been.”

“The Washington NRA could spend one hundred million dollars on ads against me; it still won’t make what they say true. If they were honest with their members they would see that my bill not only protects 2nd Amendment rights, it enhances and strengthens them. Unfortunately, the NRA leadership in Washington has lost its way and is more concerned about political power than gun rights and gun safety,” Manchin continued. “I believe that criminal and mental background checks are a commonsense approach to protect our neighbors and children without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. I think most NRA members agree with me.”

Manchin has become a champion for gun control legislation, co-sponsoring a failed gun control bill that aimed to expand background checks for gun purchases. On Wednesday, he met with families of the victims of the Newtown, Conn. school shooting in his Capitol Hill office.

(PHOTOS: Politicians speak out on gun control)

“I’ve been all over the state of West Virginia. There’s not a state I believe that cherishes its Second Amendment rights and has a gun culture more than our state, and yet I talk to my gun friends and all the people I shoot and hunt with, and they believe it makes sense,” he said of the background check measure according to CNN.



SOURCE



 
Federal nullification efforts mounting in states
By DAVID A. LIEB | Associated Press
1 hr 38 mins ago

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Imagine the scenario: A federal agent attempts to arrest someone for illegally selling a machine gun. Instead, the federal agent is arrested — charged in a state court with the crime of enforcing federal gun laws.
Farfetched? Not as much as you might think.

The scenario would become conceivable if legislation passed by Missouri's Republican-led Legislature is signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

The Missouri legislation is perhaps the most extreme example of a states' rights movement that has been spreading across the nation. States are increasingly adopting laws that purport to nullify federal laws — setting up intentional legal conflicts, directing local police not to enforce federal laws and, in rare cases, even threatening criminal charges for federal agents who dare to do their jobs.

An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver's licenses. The recent trend began in Democratic leaning California with a 1996 medical marijuana law and has proliferated lately in Republican strongholds like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback this spring became the first to sign a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.

Some states, such as Montana and Arizona, have said "no" to the feds again and again — passing states' rights measures on all four subjects examined by the AP — despite questions about whether their "no" carries any legal significance.

"It seems that there has been an uptick in nullification efforts from both the left and the right," said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law.

Yet "the law is clear — the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) says specifically that the federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws, even if the state doesn't like those laws," Winkler added.

The fact that U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld federal laws over conflicting state ones hasn't stopped some states from flouting those federal laws — sometimes successfully.

About 20 states now have medical marijuana laws allowing people to use pot to treat chronic pain and other ailments — despite a federal law that still criminalizes marijuana distribution and possession. Ceding ground to the states, President Barack Obama's administration has made it known to federal prosecutors that it wasn't worth their time to target those people.

Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation of the 2005 Real ID Act, an anti-terrorism law that set stringent requirements for photo identification cards to be used to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings. The law has been stymied, in part, because about half the state legislatures have opposed its implementation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

About 20 states have enacted measures challenging Obama's 2010 health care laws, many of which specifically reject the provision mandating that most people have health insurance or face tax penalties beginning in 2014.

After Montana passed a 2009 law declaring that federal firearms regulations don't apply to guns made and kept in that state, eight other states have enacted similar laws. Gun activist Gary Marbut said he crafted the Montana measure as a foundation for a legal challenge to the federal power to regulate interstate commerce under the U.S. Constitution. His lawsuit was dismissed by a trial judge but is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The states created this federal monster, and so it's time for the states to get their monster on a leash," said Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that local police could not be compelled to carry out provisions of a federal gun control law. But some states are now attempting to take that a step further by asserting that certain federal laws can't even be enforced by federal authorities.

A new Kansas law makes it a felony for a federal agent to attempt to enforce laws on guns made and owned in Kansas. A similar Wyoming law, passed in 2010, made it a misdemeanor. The Missouri bill also would declare it a misdemeanor crime but would apply more broadly to all federal gun laws and regulations — past, present, or future — that "infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms."

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter in late April to the Kansas governor warning that the federal government is willing to go to court over the new law.
"Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities," Holder wrote.

Federal authorities in the western district of Missouri led the nation in prosecutions for federal weapons offenses through the first seven months of the 2013 fiscal year, with Kansas close behind, according to a data clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Felons illegally possessing firearms is the most common charge nationally. But the Missouri measure sets it sights on nullifying federal firearms registrations and, among other things, a 1934 law that imposes a tax on transferring machine guns or silencers. Last year, the federal government prosecuted 83 people nationally for unlawful possession of machine guns.

So what would happen if a local prosecutor actually charges a federal agent for doing his or her job?

"They're going to have problems if they do it — there's no doubt about it," said Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based entity that promotes states' rights. "There's no federal court in the country that's going to say that a state can pull this off."

Yet states may never need to prosecute federal agents in order to make their point.

If enough states resist, "it's going to be very difficult for the federal government to force their laws down our throats," Boldin said.

Missouri's governor has not said whether he will sign or veto the bill nullifying federal gun laws. Meanwhile, thousands of people have sent online messages to the governor's office about the legislation.

Signing the measure "will show other states how to resist the tyranny of federal bureaucrats who want to rob you of your right to self-defense," said one message, signed by Jim and Arlena Sowash, who own a gun shop in rural Stover, Mo.

Others urged a veto.

"Outlandish bills like this — completely flouting our federal system — make Missouri the laughingstock of the nation," said a message written by Ann Havelka, of the Kansas City suburb of Gladstone.

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-nullification-efforts-mounting-states-070843059.html
 
Gabrielle Giffords makes
another trek for gun control



3IKnu.WiPh2.91.jpg

Former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband Capt. Mark Kelly testify during the
Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on gun control in Washington D.C., Jan.
30, 2013. | Fang Zhe/Xinhua/MCT



McClatchy Washington Bureau
By Ben Kamisar |
Friday, July 5, 2013



WASHINGTON — With many in Washington glued to the immigration debate, Democratic former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is stoking the flames of another emotionally charged issue: gun control.

After a compromise Senate bill expanding background checks failed to reach the necessary 60-vote threshold in April, Giffords and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, took to the skies Monday to travel across the country in hopes of re-energizing supporters of tightened gun control.

“This is not going away,” said Pia Carusone, the executive director of Giffords’ political action committee, Americans for Responsible Solutions. “We had one vote on one bill in one chamber of Congress. There is a lot more that needs to and will get done.”

The seven-day tour includes stops in six states where at least one senator voted against the background-check bill – including Alaska, North Carolina and Nevada – as well as Maine, where Republican Sen. Susan Collins and independent Sen. Angus King supported the measure.​

Recent polling sponsored by Gifford’s PAC found overwhelming support for background checks in Alaska, Nevada, New Hampshire and North Dakota, leading the group to tout gun control as widely popular.

“We’ll celebrate those who vote yes,” Giffords wrote in a USA Today opinion piece published Monday, “and we’ll notice those who ignored their constituents.” Giffords herself is a victim of gun violence, suffering permanent injuries from a 2011 shooting at a political rally in Tucson.

But not all are celebrating with Giffords, as gun-rights groups don’t necessarily welcome the tour with open arms. Paul Valone, the president of the gun-rights group Grass Roots North Carolina, said Sunday’s upcoming stop in Raleigh was nothing more than a photo op.

“They have no popular support,” he said. “This is all about a media opportunity and creating propaganda to create the illusion of popular support.” Valone said he was unsure whether his group would protest Giffords’ arrival. In late June, the group’s protesters met New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control advocacy organization during a stop in Raleigh.

A February poll of North Carolinians by Elon University found that 93 percent of respondents – including 91 percent of Republicanssupported requiring background checks on all firearms purchases. Valone called the number misleading, and he said the failed Senate legislation amounted to much more than a background check.​

“Take your message to the allegedly gun-free cities, which experience horrific rates of crime, because, frankly, we don’t want to hear it in North Carolina,” he said.

“We’re not interested in an agenda that is packaged to sound reasonable – background checks – but is in fact the attempt to create a de facto gun registration system out of the national instant-check system.”

Andrew Arulanandam, the director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said Giffords’ push was the latest in a series of proposals that would affect only the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

“Reasonable people understand that expanding the scope of transactions covered under a universal background-check proposal will not help reduce crime and will not help reduce horrific incidents from happening,” he said. Arulanandam reiterated his belief that real progress comes from a focus on punishing criminals and restricting access to weapons.

Giffords and Kelly launched their super PAC in January, two years after she was shot and less than a month after a gunman in Connecticut killed 26 children and adults at an elementary school in Connecticut.

The former congresswoman has limited her public appearances since the shooting, but Carusone called the trip energizing and “motivating” for Giffords.

“She’s really passionate about trying to find a middle ground where gun owners and non-gun owners can unite around some of the beliefs they share,” Carusone said.

Despite the frustration of not achieving legislative success, Carusone said the group wouldn’t be deterred.

“These things can take time, unfortunately, but there’s a great sense of urgency here, because in this case, we believe that lives are on the line,” she said.


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/05/195907/gabrielle-giffords-makes-another.html#storylink=cpy



 

After Zimmerman Verdict, NRA Says
‘Stand Your Ground’ Is A Human Right​



NRA-logo-300x298.png




The National Rifle Association has been silent since a jury acquitted George Zimmerman Saturday in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. But it didn’t take long for the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/17/nra-blasts-holder-for-attacking-stand-your-ground-laws-after-zimmerman-verdict/#ixzz2ZJfg5ljH">gun lobbying group to weigh in</a> once Attorney General Eric Holder blasted the notorious NRA-backed Stand Your Ground laws that gained national attention in the aftermath of Martin’s death.

In an address to the NAACP national convention Tuesday, Holder <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/16/2312651/attorney-general-holder-its-time-to-question-stand-your-ground-laws/">criticized state Stand Your Ground laws</a> for causing more violence than they prevent, and potentially empowering individuals to become vigilantes. “By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety,” he said. In response, NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director Chris Cox elevated the controversial state provision to a “human right,” calling Holder’s opposition “unconscionable.”

<blockquote>The attorney general fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it’s a fundamental human right. <strong>To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, </strong>and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda.</blockquote>

The NRA’s opposition to Holder’s statement is unsurprising. In partnership with the American Legislative Exchange Council, the NRA was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/us/nra-campaign-leads-to-expanded-self-defense-laws.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0">behind the drafting and dissemination of these laws</a>, <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground.aspx">ushered through legislatures in at least 22 states</a> over the course of just a few years.

But even if one accepts the <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=libertarian+self-defense+human+right&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS501US501&oq=libertarian+self-defense+human+right&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i62l3.3537j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#gs_rn=20&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=1Odn6SXLGJ4y-bgMYtOMEA&pq=united%20nations%20self-defense%20human%20right&cp=10&gs_id=22&xhr=t&q=self-defense+human+right&es_nrs=true&pf=p&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS501US501&sclient=psy-ab&oq=self-defen&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=2a397225d5c65770&biw=1024&bih=667">libertarian contention that some form of self-defense is a human right</a>, Stand Your Ground laws clearly go above and beyond a minimal self-defense guarantee, by authorizing not just the use of force, but the use of deadly force, without any duty to first attempt to retreat or mitigate the situation. These provisions also authorize that use of force when one fears death, as well as severe bodily harm or even a forcible felony.

Cox’s statement reflects the NRA’s continuing indifference to the deaths caused by robust deadly force laws. Last April, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre responded to outcry over the death of Trayvon Martin by <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/04/14/nras-lapierre-responds-to-trayvon-martin-killin/183980">blaming the media for “manufacturing controversy for ratings”</a> in covering the tragedy. </p>
<!-- google_ad_section_end --> <div class="tags">


SOURCE


 
The One Thing You're Not Supposed To Do

The One Thing You're Not Supposed To Do (10 minutes)
JUN 21, 2013

This week, stories about people who know something's a bad idea, but convince themselves to do that thing anyway.

Christine Gentry grew up in a house in Texas where there was one important rule above all others. It came from her dad: we have loaded guns in the house, and even though I’ve taught you how to shoot them, no one can ever touch them without me being there. As far as anyone in the family knew the kids grew up obeying that rule. Until this past December when Christine confesses to the one time when — as a teenager — that she broke the rule.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/498/the-one-thing-youre-not-supposed-to-do
 
We just need to stop giving justice too many of targets to shoot at.




source: The Raw Story


Texas pastor shoots nephew dead at church on Sunday


kbmt_jones_130729a-615x345.jpg



A Texas pastor is being accused of murder for allegedly fatally shooting his nephew on Sunday.

The Newton County Sheriff’s Office confirmed to KBMT that Pastor Luther Jones of the Belgrade Baptist Church was being held on a murder charge.

Juanita Jones told KJAS that her brother, 34-year-old Curtis Jones, was on the way to another church when someone signaled for him to pull into the Belgrade Baptist Church parking lot. Curtis Jones was reportedly shot at least three times through the passenger side window.

According to neighbors, Curtis Jones stepped on the gas, accelerating the car into a tree in a field across the highway after being shot.

Juanita Jones said that her brother and the pastor had a longstanding family feud, but a precise motive was not released by officials.

Initial reports had said that the shooting occurred as Curtis Jones was entering the church.

Newton County Sheriff Eddie Shannon informed KJAS that an autopsy was being performed. Family members said that Curtis Jones had recently been released from prison.

Watch the video below from KBMT, broadcast July 28, 2013.


<script type='text/javascript' src='http://KBMT.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/WNVideo.js?rnd=398630;hostDomain=www.12newsnow.com;playerWidth=630;playerHeight=385;isShowIcon=true;clipId=9140288;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;advertisingZone=;enableAds=true;landingPage=;islandingPageoverride=false;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDscript_EMBEDDEDscript;controlsType=fixed'></script><a href="http://www.12newsnow.com" title="12 News KBMT and K-JAC. News, Weather and Sports for SE Texas">12 News KBMT and K-JAC. News, Weather and Sports for SE Texas</a>
 
Last edited:

"We Were Bored"

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_nJ2FQauUOg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Three Oklahoma teenagers have been charged in the death of an
Australian who was gunned down in broad daylight as he jogged
on a road in the US state.

College baseball player Christopher Lane, 22, was shot in the
back in the town of Duncan on Friday.

Police said one of the accused admitted Lane was killed
for "the fun of it".





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23771858
 

Gunman wielded AK-47 inside Georgia school;
Luckily, no one injured
This time




aptopix_georgia_school_shooting-1.jpg

Nicole Webb cries as she talks on a phone in the parking lot of a store while waiting for her 9-year-old
son, a student at Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Ga., on Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2013.



aptopix_georgia_school_shooting.jpg

People wait for word in a Wal-Mart Inc. parking lot after
a reported shooting at the Ronald McNair Discovery Learning Academy,
in Decatur, Ga., Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2013.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zE9qORXwuC4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...ested-outside-atlanta-area-elementary-school/
 





<param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=52815148&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc652072" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=52815148&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>



 
Back
Top