• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

Supreme Court Strikes down Chicago Gun ban

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That "Reagan's" law was introduced by... two D's and an R.

That's nonsense Normy. It was signed and championed by the Republican governor of the state. He had every chance to kill it, but instead, Reagan went on a promotion tour for it.

It was introduced by a Republican, it was literally named after the Republican who introduced it.

Yes, as I wrote, it had support from the State dems, they had to, there were a lot of them in California, but it existed and passed because of two very powerful Republicans.

So much for Republicans fighting gun control, they invented modern gun control. Heck, even Martin Luther King Jr. couldn't get a concealed carry permit after his house was bombed years before Muldord, let alone after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No, you wrote that the Republican's law started gun control but it was a law introduced by two D's and an R, which makes it more of a D law to me.

Daley's proposal did not fail in Chicago, where he was Mayor (and not a Republican.) From the source upthread:

Ordinances that fail never take effect but Daley's did. Please name the Republican leaders in Chicago responsible for Daley's law.

You'll actually deny reality that staring you in the face Normy? Mulford and Reagan were both Republicans.

As for Daley, his proposal failed until what year, Normy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mikewof said:

So much for Republicans fighting gun control, they invented modern gun control. Heck, even Martin Luther King Jr. couldn't get a concealed carry permit after his house was bombed years before Muldord, let alone after.

The Duopoly did invent modern gun control but now only half of the Duopoly continues to pursue the most objectionable policies. The half you ignore.

 

41 minutes ago, mikewof said:

As for Daley, his proposal failed until what year, Normy?

Quote the answer too if you want it. It failed all the way from 1967 until January of 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Duopoly did invent modern gun control but now only half of the Duopoly continues to pursue the most objectionable policies. The half you ignore.

 

Quote the answer too if you want it. It failed all the way from 1967 until January of 1968.

Right, it failed until after Reagan's law.

But yes, and good ... I'm glad that the lefties are pushing the gun control that the Republicans started ... the gun community has shown the maturity of a pack of spoiled twelve year olds. You deserve to have your guns taken away because you have absolved yourself of your responsibility for what your community does and doesn't do. If the Republicans pushed for you folks to have some personal responsibility wrt your gun industry then I would support them too.

And I now see that you aren't in fact a Libertarian in the acid test. When confronted with an undeniable truth of the Republicrat politics, you pulled a Hannity and blamed others. Congratulations Normy, you now know the color of your stripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's continue. Let's pop contemporary gun history out of your rabbit hole, Normy.

Whatever the beginning of gun control (partisan or otherwise) the Goldwater crowd began organized efforts to roll back the CGA  before '68. Frank Sinatra was centrally involved around 1964, with Peter Lawford as the white house connection. Billy Jack was the cohesive force behind the completion, which occurred only after Robert Kennedy and MLK were shot.

The GCA "68 sponsors wanted gun registration, and the gun lobby managed to prevent it.  The law's sponsors felt a great sense of failure at that time. Our unique, low-key FFL system was established within the G CA '68.

Alan Gottlieb, a Bellevue WA publisher of global warming denial up till 1974, began publishing anti gun-control stuff in '74.

 

 After the Mulford Act, a period of history began where old white guys used Larry Pratt talking points, and SAF rhetoric, to directly or indirectly suppress black citizens, on a grand national scale. They empowered themselves at the 1977 NRA convention in Cincinnati, using walkie talkies at 3am to re-write the NRA by-laws. An armed situation developed in the USA, partially based on racial fear, and the fear was generated and amplified by the NRA and SAF mindset... which Normy tries to whitewash.

Normy points a lot of fingers. He doesn't own the gun mess he generates and justifies every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikewof said:

 Heck, even Martin Luther King Jr. couldn't get a concealed carry permit after his house was bombed years before Muldord, let alone after.

MLK couldn't get a CCW in CA? He wouldn't of needed to, open carry was legal until Mulford.

Or did you mean Alabama? If you did, well, I'm not sure why you would be surprised by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

He doesn't own the gun mess he generates and justifies every day.

Say, Joe, don't you own a firearm? Doesn't that make you part of the problem as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Say, Joe, don't you own a firearm? Doesn't that make you part of the problem as well?

Do I sound like I am encouraging gunz and gun mayhem? Am I mis-representing history or the founding fathers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikewof said:

the gun community has shown the maturity of a pack of spoiled twelve year olds.

Oh, right, the community that you have rejected being member of, despite owning one of those awful assault weapons (per NJ)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Do I sound like I am encouraging gunz and gun mayhem? Am I mis-representing history or the founding fathers?

Wouldn't someone who actually believes what they were spouting actually follow those beliefs?

misrepresenting? Well, you have had to be told what the British were trying to do when the revolution became a shooting war.

You also had to be told that some of your "they seized guns" happened when we were at war, or happened before the constitution was ratified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mikewof said:

Mulford and Reagan were both Republicans.

As was Ketchum (another sponsor)

Knox, Karabian, and Sieroty were (D) (the other sponsors)

The House that passed it was (D). The Senate was split.

Sounds like an example of "bipartisanship".

Not the kind I would agree with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

As was Ketchum (another sponsor)

Knox, Karabian, and Sieroty were (D) (the other sponsors)

The House that passed it was (D). The Senate was split.

Sounds like an example of "bipartisanship".

Not the kind I would agree with...

The bill was sponsored by a Republican , signed into law by a Republican Ronald Reagan, voted on by a whole lot of Republicans, never vetoed by the Republican governor, but since it doesn't fit your narrative, it was in fact a "bipartisan" effort.

With that kind of spin, you should rifle gun barrels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

MLK couldn't get a CCW in CA? He wouldn't of needed to, open carry was legal until Mulford.

Or did you mean Alabama? If you did, well, I'm not sure why you would be surprised by that.

He didn't want to carry openly, but he had a lot of armed supporters around him, the attempts on his life were sufficiently compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mikewof said:

With that kind of spin, you should rifle gun barrels.

Right..

Stating a fact "the house that passed it was (D)" is "spin"

Stating that 3 of the cosponsors were (D) is "spin"

Sorry about throwing difficult facts your way, Mike. However you want to spin things in your head, the fact remains that plenty of (D) voted for it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mikewof said:

He didn't want to carry openly, but he had a lot of armed supporters around him, the attempts on his life were sufficiently compelling.

Since we are talking about Alabama, Mike, why would you expect an openly racist government to give MLK CCW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 8:02 AM, mikewof said:

And it wouldn't be contemporary USA is a righty didn't get suddenly indignant over their inability to understand history.

I didn't call anyone a racist, your slip is showing. I'm pointing out the reality of history of which you seem ignorant.

Malcolm X and the Black Panthers pushed for open access to guns, and as a response to the spectre of heavily armed Black Activists, the NRA, Ronald Reagan and even the KKK pushed hard for gun control. Since you apparently don't believe a gun-owning lefty like me, perhaps you can accept a history lesson from a gun-owning Libertarian like Normy?

My point about institutional racism is that small crimes, often fee-based crimes of poverty, are now regularly employed to remove the rights of gun ownership from urban poor. 

That photo of Malcolm X, my poorly-informed righty friend, is of him holding the exact same semi automatic that I own, and that I'm willing to sacrifice to see some change in your community. The Black Panthers built a huge arsenal, with grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons, and an army's worth of ammo. They carried all their weapons openly, which was legal. Even Martin Luther King Jr. was protected by heavily armed activists after the first assassination attempt against him failed.

Open Carry activists and police watchers of the last few years only followed the Black Panthers playbook.

So I'm pointing out the historical reality that you are trying to turn into a shitfight ... the NRA (not outright racists) the KKK (outright racists) and assorted politicians (mixed bag) responded to the Black Panthers with carefully-concerted gun control legislation. 

Now it's 2018, and the main gun advocacy group, the NRA, successfully pushes for more open access to guns, because their Black Militant "problem" is now considered mostly solved ... young Black men are given legal records nearly as a rite of passage, with felony records for crimes as minor as drug possession, or even just not being able to afford the legal fees to defend their misdemeanors in court. Relatively non-criminal, peaceful urban poor are thus barred from carrying concealed weapons, and usually even buying any weapon at all. The goals of the the 1960s NRA, KKK, and politicians are now reality better than any of them could have imagined; middle class and even lower class rural people are well-armed, while urban poor are disarmed.

But things are changing. Just last month, successful challenges have been made to State laws that restored driver's licenses to urban poor who had their licenses refined revoked because they couldn't afford administrative fees. That right may soon apply to some State's concealed carry and gun laws. And when/if that happens, I'll wager that your take on gun control suitably shifts as well.

AS much as you try to state it, the NRA had nothing to do with the implementation or execution of the War on Drugs.  That is what is causing people to lose their rights due to relatively minor offenses.  Take it up with the drug enforcement folks, not the gun lobby.  

As usual mike, your "train of logic" always runs off the tracks at the end.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

AS much as you try to state it, the NRA had nothing to do with the implementation or execution of the War on Drugs.  That is what is causing people to lose their rights due to relatively minor offenses.  Take it up with the drug enforcement folks, not the gun lobby.  

As usual mike, your "train of logic" always runs off the tracks at the end.  

War on Drugs?

Let's get on the same page here so we can discuss.

I wrote that the NRA waa complicit (along with the government) in removing gun rights from Black activists. The way those rights were eventually and most efficiently removed was by issuing felonies for non-violent offenses.

The goal was and is clear ... heavily arm middle class people, and disarm urban poor. Keep urban poor a nonrebellious element by removing their ability to rebel. Malcolm X used a single hand signal to send hundreds of protesters home outside of a police station. That kind of power terrified the powerful racists in this country.

Why disarm urban poor? Obviously, to prevent what was happening in the 1960s. What Huey Newton, Macolm X and Bobby Searle did in the 1960s was so far beyond anything that has happened today BECAUSE they were exercising their Constitutional rights WITH guns!

When a historically free man like you or Normy says that you want to exercise your Constitutional Rights through the Second Amendment, the right that you want to protect IS the Second. But Black activists of the 1960s used guns to protect the rights that you and Normy and I already take for granted! We have full access to the freedoms in our country in a way that someone life Eric Garner never had. A highly educated Black college student is violently dragged away from her social protest, while a Caucasian man who murders people in a church is gently handcuffed and led away. 

I'm happy to discuss this at length with you, JBSF. I would first like to know though if you agree that racists in this country used gun control through the 1960s and 1970s as a way to tamp down rebellion by Black activists.

That you are so far unable to see how both The War on Drugs was part of the same efforts of social control as gun laws, doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with my logic. It means that you and I are visibly Caucasians who don't have to think about the methods of social control of Black people. The complexity of that situation no more interests you than the complexity of the dog food manufacturing industry interests my dog ... she is fed, and that's all she cares about. If an entire culture of dogs went hungry for generations though, hovering just this side of starvation, then it's likely that they would evolve heightened sensitivities to the intricacies of the dog food industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I wrote that the NRA waa complicit (along with the government) in removing gun rights from Black activists. The way those rights were eventually and most efficiently removed was by issuing felonies for non-violent offenses.

You keep saying the NRA was complicit in removing gun rights from blacks back in the 60s.  I've asked you now for the 3rd time to Prove it.  Or STFU.

 

4 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I would first like to know though if you agree that racists in this country used gun control through the 1960s and 1970s as a way to tamp down rebellion by Black activists.

JFC, mike.  I was the one who posted here first that racists used gun control through the 60s and 70s to tamp down rebellion by black activists.  Do you even bother to read before you post stupid shit here???  Note the posting date:  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Since we are talking about Alabama, Mike, why would you expect an openly racist government to give MLK CCW?

First off, my son is an Alabaman, I lived there and raised children there. It is a state that is no more or less racist than the rest of the country. In some ways it is less racist, in other ways more.

Second, Alabama wasn't unique. Black activists found it close to impossible to get concealed carry permits elsewhere in the country too.

And now that's changing, and middle class Blacks are taking advantage of concealed carry to arm up. One was even shot to death in his car by a trigger-happy cop not too long ago.

So what happens next? Middle class Black people are increasingly and legally acquiring arsenals in a way that would have made Malcolm X happy. What about urban poor? Are they going to legally arm up to the extent that they can? Are you okay with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You keep saying the NRA was complicit in removing gun rights from blacks back in the 60s.  I've asked you now for the 3rd time to Prove it.  Or STFU.

 

JFC, mike.  I was the one who posted here first that racists used gun control through the 60s and 70s to tamp down rebellion by black activists.  Do you even bother to read before you post stupid shit here???  Note the posting date:  

 

JBSF, I'm not an encyclopedia to your posts. Please just remind me of your positions and save the insults, those waste time.

And you weren't the first one to uncover this truth, Normy has discussed it longer than you here, and I remember discussing it with my friends at work as a NeXT Computer sat behind them, the NeXT was what, 1990 or so? And then the reason we were discussing it was because it was brought up in an interview we read of Ice Cube from NWA, I think from The Source magazine. So we're not exactly trading in novel information here.

As for the NRA, Karl Fredericks was the NRA President, but he was also a main architect of the Uniform Firearms Act, and he even testified in legislative review that he had not considered the Second Amendment when drafting gun restrictions. Then later, Franklin Orth, VP of the NRA, took no objection to the Gun Control Act of 1968, he spoke in support of it in legislative review on the Act, and said that the NRA sportsmen can live with it.

And aside from the laws that the NRA did push through, it also had little objection to the Mulford Act, which I believe sufficiently meets your challenge above.

Given that, it seems that you agree with me, and in this case, the shitfight is just a shitfight, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Right..

Stating a fact "the house that passed it was (D)" is "spin"

Stating that 3 of the cosponsors were (D) is "spin"

Sorry about throwing difficult facts your way, Mike. However you want to spin things in your head, the fact remains that plenty of (D) voted for it.

 

I wrote that it was pushed by Republicans, which it was. That gun control law, The Mulford Act. was written, proposed, championed and signed into law by Republicans.

Object as you may, that's just reality. It's odd to me that JBSF or Normy aren't suggesting that you stfu on this, given that they too know that The Mulford Act was written, introduced, championed and signed by Republicans. But the selective outrage in these threads is often noticeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll write this, BPM, Normy and JBSF ...

Since really giving this topic some thought over the last few days, I'm now much less against concealed carry permits. If middle class and working class Blacks are now getting them en masse, which seems to be happening, then I can see that change leading to improved cultural relations in this country. 

I'm still against the idea that people with emotional illness and nonviolent offenders should lose that right though. And I'm still more than happy to vote for a ban on semiautos as a carrot on a stick, to get the gun community to take responsibility for a societal and marketing approach to mass murderers ... y'know, since Colin F is just unmanly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, mikewof said:

First off, my son is an Alabaman, I lived there and raised children there. It is a state that is no more or less racist than the rest of the country. In some ways it is less racist, in other ways more.

We are talking about the mid 50s, Mike. Not 2018. Unless you think a guy that has been dead for 50 years is trying to get CCW in Alabama now.

Do try to keep up with what you have been saying in your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 Franklin Orth, VP of the NRA, took no objection to the Gun Control Act of 1968, he spoke in support of it in legislative review on the Act, and said that the NRA sportsmen can live with it.

I think a better way of putting it is that it was a compromise they could live with.

Unless you feel that licensing all owners and registering all firearms is less intrusive then what the GCA of 1968 did. Since that is what some of those supporting the bill wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

I would first like to know though if you agree that racists in this country used gun control through the 1960s and 1970s as a way to tamp down rebellion by Black activists

I'm still not sure why you consider the 60s and 70s as the source of "keeping weapons out of minority or poor hands". Some of the laws doing that started in the 17th century.

But anyplace that has a "may issue" permitting system (for purchasing) is about keeping firearms out of "poor" hands - since they will not have the money to fight a denial in court.

The whole license/permit scheme in NYC is a great example of this. $430 just to apply to be allowed to have a pistol in your home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

We are talking about the mid 50s, Mike. Not 2018. Unless you think a guy that has been dead for 50 years is trying to get CCW in Alabama now.

Do try to keep up with what you have been saying in your posts.

You're butthurt because you didn't believe any of this, and now you're reading history like I suggested you did in the first place. Now you're apparently finding that your well-constructed view of history was incomplete, and you're lashing out at me as the harbinger of reality.

MLK was denied CC, and Black activists turned to OC because they didn't need permits, which they couldn't get anyway. That avenue was incrementally shut down, with the first strike being the Republican-led Muldord Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

I think a better way of putting it is that it was a compromise they could live with.

Unless you feel that licensing all owners and registering all firearms is less intrusive then what the GCA of 1968 did. Since that is what some of those supporting the bill wanted.

Bullshit. You can't change history just because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Top leadership at the NRA championed, wrote and suported key gun control measures. The president of the NRA even testified that he didn't consider the Constitutional aspects of the gun control act that he helped write!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mikewof said:

MLK was denied CC

JFC, In AL. in the mid 50s. Not a shocking outcome for the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

I'm still not sure why you consider the 60s and 70s as the source of "keeping weapons out of minority or poor hands". Some of the laws doing that started in the 17th century.

But anyplace that has a "may issue" permitting system (for purchasing) is about keeping firearms out of "poor" hands - since they will not have the money to fight a denial in court.

The whole license/permit scheme in NYC is a great example of this. $430 just to apply to be allowed to have a pistol in your home.

Weapons were kept away from Black people back to the era of George Washington.

But the Muldord Act was the opening salvo to removing specific OC rights in an effort to stop Black activism. Variations of that effort are still with us today, but the NRA's and the Republican's original efforts in gun control were so effective that they are now able to adopt a stand against "gun control" as a lefty agenda.

I'm a lefty, and I love the idea of millions of Black activists getting CC permits and taking over the NRA. Let's see how your side handles that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Top leadership at the NRA championed, wrote and suported key gun control measures. The president of the NRA even testified that he didn't consider the Constitutional aspects of the gun control act that he helped write!

Are you really suggesting that the "gun lobby" side shouldn't of been involved at all, and just given LBJ his wet dream of a law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

JFC, In AL. in the mid 50s. Not a shocking outcome for the times.

Yes. Why do you keep coming back to that? Read a history book. Please. Are you actually under the impression that the atmosphere in California in the late 1960s, was that much different? Ronald Reagan and Mulford made it their personal agenda to remove gun rights from Black Activists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bpm57 said:

Are you really suggesting that the "gun lobby" side shouldn't of been involved at all, and just given LBJ his wet dream of a law?

You're asking a hypothetical, but the reality is recorded as history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Why do you keep coming back to that?

Because you keep bringing MLK into a topic that occurred 10 years later a couple thousand miles away?

But its nice that your son lives in AL, and I'm still not sure what that has to do with the political situation there 60 years ago. The state gov't was overtly racist then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

JBSF, I'm not an encyclopedia to your posts. Please just remind me of your positions and save the insults, those waste time.

And you weren't the first one to uncover this truth, Normy has discussed it longer than you here, and I remember discussing it with my friends at work as a NeXT Computer sat behind them, the NeXT was what, 1990 or so? And then the reason we were discussing it was because it was brought up in an interview we read of Ice Cube from NWA, I think from The Source magazine. So we're not exactly trading in novel information here.

As for the NRA, Karl Fredericks was the NRA President, but he was also a main architect of the Uniform Firearms Act, and he even testified in legislative review that he had not considered the Second Amendment when drafting gun restrictions. Then later, Franklin Orth, VP of the NRA, took no objection to the Gun Control Act of 1968, he spoke in support of it in legislative review on the Act, and said that the NRA sportsmen can live with it.

And aside from the laws that the NRA did push through, it also had little objection to the Mulford Act, which I believe sufficiently meets your challenge above.

Given that, it seems that you agree with me, and in this case, the shitfight is just a shitfight, no?

OMFG Mikey!  Having “no objection” to something IS NOT THE SAME AS being complicit in or being the driving force behind something. Seriously FFS!  Back then there was no real NRA as we know it now. It was a hunting and sportsman magazine for Christ’s sake. They had no real power or influence. It’s apples and oranges to what the NRA is now.  Even YOU must know this. What little credibility you barely retain here gets smaller by the second when you post stupid shit like this. 

And I never said I “invented” or uncovered the truth about the racism behind gun control. Only that I had already talked about it extensively long before you brought it up here today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mikewof said:

You're asking a hypothetical, but the reality is recorded as history.

Yes, the reality is that we don't have federal owner licensing & firearm registration. Which is what LBJ wanted. He even blamed the gun lobby for it in the signing ceremony.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29197

"Congress adopted most of our recommendations. But this bill--as big as this bill is--still falls short, because we just could not get the Congress to carry out the requests we made of them. I asked for the national registration of all guns and the licensing of those who carry those guns. For the fact of life is that there are over 160 million guns in this country--more firearms than families. If guns are to be kept out of the hands of the criminal, out of the hands of the insane, and out of the hands of the irresponsible, then we just must have licensing. If the criminal with a gun is to be tracked down quickly, then we must have registration in this country.

The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful lobby, a gun lobby, that has prevailed for the moment in an election year."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Top leadership at the NRA championed, wrote and suported key gun control measures. 

Again Mike, Why do you need to continue lying???  You just said upthread that all they did was not object. Make your fucking mind up. 

Please provide a link to where they (the NRA) championed, WROTE and supported key gun control measures in the 1960s. 

You are a lot of things - but I never figured you as a blatant liar and generally dishonest person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Again Mike, Why do you need to continue lying???  You just said upthread that all they did was not object. Make your fucking mind up. 

Please provide a link to where they (the NRA) championed, WROTE and supported key gun control measures in the 1960s. 

You are a lot of things - but I never figured you as a blatant liar and generally dishonest person. 

I just answered your your question earlier on the thread, with established history. If you have a problem with the historical account, argue with the historians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Yes, the reality is that we don't have federal owner licensing & firearm registration. Which is what LBJ wanted. He even blamed the gun lobby for it in the signing ceremony.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29197

"Congress adopted most of our recommendations. But this bill--as big as this bill is--still falls short, because we just could not get the Congress to carry out the requests we made of them. I asked for the national registration of all guns and the licensing of those who carry those guns. For the fact of life is that there are over 160 million guns in this country--more firearms than families. If guns are to be kept out of the hands of the criminal, out of the hands of the insane, and out of the hands of the irresponsible, then we just must have licensing. If the criminal with a gun is to be tracked down quickly, then we must have registration in this country.

The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful lobby, a gun lobby, that has prevailed for the moment in an election year."

Okay. This also is a result of the Mulford Act, and as far as I know, it's historically accurate. No objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

OMFG Mikey!  Having “no objection” to something IS NOT THE SAME AS being complicit in or being the driving force behind something. Seriously FFS! Back then there was no real NRA as we know it now. It was a hunting and sportsman magazine for Christ’s sake. They had no real power or influence. It’s apples and oranges to what the NRA is now.  Even YOU must know this. What little credibility you barely retain here gets smaller by the second when you post stupid shit like this. 

And I never said I “invented” or uncovered the truth about the racism behind gun control. Only that I had already talked about it extensively long before you brought it up here today. 

No real power? Do you mean other than the President, and later Executive VP contributing to, and testifying for gun control legislation? The NRA (more accurately the people of the NRA) was absolutely a contributor to gun control.

Yes, the NRA gradually morphed into an industrial advocacy group along with their hunting and sporting advocacy activities. But your claim in bold up there is nonsense. They did have influence, and though they have changed with the times, the NRA of 2018 is the continuum of the NRA from the 1800s. All of your insults and exclamations don't change that.

I've discussed this in the past too, but again, you've not mentioned anything on the topic that Normy didn't explain a long time before both of us here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Because you keep bringing MLK into a topic that occurred 10 years later a couple thousand miles away?

But its nice that your son lives in AL, and I'm still not sure what that has to do with the political situation there 60 years ago. The state gov't was overtly racist then.

And California's state government was overtly racist in 1968 to push the Mulford Act. 

I mentioned MLK for the same reason you keep mentioning him, to demonstrate the reason behind Black activists going to open carry. It was legal back before the Mulford Act in California and other similar acts later in other parts of the country.

BTW, my son was born in Alabama, he's 7, he no longer lives there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mikewof said:

So what happens next? Middle class Black people are increasingly and legally acquiring arsenals in a way that would have made Malcolm X happy. What about urban poor? Are they going to legally arm up to the extent that they can? Are you okay with that?

Otis McDonald was not exactly a rich man and Chicago has some urban areas. I celebrate his victory in this thread frequently.

 

15 hours ago, mikewof said:

I'm a lefty, and I love the idea of millions of Black activists getting CC permits and taking over the NRA. Let's see how your side handles that. 

Just fine, thanks. I think you may have mistaken us for the gun control community, which would have serious problems with it.

16 hours ago, mikewof said:

Since really giving this topic some thought over the last few days, I'm now much less against concealed carry permits. If middle class and working class Blacks are now getting them en masse, which seems to be happening, then I can see that change leading to improved cultural relations in this country. 

 

15 hours ago, mikewof said:

I'm a lefty, and I love the idea of millions of Black activists getting CC permits and taking over the NRA. Let's see how your side handles that. 

I imagine the NRA would handle it in the typical fashion: by burying them in fundraising appeals. Same as anyone else.

I would expect these new members to be opposed to the idea that their guns should be banned and confiscated, much like Mr. McDonald, so would help fight the D's on those issues. I handle that kind of thing by welcoming any help that comes along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Again Mike, Why do you need to continue lying???  You just said upthread that all they did was not object. Make your fucking mind up. 

Please provide a link to where they (the NRA) championed, WROTE and supported key gun control measures in the 1960s. 

You are a lot of things - but I never figured you as a blatant liar and generally dishonest person. 

What it essentially comes down to is that in the wake of a number of high profile assassinations, the NRA compromised and agreed to "reasonable" gun control measures in the face of intense public pressure. The NRA itself went through it's own internal backlash over it's compromise and so has become more radicalized in it's opposition to almost any gun control measures. The NRA back then thought they could stave off more serious measures by agreeing to things like the GCA, it is much like what gun owners are being asked to do today by people like Mike. If they agree, then in 30 or 40 years people like Mike will be saying the NRA is racist for agreeing to bans on AR15s in a racist move to deprive poor minorities from owning guns which wealthy white folks could still find a way to own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Otis McDonald was not exactly a rich man and Chicago has some urban areas. I celebrate his victory in this thread frequently.

 

Just fine, thanks. I think you may have mistaken us for the gun control community, which would have serious problems with it.

 

I imagine the NRA would handle it in the typical fashion: by burying them in fundraising appeals. Same as anyone else.

I would expect these new members to be opposed to the idea that their guns should be banned and confiscated, much like Mr. McDonald, so would help fight the D's on those issues. I handle that kind of thing by welcoming any help that comes along.

We both say that we're okay with it. The rest of the NRA? Historically, they have not been okay with it. 

Again, the last time this happened with Bobby Searle, a new era of gun control was launched, written, championed and signed by Republicans.

When the rubber meets the road, I guess then we'll really know how you and I feel. And YouTube isn't necessarily supportive of your largesse ...

And that's just OC. But CC? Remember Philando Castile? Beuller? Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LenP said:

What it essentially comes down to is that in the wake of a number of high profile assassinations, the NRA compromised and agreed to "reasonable" gun control measures in the face of intense public pressure. The NRA itself went through it's own internal backlash over it's compromise and so has become more radicalized in it's opposition to almost any gun control measures. The NRA back then thought they could stave off more serious measures by agreeing to things like the GCA, it is much like what gun owners are being asked to do today by people like Mike. If they agree, then in 30 or 40 years people like Mike will be saying the NRA is racist for agreeing to bans on AR15s in a racist move to deprive poor minorities from owning guns which wealthy white folks could still find a way to own.

Aha! You put your finger on it, Len.

The NRA has gone from one extreme to the next. They went from the NRA President admitting that he didn't consider The Constitution (!!) when drafting the most strict gun control law of the day, to now, where they are -- as you describe -- radicalized. (I think it's now more about money than radical politics, but we can discuss that separately.)

The firearms industry has seen unimaginable profits, based on a grabber vs. lover paradigm that has been stoked over the last few decades or so. (To my memory, it started when the NRA was supposed to move to Colorado to become a hunting advocacy group, and they had a putsch to stay in DC to become a lobbying group.) It's not realistic to assume that industry is going to let go of those sales to become a twilight industry. And yet, I can't imagine that the prospect of some 15 million Blacks and some 15 million Mexican Americans arming up, is just going to float with the a core 1.5 million-some in the NRA (that's just my guess, out of 5 million-some members.)

Massive political shifts have obviously happened in the past in the gun community, I think it would be a fool's errand to argue that it won't happen again. But PA is full of fools and errands.

Again, the core issue is this ... Caucasians keep guns to protect their right to keep guns. Black and Brown people increasingly (and historically!) keep guns to gain the right to their Constitutional freedoms. 

The last time this happened, the Republicans launched a sweeping new era of gun control in California.  And then in his Presidency, Reagan supported the loaded gun ban in national parks. So, let's see what happens next, no?

Finally, to Len's prediction of what I will say on 30 years, that's a good, long time. How many years after Reagan's national park ban did it take for Barack Obama to overturn that bit of Republican gun control? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

We both say that we're okay with it. The rest of the NRA? Historically, they have not been okay with it. 

Again, the last time this happened with Bobby Searle, a new era of gun control was launched, written, championed and signed by Republicans.

Historically, the NRA helped Otis McDonald more than any other group.

You still haven't named the Republicans in charge of gun control in 1960s Chicago nor Alabama. Good luck with both.

The fact is, racist gun control laws were promulgated and promoted by both halves of the Duopoly, including the D majority legislature that passed the law you like to attribute only to Reagan.

More recently (much more recently), R's have started to oppose gun control. I wouldn't vote for GHW Bush because of the scary weapon ban issue. Same with his son. Back then, when it was stylish, Trump was on team D on that issue too. I have not forgotten.

But I'm also aware that all of the objectionable gun bans and confiscation programs that concern me today are partisan Democrat projects that now enjoy little or no Republican support.

The NRA and Republicans have come around on their racist gun control policies. I keep hoping the D's will too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Historically, the NRA helped Otis McDonald more than any other group.

You still haven't named the Republicans in charge of gun control in 1960s Chicago nor Alabama. Good luck with both.

The fact is, racist gun control laws were promulgated and promoted by both halves of the Duopoly, including the D majority legislature that passed the law you like to attribute only to Reagan.

More recently (much more recently), R's have started to oppose gun control. I wouldn't vote for GHW Bush because of the scary weapon ban issue. Same with his son. Back then, when it was stylish, Trump was on team D on that issue too. I have not forgotten.

But I'm also aware that all of the objectionable gun bans and confiscation programs that concern me today are partisan Democrat projects that now enjoy little or no Republican support.

The NRA and Republicans have come around on their racist gun control policies. I keep hoping the D's will too.

It's good that the NRA has helped Otis McDonald. How did all that NRA advocacy work out for Philando Castile's famly?

As for Chicago and Alabama, I made no claims to the Party in charge there, regardless that you keep playing that game. I wrote about Reagan's gun control act as -- what I consider -- the opening effort to the new era of gun control against Black activism. Gun control as racism has been with us since George Washington ... Whig, Federalist, Republican-Democratic, they all did it. And I don't consider the Republican policy any more or less racist in this regard, but there is no denying, the Republicans, along with the NRA itself, has been in the gun control business for a very long time. And regardless what you wrote, the Mulford Act probably never would have come into existence if not for the Republican creator of the law and the Republican governor who pushed it and signed it into existence.

And yes, the Republicans no longer need to back control -- at least for now -- because the urban poor who represent a threat when armed, still are not largely armed, Malcom X's ideals have not yet happened, Reagan's Mulford Act killed it. This is one of those political footballs in which the R's have the edge for now. But I think that armed urban poor is in front of us, and when that happens, I also predict a glacial kind of switch between parties in their take on gun control, because the R's have a hell of a lot more to lose with about 50 million-some adult minority Americans with all the political influence that comes from being well-armed. The gun manufacturers will change their marketing approach too ... more Malcolm X and Tupac style, less Rebel Yell. In fact, arming those 50 million-some Mexicans and Blacks is going to be a new gold rush for the gun makers, and there are going to be a whole lot of people who hate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 10:11 PM, mikewof said:

I wrote that the Republican's law started contemporary gun control, and they did.

Or...

12 hours ago, mikewof said:

As for Chicago and Alabama, I made no claims to the Party in charge there, regardless that you keep playing that game.

Contemporary gun control started in one place only, huh? And only the sponsors who had an R counted? And the D majority legislature that passed it doesn't?

Do you know what happens to unpopular minority proposals in a typical House? See this thread. The grabberz have no shot at banning my .22 at the moment. Because a majority won't bring an unpopular suggestion from the minority to the floor at all.

Sooo... gun control was a popular suggestion or would not have seen light of day in the D legislature that passed it.

12 hours ago, mikewof said:

It's good that the NRA has helped Otis McDonald. How did all that NRA advocacy work out for Philando Castile's famly?

On 6/19/2017 at 4:59 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

As for Castile, he's another example of why I don't belong to the NRA and why SAF is better.

 

13 hours ago, mikewof said:

And yes, the Republicans no longer need to back control -- at least for now -- because the urban poor who represent a threat when armed, still are not largely armed

Mostly because they live in places run by Democrats and are still living under racist gun control laws as a result. In FL, they can buy a gun and get a concealed weapons permit just like I can. I don't consider them a threat if they do. I consider them like Otis McDonald: an ally against gungrabby D's.

 

13 hours ago, mikewof said:

I also predict a glacial kind of switch between parties in their take on gun control, because the R's have a hell of a lot more to lose with about 50 million-some adult minority Americans with all the political influence that comes from being well-armed.

I know lots of libertarians. I don't know any who don't own at least one gun. Can't say that for other elk.

All the political influence that results from all that gun ownership plus a few bucks will buy you lunch at McD's.

If this thread doesn't make it clear, I'm not sure what would. Nutz celebrate arming urban poor black people like Otis McDonald. Grabberz fight it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Or...

Contemporary gun control started in one place only, huh? And only the sponsors who had an R counted? And the D majority legislature that passed it doesn't?

Do you know what happens to unpopular minority proposals in a typical House? See this thread. The grabberz have no shot at banning my .22 at the moment. Because a majority won't bring an unpopular suggestion from the minority to the floor at all.

Sooo... gun control was a popular suggestion or would not have seen light of day in the D legislature that passed it.

 

Mostly because they live in places run by Democrats and are still living under racist gun control laws as a result. In FL, they can buy a gun and get a concealed weapons permit just like I can. I don't consider them a threat if they do. I consider them like Otis McDonald: an ally against gungrabby D's.

 

I know lots of libertarians. I don't know any who don't own at least one gun. Can't say that for other elk.

All the political influence that results from all that gun ownership plus a few bucks will buy you lunch at McD's.

If this thread doesn't make it clear, I'm not sure what would. Nutz celebrate arming urban poor black people like Otis McDonald. Grabberz fight it.

Normy, you're reducing yourself to arguing points that I didn't make.

I've no debate about McDonald, you can let that one rest. I did point out that the NRA didn't necessarily extend that courtesy to Philando Castile's family, you seem to avoid that reality. You disagree with their politics and thus won't join them? Is it because of their apparent racism with Castile?

As for the Mulford Act, and Reagan's National Park ban that Obama overturned, I point those out to disrupt the very popular notion that Republicans always fight gun control. They obviously don't, sometimes they invent it and push it into law. As a Libertarian you should have no problem with that reality, because it's true. But you're arguing more like a Republicrat.

You claim not to support the NRA, but then you defend their racism, and volunteer your time to them rather than more apolitical marksmanship advocacy groups.

I like being a lefty, I am what I am. But you seem to make a deficient Libertarian, you keep jumping into irrational defenses of Republicans and the NRA. It's kind of amusing, because your debate is usually pretty tight, but in this case, it's a little ragged. Maybe reconsider the whole Libertarian thing and just become a Republican again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

your debate is usually pretty tight, but in this case, it's a little ragged

Come on, MIkey. Are you way high in Colorado?

Tom leaves loose ends. Tom can be the most slippery poster in the community.Tom has several retractions pending, over total falsehoods. Tom has no valid basis for his gunz to be found in research or history. Tom waves the Heller flag without respecting the inherent Heller basics.

Tom dodges away and employs extended rabbit holes for a reason. Tom's "debate" is full of holes and deflections to wobbly SAF talking points,  which are mere urban myths. Our buddy Tom needs to avoid vast intellectual territory. He is a known cherry picker, and a blight on public safety. Tom needed to hide behind .22 rifle silliness for a year or more. How tight was that?

Tom Ray is a known product at this point. And the product is anything but "tight."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

As for Castile, he's another example of why I don't belong to the NRA and why SAF is better.

 

Quote

 Gottlieb/SAF/CCRKBA: "...we are going to watch this case with a magnifying glass.”

Horse shit. FAIL FAIL FAIL. More daily propaganda from Tom Ray.

FACT CHECKING TOM (a daily task). The announcement  in Tom's link was the full extent of the SAF's concerns. The Trace watched closely, and reported that the SAF never followed up on Mr Castile. Their only involvement was the statement in Tom's link, which was indeed better than the NRA's input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

(Tom Ray:) Historically, the NRA helped Otis McDonald more than any other group.

Wrong again. Let's fly your true flag on this one. The Libertarian group flag.

CATO's Robert Levy declared the McDonald case on the steps of the Heller victory. The paperwork was filed wIthin hours, amidst much Libertarian rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Wrong again. Let's fly your true flag on this one. The Libertarian group flag.

CATO's Robert Levy declared the McDonald case on the steps of the Heller victory. The paperwork was filed wIthin hours, amidst much Libertarian rhetoric.

Something got screwed up on those tags, I didn't write that, I think that Normy wrote it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Come on, MIkey. Are you way high in Colorado?

Tom leaves loose ends. Tom can be the most slippery poster in the community.Tom has several retractions pending, over total falsehoods. Tom has no valid basis for his gunz to be found in research or history. Tom waves the Heller flag without respecting the inherent Heller basics.

Tom dodges away and employs extended rabbit holes for a reason. Tom's "debate" is full of holes and deflections to wobbly SAF talking points,  which are mere urban myths. Our buddy Tom needs to avoid vast intellectual territory. He is a known cherry picker, and a blight on public safety. Tom needed to hide behind .22 rifle silliness for a year or more. How tight was that?

Tom Ray is a known product at this point. And the product is anything but "tight."

He's a fellow kayaker, I extend certain courtesies to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Something got screwed up on those tags, I didn't write that, I think that Normy wrote it.

fixed it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mikewof said:

He's a fellow kayaker, I extend certain courtesies to him.

He has a fine mind and a fine message, too. But the bottom line reveals a guide showing how (and why) to think like trailer trash. My biggest nightmare would be a nation full of Pooplius-type civics. Russia will make good use of his elk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I object to the flat-ness of the discussion. In a bubble diagram of the life of MLK, the bubble, the chapter, for his gun permit denial would be miniscule. He operated on a plane above physical violence, his appeal rested elsewhere...and he succeeded on that plane. 

I don't mind establishing that his gun permit denial was racially based, and even that it would be typical of many situations in the future. But since civil war violence ended long ago, and laws now protect the rights of minorities better, in a progressive pattern, I absolutely do not understand how our race discussions, and ALL referendes to MLK, get high-centered on mere gun rights. Wrong focus, mates.

 

Regarding the NRA's lack of consideration for gun "rights" circa 1964-1968, they had not been invented yet. That historical fabrication began with Libertarian David Hardy in 1974 (according to him, with hyperbole about The Federalist 26 and 49 )

Next,  contributions came from Don Kates (paid for by the NRA in the 1982 Quilici court brief. Kates' early writing largely covers the armed  racial protection angle, as did his 2017 Peruta brief. He is now DTS.)

Quote

HANDGUN PROHIBITION AND THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Don B. Kates, Jr.[*]    A Classic, The 1982 Michigan Law Review

http://www.guncite.com/journals/kmich.html

The next comprehensive "rights" presentation came in 1983, from Joyce Lee Malcolm (who recommends the work of John R. Lott). The NRA published her work in 1994. YCMTSU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I don't mind establishing that his gun permit denial was racially based, and even that it would be typical of many situations in the future.

It need not be.

If permits are to be issued, simply make the issuing agency give an objective reason for a rejection.

No more "you don't look right to me" type permitting discretion. Just objective reasons.

What's wrong with that idea?

8 hours ago, mikewof said:

You claim not to support the NRA, but then you defend their racism,

Quote the post where I did that.

Once you can't, try to learn this: opposition to Democrat gun bans and confiscation programs does not mean someone must be involved in the gun industry and/or a racist. There are some of us out here who simply want to keep our guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

FACT CHECKING TOM (a daily task). The announcement  in Tom's link was the full extent of the SAF's concerns. The Trace watched closely, and reported that the SAF never followed up on Mr Castile. Their only involvement was the statement in Tom's link, which was indeed better than the NRA's input.

Uh huh. The Trace? The most gungrabby of propaganda organs did a fact check on the best gun rights group and found them wanting. Shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I don't mind establishing that his gun permit denial was racially based, and even that it would be typical of many situations in the future.

I'm glad to read that you are in favor of "shall issue", Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 Quote the post where I did that.

Once you can't, try to learn this: opposition to Democrat gun bans and confiscation programs does not mean someone must be involved in the gun industry and/or a racist. There are some of us out here who simply want to keep our guns.

Apologies that I misunderstood, it's good that you don't support it. But seriously Normy ... the Jaycees, YMCA, CMP, maybe the PAL, 4H ... I'm quite sure that any of those organizations would appreciate your generosity with youth marksmanship programs, a lot more than the NRA does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Apologies that I misunderstood, it's good that you don't support it. But seriously Normy ... the Jaycees, YMCA, CMP, maybe the PAL, 4H ... I'm quite sure that any of those organizations would appreciate your generosity with youth marksmanship programs, a lot more than the NRA does.

You may not recall my posts about the conflict between the local Y and the Charlotte Harbor Community Sailing Center.

After they kicked us out, Learn2Sail tried to get along with them, with similar results.

They want to photo op black kids to get donations for a gym used by waterfront home owners IMO. And they have no marksmanship program. At all.

Not sure what your problem is with the fact that Friends of the NRA promotes shooting sports better than others. But they do. Why is it important to you that I ignore the best in favor of non-participants who I consider corrupt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You may not recall my posts about the conflict between the local Y and the Charlotte Harbor Community Sailing Center.

After they kicked us out, Learn2Sail tried to get along with them, with similar results.

They want to photo op black kids to get donations for a gym used by waterfront home owners IMO. And they have no marksmanship program. At all.

Not sure what your problem is with the fact that Friends of the NRA promotes shooting sports better than others. But they do. Why is it important to you that I ignore the best in favor of non-participants who I consider corrupt?

I also haven't had great luck with all Y's. When I was a kid they tried to inject so much Christianity into my brain that I'm sure that part of it is still mush because of that. To this day, I still can't see a Dairy Queen without associating it with endless summer lectures of people burning in hell because they didn't sufficient love Jesus.

So no YMCA, but that still leaves 4H, Jaycees, CMP, etc..

You wrote that you don't support the NRA's racism, I'm just trying to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Uh huh. The Trace? The most gungrabby of propaganda organs did a fact check on the best gun rights group and found them wanting. Shocking.

The Trace sorts facts, and reports them. To dispute them on this issue, you need to show us any SAF action on or support for Mr. Castile, or for his family situation. Something more than a mere link flaunting SAF bluster and fluff..

 

In the broader discussion of the thread, why do you weaponize MLK?  MLK lived passionately and compassionately. He spent his time teaching and inspiring self control and discipline. Those were  Gandhi's weapons against violence and oppression. What each man did worked quite well. Their effectiveness was not based on violence or weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If permits are to be issued, simply make the issuing agency give an objective reason for a rejection.

No more "you don't look right to me" type permitting discretion. Just objective reasons.

What's wrong with that idea?

What's wrong is that local police have first-hand experience with marginal indivuduals who can pass the NICS database. All the violent DV incidents which get routinely  pled down to misdemeanors are one example...  (The SC refused to budge on that this week.) Hoe about DV incidents in which charges are not supported by victims? Criminal charges which are tossed due to technicalities? Emerging problems with teens which are discretely kept outside the system.

Local police enforce the public safety, and so, generally speaking, LE wants a say in gun permits.

Want an example of the effectiveness? Look what happened in Missouri when their permit system was cancelled in 2007: gun murders up 34% within a year, and stayed up, though the surrounding states and nation saw a drop in murders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bpm57 said:

I'm glad to read that you are in favor of "shall issue", Joe

Don't be an asshole. A buddy of mine was trapped inside the Cafe Racer shooting situation, his feet slipping on the brains on the floor as he drove the gunman away with a barstool.

He was left in a room with three dying on the floor. Shall Issue had  prevented the father from taking away the six large handguns from the shooter, as the shooter demonized the family in three counties for six years.

Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Shall Issue had  prevented the father from taking away the six large handguns from the shooter

So you don't know what "shall issue" means...

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

All the violent DV incidents which get routinely  pled down to misdemeanors are one example...

And you don't know the law. I would think that someone who goes on-and-on about the gun control topic would know that _federal_ law since 1996 disqualifies a person convicted of a DV misdemeanor (or possibly just subject to a restraining order) from firearm possession.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1117-restrictions-possession-firearms-individuals-convicted

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The Trace sorts facts, and reports them. To dispute them on this issue, you need to show us any SAF action on or support for Mr. Castile, or for his family situation

Let's set the standard. What did The Trace do for Mr. Castile, or for any other concealed weapons permit holder? Ever?

 

23 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 1/8/2018 at 4:36 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

If permits are to be issued, simply make the issuing agency give an objective reason for a rejection.

No more "you don't look right to me" type permitting discretion. Just objective reasons.

What's wrong with that idea?

What's wrong is that local police have first-hand experience with marginal indivuduals who can pass the NICS database.

You mean marginal individuals like MLK?

That kind of discretion would be OK if we didn't have any racist cops in America. As long as we continue to have cops who think someone is "marginal" because of skin color, you're OK with them exercising their racist discretion?

16 hours ago, bpm57 said:

So you don't know what "shall issue" means...

No he has no clue at all. He thinks it has to do with confiscation, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You mean marginal individuals like MLK?

Again, a shallow association between MLK and gunz.  I'll add it to your racebaiter file, Tom.

MLK wasn't about guns, mate. Yet he faced shallow understandings such as your own, so found a need for arms in the deep south in the fifties and sixties. His patience and non-violence made serious gains for the brothers. Even fucking LBJ could see the light back then, from Texas.

 

CAN TOM RAY JOURNEY BEYOND JUDGE TANEY 101? IMO, Tom, you have it in your fiber to make the journey to grasp MLK. 

59 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

As long as we continue to have cops who think someone is "marginal" because of skin color, you're OK with them exercising their racist discretion?

Hi Tom. Thus you demean yourself by weaponizing the racial issue.^^^ The cop also might find an individual marginal, whether white or black, because of troubled house calls which would up in poice reports, but not in court records or convictions. Gun control is not inherently a racial issue, and applies to racial issues only with human behavior at its worst. Why set up the zillion cconcrete onnections between gun policy and racial issues? Can you not journey beyone that?

Since the 1980's,  Don Kates, Clayton Cramer, and Hal Halbrook have gone on and on about racial applcation of gun laws. Is this in the LIbertarian playbook? Is it really a central talking point? 

By the way, a certain body of scholars (17 0f 21 with PhD's) say these Libertarian court brief lawyers abused and desecrated the Fourteenth Amendment in McDonald, by dragging race into the gunz problem, contrary to the spirit and thrust of the enactors of the Fourteenth. They document that the Libertarian lawyers of McD cooked the books when  counting the applicable state gun restriction law too.

We need to talk. This is the thread, and it's gonna rise some above race-baiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Let's set the standard. What did The Trace do for Mr. Castile, or for any other concealed weapons permit holder? Ever?

The Trace would suggest Mr. Castile just leave the gun home. Since 1285, carrying weapons has been known to create terror in the realm.

Quote

 William Blackstone Said What?—Misconceptions of the “Fifth Auxiliary Right” Continue

 

 The Rise and Fall of Joyce Lee Malcolm’s Thesis on the Anglo-American Right p1795

   It seems that David I. Caplan was the first to advance the false notions of Blackstone’s “fifth auxiliary right,”545 but Malcolm is undoubtedly the first professional historian to concur and give weight to such an assessment. A close examination of Malcolm’s publications reveals slight variations as to the four corners of Blackstone’s “fifth auxiliary right.”546 Yet, in all her writings, Malcolm contends or infers that Blackstone was articulating a right to be armed in public and private.547

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bpm57 said:

So you don't know what "shall issue" means...

On the contrary. I discovered EXACTLY what it means. Ian Stawicki, the Cafe Racer shooter, was deteriorating mentally and aqkuiring handguns concurrently. Over six years, he had several violent familuy episodes,and  a brother lost an eye in one of them.( Flying TV sets, that sort of thing.) The Father went to the cops,  they read the Shall Issue statute and said, literally, "There;s nothing we can do."  I posted the links three diffent times.

Tom Ray tried to defend the shall issue parameters (offered by CATO in many nearly identical, pre-packaged state law presentations). In my state, unless Ian Stawicki has been committed involuntarily in a mental ward for twelve days or longer, he was good to go with his six large handguns.

I know what "shall issue" means. As a post script, my buddy, the witness who saved three lives, took to alcohol directly after the shooting incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 7:04 PM, jocal505 said:

Shall Issue had  prevented the father from taking away the six large handguns from the shooter,

That's total horseshit!  Shall issue did nothing of the kind.  If the father knew the kid was dangerous, there are plenty of avenues available to stop that.   That's a totally specious argument.  "May issue" very unlikely would have prevented it either, unless the Sheriff was of the sort that certain "types" are not allowed to enjoy the same rights as the rest of us - such as the darkies and the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Over six years, he had several violent familuy episodes,and  a brother lost an eye in one of them.( Flying TV sets, that sort of thing.)

No criminal charges, no restraining orders, sounds like the issue is really something else..

In any event, "shall issue" still doesn't mean what you think it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bpm57 said:

No criminal charges, no restraining orders, sounds like the issue is really something else..

In any event, "shall issue" still doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

The Dorado argument: your position is un -stated, but superior.

 

I looked at the law in question, and reported the requirement to take Ian's guns away. T(wo weeks in the looney bin, involuntarily.) But believe some made up shit anway. You are similar to others in the gun  culture I've encountered, bpm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That's total horseshit!  Shall issue did nothing of the kind.  If the father knew the kid was dangerous, there are plenty of avenues available to stop that.   That's a totally specious argument.  "May issue" very unlikely would have prevented it either, unless the Sheriff was of the sort that certain "types" are not allowed to enjoy the same rights as the rest of us - such as the darkies and the poor.

Did you not read the article? The guns couldn't be taken away beside the father's sincere, repeated, efforts. The police quoted the "shall issue" requirements, and their words were "There's nothing we can do. You'll have to wait for the problem to get worse." Four murders resulted from "shall issue" after Ian was tossed from a band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bpm57 said:

In any event, "shall issue" still doesn't mean what you think it does.

Does it mean "shall not be denied"? Because those are the words in the statute.

NOTE: Washington State features the home apparatus of the SAF, which is located in Bellevue. Gottlieb was ahead of his time, since his Merrill Pulbishing produced global warming denial authors from 1971-1974. They began publishing pro-gun philosophy when there was little to publish... in the emerging field of individual gun rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Did you not read the article? The guns couldn't be taken away beside the father's sincere, repeated, efforts. The police quoted the "shall issue" requirements, and their words were "There's nothing we can do. You'll have to wait for the problem to get worse." Four murders resulted from "shall issue" after Ian was tossed from a band.

Sorry joesph.  But yet another fail from you.  "SHall issue" has fuck all to do with "Shall Keep".  If there were legal issues present where a person's weapons could be confiscated - then it has nothing whatsoever to do with the circumstances of when the permit was first issued.  Even if the state was a "May issue" state, nothing would have changed once he obtained his firearms if he did something subsequent to being approved for the carry license - his guns could still be taken away if he did something that DSQ'd him from having a gun.  

But the REAL issue you constantly miss (or most likely deliberately ignore) is that neither Shall Issue or May issue has fuck all to do with gun ownership.  They only apply to concealed carry.  They have ZERO.  Let me repeat that, ZERO, to do with whether someone can purchase or possess a gun.  I seriously doubt your cafe racer boy would have been any less dangerous and killed any less people had he been denied a CCW permit.  He would have still carried his guns to the cafe and still killed people irregardless of if he had the ability to carry them concealed or not.  AS pedantic Tom has pointed out numerous times, CCW permit holders are statistically FAR less likely to commit crimes than the average person.  Far less.

Your FAIL seems to keep piling up.  Logic is definitely not your strong suit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

his guns could still be taken away if he did something that DSQ'd him from having a gun.  

True, but incomplete. The bar for "keep" was set far too high. And the "shall issue" statute was the dealbreaker, Simple One. Did you read the interview article with the father from end to end? Ian was a mother whacker who was never prosecuted by his family, so was good to go with six guns.

The main "logic" was applied by the legal dept of the Seattle Police Dept, based on the same shall issue statute which others promote. But my own logic seems sound, and here it is: Shall issue sets up such grotesque situations unknown to NICS, so additional local LE involvement in gun permits is an improvement. For all the whingers,  I think gun clubs should do the Permit to Carry screening, and handle the appeals process.

 

Quote

SEATTLE - The gunman accused of killing five people in cold blood Wednesday had a concealed weapon permit even though he was becoming noticeably more volatile over time, his father said in an interview with KOMO News.

Walt Stawicki, the father of accused killer Ian Stawicki, says he knew his son was troubled, but there was nothing the family could do to get the concealed carry permit revoked.

"The response to us was, there's nothing we can do, he's not a threat to himself or others, or we haven't had a report of it, or we haven't had to pick him up - call us when its worse," Walt Stawicki said in a Thursday morning interview with KOMO Newsradio.

"And now it's too late - much worse now, six people are dead."

Walt Stawicki did not specify which agency refused to revoke the permit, or which agency had issued it in the first place.

The disclosure was one of several Ian Stawicki's father made as he tried to paint a fuller picture of his troubled son, who was unemployed and hadn't held a job in several years.

Walt Stawicki said his son had joined the Army in 1989 or 1990, serving for a time at Fort Drum in upstate New York before he was discharged as unsuitable for the military. He suffered an acute hearing loss when a grenade exploded during a training exercise during his short stint in the Army.

A few years after his discharge, Ian Stawicki started collecting guns, but his family thought he had given that up in recent years - though they knew he still carried a concealed weapon.

He worked some odd jobs for a time, but in recent years he had been an unemployed transient.

"He went out and saw friends, walked around, read books, tended the garden with his mother, had a girlfriend," says Walt Stawicki.

As the years went by, Ian Stawicki was becoming more and more volatile and argumentative - but he never harmed anyone or threatened his family, says his father.

"He wasn't getting more and more violent. He was getting easier to get mad," says his father. "But we never thought that he would go cold like this and turn into a killer."

If he had showed signs of violence earlier, the father says, the family might have been able to do something. 

"We've been hoping and praying that something minor would happen enough to allow an intervention to happen," Walt Stawicki said.

The father last spoke with his troubled son on the morning before the shootings - and says he sounded just fine.

"He was care-taking his mother, who is ill," Walt Stawicki said. "There was a lilt to his voice, it sounded like a good day. I said I'd be down later."

A few hours after that, when he saw the surveillance camera images on TV, Walt Stawicki realized it was his son who was suspected of killing four people in cold blood at Cafe Racer in the University District.

Later, he learned that another woman had been shot to death at Eighth Avenue and Seneca Street, and that his son had finally killed himself as police officers approached.

"There were six victims yesterday - not five," says Ian Stawicki's father. "That's the thing I want people to go away with. He was the final victim, he was a victim by his own gun, and all the other people were victims by his own gun - I'm not trying to diminish that."

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Family-Seattle-killer-had-a-concealed-weapon-permit-155978205.html

23 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

to paraphrase the Simple One: not screening gun applicants locally is logically sound

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

True, but incomplete. The bar for "keep" was set far too high. And the "shall issue" statute was the dealbreaker, Simple One. Did you read the interview article with the father from end to end? Ian was a mother whacker who was never prosecuted by his family, so was good to go with six guns.

The main "logic" was applied by the legal dept of the Seattle Police Dept, based on the same shall issue statute which others promote. But my own logic seems sound, and here it is: Shall issue sets up such grotesque situations unknown to NICS, so additional local LE involvement in gun permits is an improvement. For all the whingers,  I think gun clubs should do the Permit to Carry screening, and handle the appeals process.

More fail.  If his family, who obviously knew of his issues, never bothered to bring it up to the cops and have him arrested and prosecuted - then those murders are on them.  Sorry to be harsh, but that's true.  As you know the po-leece can only do what they're called out to do.  They don't read minds and there is no "pre-crime" as of yet.  

And yet again, you are confusing "Shall issue" with gun ownership.  If he passed all the background checks to buy a gun - there is no local screening.  Even in "May issues" states where the Sheriff just doesn't like your looks and may deny a carry permit based on skin color or lack of re-election donations - that STILL would not prevent them from buying a gun in the first place.  Only NICS can do that and until there is some DSQing info in NICS, then the person gets a gun.  Period.  And cafe racer buoy would have still taken his guns to the cafe and killed people - Shall issue permit or not.  

Honestly son - your problem is with the legal system and the 5th Amendment and how we treat those "innocent until proven guilty" folks.  Your issue is not with the 2nd Amendment.  Sounds like you need to have some "YOU'RE GUILTY IF YOUR FAMILY DOESN'T APPROVE OF YOUR ACTIONS" rallies - i.e. build an anti- 5th AM lobby.    

And as LenP as said numerous times, even when family highlight to the Po-Leece that there is a potentially dangerous person in a family that their hands are often tied until that person does something bad.  That is a problem with our legal system of affording someone the benefit of the doubt long after they deserve it.  Again, that has nothing whatsoFUCKINGever to do with the 2nd Am.  

Another joe joe logic fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites