33
   

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 07:50 am
http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg

The Real Consequences of Universal Background Checks
02/23/2013
Wayne LaPierre Speech at the 2013 Western Hunting & Conservation Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah

Quote:
It's good to be here this evening and I appreciate your warm welcome. It's great to see so many old friends. I am reminded of the importance of the Mule Deer Foundation and your work on wildlife conservation, habitat protection and development — your educational efforts that promote safe, responsible hunting.

I know that you, as gun owners and NRA members, care deeply about our Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not just words on parchment. It was not a frivolous "suggestion" from our Founding Fathers to be interpreted according to whim. It lies at the heart of what this country was founded upon. Our Founding Fathers knew that without it, all of our freedoms could be in jeopardy.

Our individual freedoms are the very essence of America. They are what make America unique.

We are now facing the single most devastating attack on the Second Amendment this country has ever seen. From the moment the horrible tragedy in Newtown happened, the NRA focused on what would make our schools safer. Every parent cares about protecting our kids at school and we proposed the presence of an armed police officer or security official in every school.

But I've been amazed at how rapidly this debate deteriorated from what has proven to work to what has proven to be the political agenda of those bent on attacking the Second Amendment. Dianne Feinstein herself commented that she has had her gun ban legislation in her desk for over a year — waiting for the right time to introduce it.

Really? Waiting for an unspeakable act to occur so the American people could be persuaded to buy into her political agenda? It's not about making our kids or our streets safer, it's all about their decades-old agenda.

The elites in Washington are not serious. Even in his State of the Union Address where he laid out his second term agenda, President Obama made not one mention — not one word — of the need to improve security for our schools.

Why? Because they're not serious about taking steps that actually work. They're not serious about prosecuting violent criminals. Vice President Biden even admitted it, saying they don't have time to prosecute. They don't have time?

They're not serious about fixing the mental health system. They've emptied the institutions and every police officer knows dangerous people out on the streets right now.

And here's the dirty secret they don't want you to know. Many of the politicians who are trying to ban your guns and restrict your freedom are the very same politicians who, for more than two decades, have been blocking efforts to get records of the mentally ill into the national instant check system. Talk about hypocrisy!

What they are serious about is banning, taxing and taking what they want. And leaving you, the average citizen in this country, the least capable person in society able to protect yourself.

The powerful elites aren't talking about limiting their capacity for protection. They'll have all the security they want.

Our only means of security is the Second Amendment and when the glass breaks in the middle of the night, we have the right to all the capacity we need to defend ourselves.

If they limit our access to semi-automatic technology and high-capacity magazines, they limit our ability to defend ourselves. And they don't have the right to take that right away!

The media called me crazy when I said that given a second term, Obama would come after our guns. Okay, I was wrong. He did it BEFORE his second term had even officially begun.

At the heart of their anti-gun agenda is what they call "universal background checks." I've heard people say, "Well, why not? Background checks sound reasonable?"

But don't you be fooled. There is nothing "universal" nor "reasonable" about it. This so-called "background check" is aimed at one thing — registering your guns. When another tragic "opportunity" presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns.

Don't take it from me. Take it from one of the biggest gun-haters on the planet.

[ROLL VIDEO]

That may be the most honest moment in Chuck Schumer's career. Let me say it here and now and for the world to hear — for once in my life, I agree with Chuck Schumer. This is not universal background checks. This is universal registration of your firearms.

Imagine right now your name on a massive government list. You saw what New York Journal News did last December. They obtained the names and addresses of every handgun permit holder in two New York counties. They posted those names and addresses on an interactive map.

So picture this: Your name, your address on a map — giving directions to your home that could include a list of the specific firearms you own. That's a pretty handy list if you're a seasoned criminal, drug dealer or gang member.

How safe do you think that government list will be? Think it's secure? Well, WikiLeaks had no trouble tapping into secret government computers. China hacked into Pentagon computers.

New York isn't the only state to weigh in. Legislation has been proposed in Missouri and Minnesota that requires law-abiding gun owners like you and me to surrender thousands of rifles, shotguns and handguns from their personal collections. Guns that were passed down to them by fathers and grandfathers. Guns legitimately owned, legally purchased — until the government decided otherwise.

Was this what our Founding Fathers intended? Was this what they imagined when they so carefully worded our Second Amendment?

How about the state of Washington? If you live there, know that a bill was introduced that allows the local sheriff to inspect your home to make sure your firearms are securely stored — even without a warrant. Refuse to comply and you could get a year in jail.

Law-abiding gun owners in that state rose up and rallied against that proposal. When their voices were heard, legislation was pulled from consideration just this week. That's what it takes — our voice to be heard loud and clear!

California. If you live there, legislation is pending to register and tax ammunition sales. Legislation is pending that would confiscate hundreds of thousands of legally owned firearms and millions of legally owned magazines.

And no matter what state you live in, I ask you, "What is in your gun cabinet right now? What do you have that was given to you by a family member or friend?" Owning them in the future could make you a felon.

If all this isn't enough, President Obama's friends in the Mexican government have requested our U.S. Senate to create a registry of firearms in this country — and then send that list to Mexico, one of the most corrupt governments in the world! What is the point of THAT?!

I can't help but think as Americans we all want the same thing. We know our mental health system is in shambles. We all want it fixed. We want criminals with guns to be prosecuted and incarcerated. We want the federal gun laws on the books rights now enforced against felons with guns, drug dealers with guns and gangs with guns. If they'd just do that, those violent criminals wouldn't be on their way to the next crime. They'd be in prison. We're sick of the catch-and-release criminal justice system.

We want our children to be safe and protected. That's why we proposed trained police and security officers in every school. There's not a mom or dad that wouldn't feel better when they dropped their kid off at school and saw a police car in the parking lot. There's not a mom or dad in America that doesn't want their children protected.

If the Washington elites really wanted the same thing, they would stop demonizing law-abiding gun owners. They would stop trying to convince the American people that all gun owners are potential criminals in waiting. And they would actually implement programs that addressed the problems in a real and meaningful way.

Put police and trained armed security in every school. Enforce the federal gun laws on the books right now. Interdict and incarcerate violent criminals before they get to the next crime scene. Rebuild our broken mental health system. Help the mentally ill by getting them off our streets and into treatment. And for God's sake, leave the good and decent law-abiding people alone!

The vast majority of the American people are behind us. We, the NRA, are now nearly 5 million strong. By the congressional elections of 2014, we'll be at 7 or 8 million.

We will stand and fight against political hypocrisy. We tell the truth and we unflinchingly defend our constitutional rights.

We will not be duped. We will not be demonized. We will not be divided. We will fight to preserve the liberty that was handed to us intact — the one amendment that ensures our very freedom.

We are proud to defend our freedom and we will never be ashamed of it, Mr. President. As lawful gun owners, we deserve nothing less than absolute respect.

Call your U.S. Congressmen and Senators. Let YOUR individual voice be heard. Send them a letter!

You tell me right now. Will you stand up for your rights? Come on, stand up! Stand up and let ‘em hear you all the way back to Washington! Let your voice be heard loud and clear. We will NOT let you take our freedom!

This is the strongest, best nation on the planet — because our Constitution and Bill of Rights imparts the greatest freedom on earth. We will stand together and fight and, by God together, we will prevail!


http://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/2/48180.JPG
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 12:49 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
OMG... South Africa restricts the number of guns a person can own to 4. How is anyone supposed to defend themselves if they can only have 4 guns? Oh, the humanity of it all.



An the usefulness of limiting a person to four firearms is what?

Got to be some logical reason oh I forgot logic seems to be lacking in most anti-guns laws.


For one thing you would cut down on straw purchases if buyers are restricted to owning 4 guns.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/10/19/2-people-arrested-for-making-straw-purchases-in-philadelphia/
http://www.phillyburbs.com/my_town/bensalem/couple-charged-in-straw-gun-purchases/article_fa5ea384-33c0-5bc9-bcfa-b36dfa25ed7c.html
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 01:57 pm
We have laws that restrict individuals from voting more than once in an election, but these laws didn't stop some individual Obama voters from voting several times. Are there and plans to ban straw votes in 2016 and limit democrats to just 4 this time?
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:00 pm
@H2O MAN,
Did you get this meme from Boortz or O'Lielly?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:08 pm


Any proposal that keeps a record of legit gun owners will 'kill' Senate bill
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:24 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
didn't stop some individual Obama voters from voting several times.


BULLSHIT one Republican state government after another when challenge in court to come up with one in person voter fraud case could not do so.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:33 pm
@BillRM,
BULLSHIT! Do some research Billy, the stories out of Ohio are verified.
It made the news several times, but the liberal media buried it as they do
with all news that makes their guy remotely bad.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:47 pm
@H2O MAN,
There are fifty states and in PA, Florida and so on the Republican control states governments could not find one case of in person voter fraud dating back ten years or more.

In Florida there was indeed voters fraud attempted in the last election but not in person voting fraud but instead absentee voting fraud for Republicans.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:51 pm
@parados,
Yes indeed finding enough drug addicts and bums willing to be straw purchasers for a hundred dollars or so would be real real hard with a limit of four guns per person.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:53 pm


Clearly, Billy is just another irrational poster boy for the emotional liberal idiocracy.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 02:58 pm
@H2O MAN,
Bullshit concerning Ohio claims........

Quote:


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/11/20/the-108-ohio-obama-voter-fraud-myth-and-the-recount-petition

but the second most popular petition at the moment (just edging out an appeal to legalize marijuana) is a call to "recount the election!" on the grounds that Obama benefited from voter fraud in Ohio. (Spoiler alert: He didn't.)

Here's the argument in the petition, which as of this writing has nearly 63,000 signatures:

It has become blatantly obvious the voter fraud that was committed during the 2012 Presidential elections. In one county alone in Ohio, which was a battleground state, President Obama received 106,258 votes...but there were only 98,213 eligible voters. It's not humanly possible to get 108% of the vote!

If ID laws had been enforced (which the administration is completely against because that meant they would lose) then this wouldn't be an issue.

Recount NOW!

[Read the U.S. News Debate: Does Barack Obama Have a Mandate?]

Well that would certainly be something, wouldn't it? If only there was some sort of independent ability to check the facts in the petition. Enter PolitiFact.com's Ohio branch, which does a typically hyperthorough job of dismantling the assertion. They trace the rumor to a blog post identifying Wood County, Ohio as the location of the 108 percent voter turnout. It seems that Wood County is home to Bowling Green college, which goes a long way toward accounting for the discrepancy between the Census-determined voting age population (98,213) and the number of registered voters (106,258 in September, 108,014 in November): Students aren't necessarily counted in the census and are also naturally transient meaning that there are a large number of inactive voters on the rolls (there are apparently a little more than 80,000 active voters in Wood County).

For the record, President Obama won 31,596 votes out of 62,338 cast in the county, around 51 percent. "The petition's claim that Obama somehow managed to collect that many votes is not only demonstrably false, it's ridiculous," PolitiFact concludes before awarding the petition its coveted "Pants on Fire" rating.

I rather like the idea behind the "We the People" website, though this once again shows the limitation inherent in such exercises of direct democracy: There's no threshold of credibility or civic awareness. My colleague Elizabeth Flock provides another example over at Washington Whispers—a petition calling for Obama's impeachment … when the executive branch doesn't have that power.

Oh and one other thing for the conspiracy theorists to ponder: Even if Romney had won Ohio, Obama would still have won the election.

Read Brad Bannon: Republicans Can't F
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 04:01 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

We have laws that restrict individuals from voting more than once in an election, but these laws didn't stop some individual Obama voters from voting several times. Are there and plans to ban straw votes in 2016 and limit democrats to just 4 this time?

Wow.... You really do live in a fantasy world.

By the way, a straw vote is a non binding vote such as the Iowa straw poll which the GOP was more than happy to vote in.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 04:03 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

BULLSHIT! Do some research Billy, the stories out of Ohio are verified.
It made the news several times, but the liberal media buried it as they do
with all news that makes their guy remotely bad.

Even if you could provide evidence of fraud in Ohio, and no verified independent group has ever done so, Obama still wins without winning Ohio.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 04:05 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Yes indeed finding enough drug addicts and bums willing to be straw purchasers for a hundred dollars or so would be real real hard with a limit of four guns per person.

I didn't realize bums and drug addicts could pass the current required background check. If we are letting drug addicts and bums buy guns, it seems we may have a problem with the background check in its current form.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 04:22 pm
@parados,
No background check is going to control guns; there are too many in private hands, and they can't be controlled - by any "democratic" government.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 04:36 pm
Laughing Calm down, you're making liberal spectacles of yourselves.

Your continued use of talking points for responses is sillier than ever.
Please try using the brain in your skull and stop regurgitating liberal propaganda.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 04:41 pm
@H2O MAN,
That's not "liberal propoganda." It's common sense; something you lack.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 07:10 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
I didn't realize bums and drug addicts could pass the current required background check. If we are letting drug addicts and bums buy guns, it seems we may have a problem with the background check in its current form.


Presumably "bum" is the liberals' preferred term for demonizing the homeless??

Why should homeless people be denied their Constitutional rights?

Given their vulnerable position, homeless people may be in greater need than most people for means to defend themselves from predators.


As for drug addicts, perhaps. But if someone were to smoke a little pot on rare occasions, I don't see any case for denying them their rights.

And given the way liberals like to abuse definitions to deny people their rights, I'm sure that anyone who smoked pot one time 40 years ago would be counted as a "drug addict".


One of the most important reasons to block the expansion of the background check system is the fact that it isn't only being used to block people who shouldn't have guns. But rather, it is being abused to block large numbers of law abiding citizens.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 07:16 pm
Have you ever considered stopping regurgitating conservative propaganda, H2O?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 08:54 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I didn't realize bums and drug addicts could pass the current required background check


Why can not most of them pass such checks as all that is needed is that they had not been convicted of a felony for the most part?


 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 01:48:23