This came across my email a couple of days ago.
The point is, does it have some teeth, or it is just BLUSTER?
(from Gun Owners of America, in part)
Don’t Let Ryan Get Away with Any 2A Infringements!
This is becoming painful to watch.
House Speaker Paul Ryan is now asking — begging, really — the Trump administration to unilaterally impose gun control restrictions.
And there is virtually no conceivable way that these restrictions will fall short of eventually regulating or banning your detachable magazines.
“We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix,” Ryan said.
What was he talking about?
The Hill explains:
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday the Trump administration should move quickly to ban a device used in the Las Vegas mass shooting that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire more rapidly.
So Speaker Ryan is urging the ATF to ban bump stocks — even while he has indefinitely pushed back the pro-gun agenda.
But there are two major problems with this.
First, there is no way that Congress — or the administration — will be able to ban or regulate bump stocks without also opening the door to prohibitions on other parts, accessories and magazines.
This is because all of the legislative proposals currently on the table would ban ANY item or device that helps “accelerate the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic firearm.
Using that standard, you can kiss your detachable magazines goodbye!
But the other problem is this: The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from imposing ANY infringements upon our gun rights.
If the Trump administration starts supporting infringements — even if they are so-called minor ones — it will weaken their ability and resolve to oppose the next set of infringements that come down the pike.
Help GOA stay on the frontlines. Every dollar you contribute to GOA right now will be automatically doubled, thanks to a very generous GOA Life Member!
Take Action and Put the Heat on Congress!
Please contact Your Representative and communicate the following:
1. Uphold your oath of office. Do not support ANY infringements upon the Second Amendment — including those that would jeopardize detachable magazines.
2. Tell Speaker Paul Ryan to STOP compromising. If legislators want to follow Ryan off a political cliff, they will truly regret it when voters “remember in November.”
We need to let Ryan know that millions of gun owners oppose his compromises, which will endanger our ability to own detachable magazines.
Plus, he needs to know that there will be SERIOUS ramifications at the polls if he and other Republicans do not stand up for our Second Amendment rights.
We are in a political war to preserve our gun rights.
I want to thank you for your help in putting the heat on your legislators.
So please take action, and urge your family and friends to do so, as well.
My apologies – having some issues here at home, I’ve not been as diligent as I have in the past regarding the fall-De-rall as I usually am regarding the silliness on the Hill.
And while I do support and respect Gun Owners of America, sometimes they get over excited in the name of financial support (learning from the NRA?)
So, what do you guys thing? Bluster or real danger?
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio wants officials at West Point to revoke the commission of an officer who tweeted photos of himself with pro-communist messages while in uniform.
Rubio wrote to acting Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy this week, calling the images an “extreme embarrassment” for the U.S. military, according to the Military Times.
“It is extremely concerning that someone who so often expressed such hostile views towards the United States’ system of government was able to obtain a commission,” he wrote. “(His) revolutionary ideas were harbored long before he was commissioned as an Army second lieutenant. Were West Point administrators or faculty aware of his views and behavior?”
In one photo, 2nd Lt. Spenser Rapone is seen wearing a Che Guevara shirt under his uniform. In another photo, he reveals that the words “communism will win” are written under his hat. The photos were taken at his graduation in May 2016.
Funny, I would have thought him long gone, by now.
(As well as the American and World History professors who either taught or accepted such drivel.)
Sorry, civil libertarians, the military has different standards than the an average citizen. This is not a football team.
Do we want such graduates leading our men and women into battle? For once, I agree with the Senator.
(Daily Caller News Foundation) The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) will now allow girls to join their well known cub scout program which will enable them to advance to the highest rank of Eagle Scout, according to a statement released Wednesday.
The organization’s board of directors voted unanimously to make the historic change to the group that has been for boys since its founding over 100 years ago.
“Today, the Boy Scouts of America Board of Directors unanimously approved to welcome girls into its iconic Cub Scout program and to deliver a Scouting program for older girls that will enable them to advance and earn the highest rank of Eagle Scout,” the group said in a statement Wednesday.
“This decision is true to the BSA’s mission and core values outlined in the Scout Oath and Law. The values of Scouting – trustworthy, loyal, helpful, kind, brave and reverent, for example – are important for both young men and women,” said the BSA’s Chief Scout Executive, Michael Surbaugh.
“We believe it is critical to evolve how our programs meet the needs of families interested in positive and lifelong experiences for their children. We strive to bring what our organization does best – developing character and leadership for young people – to as many families and youth as possible as we help shape the next generation of leaders,” he continued.
Starting in 2018, young girls will be able to join cub scout units. The historic decision reportedly comes after years of receiving requests from families and girls.
Now, this is hardly news. It’s been on the wire services for years. The BSA, in spite of it’s name, has been hunting for more funding forever.
AND, it’s a private organization.
If they wanted to add two year olds or marmots, the could so chose.
It still saddens me, a bit.
Supreme Court justices clashed on Tuesday over whether courts should curb the long-standing U.S. political practice of drawing electoral maps to entrench one party in power, with conservative Anthony Kennedy likely to cast the deciding vote.
The nine justices heard an hour of arguments in the major voting rights case out of Wisconsin involving the practice known as partisan gerrymandering. Their ruling, due by June, could have an impact on U.S. elections for decades by setting standards for when electoral districts are laid out with such extreme partisan aims that they deprive voters of their constitutional rights.
Kennedy, who sometimes sides with the court’s liberal justices in big rulings, did not definitively tip his hand on how he would rule but posed tough questions to Wisconsin’s lawyers that signaled his aversion to electoral districts drawn to give one party a lopsided advantage in elections.
Liberal justices voiced sympathy for the Democratic voters who challenged the Republican-drawn legislative map in Wisconsin as a violation of their constitutional rights. Conservative justices expressed doubt about whether courts should intervene in such highly political disputes, and questioned the challengers’ legal standing to bring the case. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority.
Gerrymandering, a practice that began two centuries ago, involves manipulating boundaries of legislative districts to benefit one party and diminish another.
As previously recounted in these pages, I was recently hospitalized for two separate visits. The first time for kidney and blood ailments; the second for a further analysis of these ailments, resulting in a diagnosis of lymphoma.
As it was the same hospital, the intake both times was similar. Entry through the ER, admittance, followed by a number of uncomfortable days and tests.
During the first day, I was given what I was told was a standard questionnaire. Questions asked and answered. Questions like: Do I wish my Life would end? Do I sometimes with I’d go to sleep and not wake up?
With the additional: Did I bring any weapons or drugs into the hospital? (They do have the standard useless sign prohibiting weapons upon entry.)
As I knew my personal items would be unsecured much of the time, I opted to go unarmed.
During the second admittance, no such questionnaire was offered on day one.
On Day Two, however…
A genial nurse brought the questions to my room. Do I want to kill myself, yatta, yatta, yatta. I could answer these in my sleep.
Then came the weapon and drug questions. No and No.
Then the nurse said, “NOW WE HAVE TO SEARCH YOUR CLOTHES!”
I asked her for her warrant. She said she didn’t have any, just like the airport. I said exactly. She, of course, didn’t understand my point.
After a long, angry standoff, she agreed to have me search my own clothes while she observed. (She obviously had no idea how to do a search.) I could have had two sidearms and kept them hidden from her!
I told her about my previous questionnaire, and no subsequent search. She said those folks would get in serious trouble for not searching me. Apparently, there have been problems with guns (and drugs)!
My search of my own clothes showed nothing.
I oft wondered if she did find weaponry, what was her next move?
And was such a search actionable…
(Larry Klayman, WND) “This (Bush-Cheney) administration is the most secretive of our lifetime, even more secretive than the Nixon administration. They don’t believe the American people or Congress have any right to information.”
– Larry Klayman, chairman, Judicial Watch
Now I tend to look askance as WND, as I do many ‘sources’ on the Internet, but when Judicial Watch pays attention, so do I. – Guffaw
‘Worse than Watergate? A second rate burglary? Seriously?’
The debate on restricting the sale of gun magazines that hold more than ten cartridges has been going on since the first mass shooting. The fact that the magazines have been available to the public for many years prior brings the question of “Why worry about it now?”
Neither conservatives nor liberals can deny that the 2nd Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own firearms. The question is, “how much is too much?”
There’s no real answer due to the fact that limiting one aspect of the 2nd Amendment can cause other aspects to be limited as well.
Almost every mass shooter in history has used large magazines and semi-automatic weapons in their attacks on unsuspecting citizens. While many claim that reducing the number of rounds they can fire in a second or two would save lives, others can also claim that if teachers were allowed to be armed it wouldn’t matter how many rounds the shooters had available.
Is the Size of the Magazine Really That Important?
The main debate revolves limiting magazines that carry ten rounds or more. Legislators seem to miss the fact that it’s the person that pulls the trigger, not the weapon. If the person is intent on harming others, they will find a way to do it whether they have a ten round clip or a 100-round magazine.
The debate will continue to go on as long as there are people in society who have different points of view. The answer may be in the opposite direction, however. Instead of limiting the rights of the people who can use weapons effectively, let’s keep the weapons and their accessories out of the hands of those who misuse them.
~ Firearm Daily
While I don’t thing this was written by a knowledgeable firearm owner, it does make some points for conversation.
As for my .02, I strongly believe in the nose-under the tent, If we allow magazine size, then it’s number of magazine carried, or total rounds carried. Or weight of weapons. Or permissible calibers…
This is not about GUN CONTROL.
It’s about CONTROL!
( from NRA-ILA)
This week (September 8), the city of Tucson, Arizona agreed to repeal their firearm destruction ordinance. This decision came in response to the recent state Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city’s firearm destruction policy as a violation of state law that prohibits local governments from regulating the ownership, licensing, or use of firearms.
The city of Tucson ignored this Arizona state law 12 years ago when the Tucson city council passed an ordinance allowing for the destruction of firearms. Last month, the state Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as violation of state law, and in its ruling specifically acknowledged the NRA’s amicus filing by adopting its argument “that preserving the right to bear arms under the federal and state constitutions is also a subject of state concern.”
“We applaud the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Firearms should not be summarily destroyed by local governments.”
Chris Cox issued a statement thanking the Arizona Attorney General for his efforts in assisting Arizona’s law-abiding gun owners.
“On behalf of the NRA’s five-million members, I want to thank Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for his defense of Arizona’s firearm preemption law,” concluded Cox. “This decision sets an important precedent to protect Arizonans’ firearms freedoms from future infringement by local ordinances.”
September 11. The Sixteenth anniversary of the attack on American soil by segmented tribal forces of the Islamic right.
Have we ‘won’? Hell no!
Yes, we got Bin Laden. But the attacks now continue, internationally.
Including home-grown terrorists, here.
What are the choices? To give up and eventually be assimilated (or killed) by radical Islam?
Or continue to fight the good fight?
I choose the latter. And I’m medically retired and 64. But I still have some fight left in me.
Today, I will take a moment to remember the innocents who died in the Twin Towers (including those who worked for
TMCCC, my former employer, and all the first responders)
And just remember…