Posts Tagged nra
I’m sick and tired of the “guns don’t kill people; people do” mantra. Its too stupid for words.
If it ain’t a hunting rifle, it was designed for a singular purpose, to give a human being the ability to kill another human being. The same cannot be said about spoons, knives, cars, hammers or hamburgers.
Thom Hartmann explains to Larry the caller why the 2nd Amendment was written to allow citizens to defend their country, not defend AGAINST tyranny.
What would it take for you to stand out in front of your house with weapons and defend yourself against the federal government?
Second Amendment Primer: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…”
Utah’s Washington Country Sheriff Threatens Armed Resistance, Gets History Wrong In Open Letter To President Obama
The most honest message in Washington County Sheriff Cory Pulsipher’s Open Letter to Barack Obama is that Sheriffs are politicians; “We, the elected sheriffs of Utah…” On the other hand, use of the word “We” implying all Utah Sheriffs signed off on the language, is most likely, a lie.
It is difficult to believe that ALL of Utahs 28 county Sheriffs support threatening President Obama with a call to “trade our lives” in an effort to resist “federal officials,” which may also explain why NO OTHER County Sheriffs’ names appear in the letter posted on Cory’s website on behalf of the Utah Sheriff’s Association.
The only substance in the letter is the final paragraph. Whether this paragraph was agreed upon by all of Utah’s Sheriffs, or is merely a personal campaign message, the reader must decide for her/himself.
We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, …we will enforce the rights guaranteed…by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.
Finally, it must be noted that Mr. Pulispher’s implicit assertion that HIS is also “the traditional interpretation” of the second amendment is a canard and should offend even the most pedestrian history buff. I think we can safely assume Sheriff Pulispher’s interpretation of 2A is identical to Wayne LaPierre’s. And it is wrong and certainly NOT the “traditional one.
“In regard to the Second Amendment, not a single Congressman or Senator is recorded as saying that it would establish an individual’s right to possess a weapon.
…In summary the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the states to form and maintain state militias, free of the potential federal incursion created by Article I, section 8, clause 16 of the Constitution. Hopefully, we will one day get an intellectually honest majority on the Supreme Court that will reverse the judicial activism that the five right wing ideologues on SCOTUS forced on the American people in Heller, Citizens United, and the majority’s dangerous restriction on the interstate commerce clause in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sibelius (otherwise known as the “Obamacare” decision).”
For those of you who would dismiss the above as a radical assertion, I would challenge you to read this well research and sourced primer on the actual debate and circumstances surrounding the ratification of the Second Amendment. For those of you more used to reading NRA, Breitbart, Drudge and or the mountains of fabricated, unsupportable drivel presented by so-called second amendment advocates, I fear you will find the level of primary sources and facts in this brief, excruciating.
For posterity, the entire page containing Sheriff Pulsipher’s letter is posted below:
Obama should exercise his presidential authority to effect sensible gun control nationally for two reasons:
1. It bring a badly needed Supreme Court challenge that will likely involve the “Militia” part of the second amendment.
2. It will turn up the volume for historians and constitutional experts in a broad national debate in which second-amendment-extremist will learn a more reasonable interpretation of the second amendment; one that is supported by fact and history instead of the version Justice Scalia smeared like skid marks into our national undies.
We are finally beginning to have an honest discussion about the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Until Sandy Hook, gun rights extremist managed to dominate the conversation. They were allowed to ignore the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary” part.
Here is a PERFECT EXAMPLE from an interview by Nashville’s WSMV-TV on Friday.
It is a fact that the average James Yeager and other Second Amendment Advocates cannot actually recite the whole sentence:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Obama should use his executive power if it will mean Wayne LaPierre, the average 2nd amendment “advocate” and crooked snake oil salesmen like David Hardy will be FORCED to read and memorize THE WHOLE SENTENCE and address the HISTORICAL FACTS surrounding the writing of the Bill of Rights.
The National Rifle Association countered with “arm the teachers.” Gun clubs claim hundreds of teachers are applying for free weapons training. Two hundred people showed up for a class in West Valley City, Utah, outside Salt Lake City, on December 27, 2012, for example. Not all of the people who took the course were teachers. But some were, including Carolyn Cain, who teaches special education kids in kindergarten to the 6th grade in Utah County, Utah.
Since OneUtah enjoys an audience of the most vocal proponents of arming American to the teeth ( I call you Bubbas), it seems appropriate to provide this EXCELLENT legal, historical analysis of the Second Amendment for ongoing reference.
Cheat Sheet for Bubbas:
The word ‘militia’ appears 5 times in the constitution.
Nineteenth Century state courts construed “bear arms” as having a purely military function
If you are semi-conscious today, you probably think your Second Amendment rights all but require every citizen carry a grenade launcher to defend himself, family, property, dog and pretty much anyone who happens to be within range of his choice of ammunition. And you probably think the ‘right to bear arms’ was intended as an individual right and has always been interpreted as such.
AND, you would be wrong…DEAD WRONG.
The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Chief Justice Warren Burger, “The Right to Bear Arms,” Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990
Ever notice self-proclaimed Second Amendment experts (Bubbas) VIRTUALLY IGNORE the word “MILITIA?” Of course you have. No self-respecting NRA member, nor the average, spineless gun toting coward would DARE read the actual text of the Second Amendment even if they could.
So, it is up to the rest of us to get real clear on the Original Intent of the Second Amendment. A slow, careful read of the the article (below) is sufficient to arm yourself to the gills to pound any gun freak into the ground.
“Six of the original 13 states, when ratifying the Constitution, proposed amendments which would become the Bill of Rights. Four of these six ratifying conventions – those of New York, Virginia, Rhode Island and North Carolina – proposed amendments whose language closely mirrored what would become the Second Amendment. But the debates at the ratifying conventions in these four states make it clear that the delegates wanted to guarantee the right of the states to have militias, despite the constitutional empowerment to the Congress to arm the militias.”
The NRA is the enabler of death-paranoid, delusional and as venomous as a scorpion. With the weak-kneed acquiescence of our politicians, the National Rifle Association has turned the Second Amendment of the Constitution into a cruel and deadly hoax. – Bill Moyers
The procession of funerals of innocent children under the casual gaze of the gun lobby and 2nd Amendment zealots, reminds us that our public spaces are no longer safe. This is the antithesis of freedom and civic life. Americans must rise up now against this terror and demand basic security for unarmed people.
Thoroughly debunked years ago, the gun lobby’s favorite research – a 1995 study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that reported an astounding 2.5 million defense gun uses (DGU) each year in the United States. Yep, you read it right; 2.5 million DGUs PER YEAR!
The Kleck study claims that 2.5 million times per year, someone uses a gun to defend themselves. That’s more defensive gun uses than happened in WWII in Europe in 1944. The Kleck study is so flawed the only thing it measures is the wild imagination of gun owners.
As recently as this month, the NRA referenced Kleck’s deeply flawed and thoroughly refuted study AGAIN in their magazine, America’s 1st Freedom.
With the help of liars like Alan Korwin and others, the NRA continues to feed its readers demonstrable lies and distortions.
Here, for your reference, is a short list of the many peer reviewed, refereed, academic articles published that clearly refute Kleck’s astronomical claim.*
- “The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?” Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997
- “The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun use: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events” Chance – American Statistical Association, 1997
- “Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998
- “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey”, Violence and Victims, 2000
- “Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000
- “Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use” Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009
The ultimate proof the Kleck claim is bullshit, is the fact that despite spending 35 million dollars/year to deceive the public and threaten politicians, in fourteen years since the study, the gun lobby has funded numerous FAILED attempts to repeat Kleck’s study.
*It should be noted that Gary Kleck has refused to defend his study ever since it was published.
Note to readers: OneUtah is a leading publisher of accurate, trustworthy, legal and scientific information about gun rights, guns, violence, gun violence and the psychology of CCP holders. Read more about guns and meet the gun lobby.
This is how you know the NRA noise machine is too loud.
Callers who reached both the front desk and the communications department compared the union officials to Nazis, union aides say. On Twitter, organizers of the town hall protest urged people to take pictures and write down the license plate numbers of attending SEIU officials. More alarming than anything else, angry callers and protesters pledged to take up arms against the union.
“If ACORN/SEIU attends these meetings for disruptive purposes, and you have a license to carry….carry,” read one tweet.
“I suggest you tell your people to calm down, act like American citizens, and stop trying to repress people’s First Amendment rights,” one caller warned. “That, or you all are gonna come up against the Second Amendment.”
The National Rifle Association weighs in on all kinds of legislation and rates lawmakers on their votes. But they have never made an issue of a Supreme Court nominee–until now.
The National Rifle Association’s threat to punish senators who vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been met with a shrug by Democrats from conservative-leaning states and some Republicans who are breaking with their party to support her.
The gun-rights group is used to getting its way by spooking lawmakers about the political consequences of defying its wishes. But it never before has weighed in on a Supreme Court confirmation battle. It was cautious about breaking that pattern, and it looks like a losing fight to defeat President Barack Obama’s first pick for the court.
Does this mean that lawmakers have decided not to be bullied by gun lobbyists? Or maybe they finally realize only a very small number of their constituents really give a damn what the NRA says.