Union Bulletin .com

Letter - Ignore the tirades of gun-control lobby lap dogs

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr., a longtime mouthpiece for an entity I choose to call “the Marxist-left,” usually reserves his columns for mindless rants abut nonexistent racism.

Occasionally, Pitts stumps for another favorite cause of the radical, un-American left — gun control.

Pitts is now calling the NRA an “extremist gang.” Is the NRA, one of the last vestiges of patriotism and love of country in America, extremist because it staunchly defends an amendment to the Constitution? Is it wrong for the NRA to stand up for the Second Amendment, one of our greatest freedoms?

And yes, historically, gun control has always been a prelude to tyranny and even genocide.

The “logic” of the gun-control mob seems to be this: If someone misuses a firearm, then millions of Americans, who use firearms safely and responsibly, need to be punished, preferably with repressive new gun laws or outright gun confiscation.

Did draconian gun control-laws prevent a madman from shooting 70 defenseless young people in Norway? Harsh gun laws stopped that terrorist from shooting 39 sunbathers, in Turkey, right? And France’s notorious anti-gun laws prevented another terrorist from boarding a train, with a fully automatic AK-47, with the intent to murder over 200 passengers, correct?

One of America’s largest mass slayings was committed with a can of gasoline! Is Shell Oil an “extremist gang” for manufacturing gasoline?

We need to ignore the inane tirades of gun-control lobby lap dogs, like Pitts, and double our efforts to keep firearms away from people who suffer from severe mental illness. That’s a “sensible” place to start. Taking legally owned firearms away from the law abiding isn’t “sensible.”

Getting back to the NRA, its president, Allan D. Cors, says, talking about gun-ban extremists, “Their agenda always centers on denigrating and diminishing the liberty and rights of ordinary peaceable citizens.”

Curt Stone

http://union-bulletin.com/news/2015/sep/13/letter-ignore-tirades-gun-control-lobby-lap-dogs/

[Yawn]

Same tired meaningless rants, from both sides.

Truths of which we constantly need reminding ...

If actual gun laws on the books were being enforced, way fewer gun crimes would be committed.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/09/worth-shot-tacoma-mulls-gun-drop-boxes/?intcmp=hpbt2/

Gun drop boxes!? Hhhaaaa... yea that will work. Law abiding citizens will just drop them off like mail. And criminals will give up a lucrative black market, repent & toss guns in... in mortal fear of the box.

How has the gun laws changed since Columbine ?

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/columbine-high-school-massacre

"
Gun Control Facts: Existing Gun Laws Would Reduce Crime, But These Are Not Enforced
Matt MacBradaigh's avatar image By Matt MacBradaigh January 14, 2013
Like Mic on Facebook:

The Obama administration has failed in gun control because it has failed to enforce existing gun laws.

In 2007, candidate Barack Obama said, "We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books." He also alluded to cracking down on straw man purchasers and "unscrupulous gun dealers." He continued to reiterate this view on the campaign trail in 2008, including calls for stronger background checks.

When President Obama addressed the people of Newtown, he asked, "can we honestly say that we're doing enough?" and answered, "If we're honest with ourselves, the answer's no. We're not doing enough," adding, "surely we can do better than this ... if there's even one step we can take to save another [life] … then surely we have an obligation to try."

But President Obama has apparently forgotten the words of candidate Obama. President Obama would have to look no further than a mirror to see who is responsible for not doing "better than this." Strong enforcement of existing gun laws has not been a priority. CNN's John Avlon writes, "before the Newtown shootings, the Obama administration had not made enforcement of existing guns laws a political or policy priority" and cites Arkadi Gerney, an adviser to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on illegal guns from 2006-11 who said, "during the Clinton administration there were efforts to fully enforce the gun laws we have."

Failing to fund NICS

During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. Yet many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding, granting just 5.3% of the total authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011

NICS Funding FY 2009, 2010, 2011

Ensuring, for example, that NICS has the mental health data that includes documentation of whether an individual has been involuntarily committed, has strong bipartisan support. Yet state reporting of such data has a long way to go; 19 states have provided fewer than 100 records of individuals disqualified on mental health grounds since the implementation of NICS in the early 1990s. This should be a "no-brainer." A poll released in January 2010 showed 90% of gun owners’ support addressing such gaps. This is a prime example of not enforcing the existing laws, which candidate Obama said we need to do. This is where the administration is failing to "do enough."

Prosecute people who falsify background check information
The Obama Administration Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009. But the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.

There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators. This also has strong support, with 99% of non-NRA member gun owners and 95% of NRA members expressing support for punishing traffickers to the full extent of the law. This is another area where the Obama Administration can "do better."

The irony is that gun rights advocates have argued for years that it's not that more gun laws are needed, but that the existing laws need to be better enforced. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said, "gun-rights activists [have] been saying for years and years [that] the existing laws should be enforced more effectively and proactively." In line with that, the NRA backed the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act that President Bush signed into law."

http://mic.com/articles/22802/gun-control-facts-existing-gun-laws-would-reduce-crime-but-these-are-not-enforced

This article was written a few years ago but the problem is still the same, if not worse. Not only are the gun laws on the books not being enforced, Obama is releasing thousands of felons onto the streets.

Too much self-indulgent "blaming the favorite whipping boy" stuff with this.

When ever the government fails to properly address ANY issue that it is their duty to the people to deal with, it is ALWAYS true that EVERYONE failed.

In the case of existing laws not being properly enforced, it can be that funding was blocked, or that required supporting laws were never passed, or that required Administrative direction was not invested, or was even withheld.

Since it is within the power of even the minority parties to use the media to raise a big fuss when this sort of thing happens, and since in this case NO ONE DID SO, that means that ALL of them functionally colluded to accomplish the result.

Therefore, selecting only your most disliked political figure or group for exclusive blame, isn't really supportable.

I don't think somebody with an armed bodyguard has the right to tell ANYONE they don't need a gun for protection.

Well you're safe then, because that hasn't happened.

There most definitely ARE political leaders who want to limit what firearms people can own. And the only reason they won't call for a total ban on ALL firearms is because they know it would be political suicide. But if the truth be known, that is what they want. Anyone who believes otherwise is being naive or just plain disingenuous.
But hell, let's change the original quoted statement just for you.....

No one being protected by armed guards carrying assault rifles and handguns with high capacity magazines should be able to tell me I can't protect myself with the same firearms.

nothing has changed on that Attitude!
Goal is still the same!

As I recall, Ted Kennedy got caught doing exactly that! His bodyguards got caught with "automatic weapons" but the exact type weren't listed in the article years back.

Actually, ... the power of google ...

"The late Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy’s personal bodyguard was arrested at the U.S. Capitol Building in January 1986 for carrying unlicensed weaponry, including two submachine guns.

Kennedy had tapped the bodyguard’s services for an international trip, and had employed the bodyguard previously. United Press International (UPI) reported on the bodyguard’s arrest on January 15, 1986.

“Sen. Edward Kennedy’s private bodyguard, hired for a trip to South America, was arrested last week when he arrived at the Capitol with two submachine guns and ammunition, officials said Tuesday,” according to UPI.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/flashback-ted-kennedys-bodyguard-arrested-in-1986-for-carrying-unlicensed-machine-guns/#ixzz3m5v1tFAn
"

'control',, such an unpatriotic and unamerican concept



balance is lovely,, NRA to stand up for right to OWN weapons

and gun control lobbyist to interject common sense details about types of weapons and common sense 'regulations' as in 'well regulated'

still abusing that Well Regulated I see!
Maybe it is time you go and look it up in the context of the 18th-Century when it was written!
BTW,no Government has the "Right" to infringe on the Rights of the Citizen,that's why they are called Rights instead of Privileges!
Might Google for the difference,instead of constantly disseminate that dis-Information of yours!

Don't forget Dianne Feinstein....

" If I could�'ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them , Mr. and Mrs. America, turn �em all in � I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren'�t here."

....and then you have People who believe that Government is entitled with infringing on any Rights enumerated,NOT given by Government,but enumerated in the Bill of Rights.The Founders ought to have named the Bill Of Rights the Bill Of Natural Rights,since some People are to thick to understand otherwise!

most of those 'rights' have an unless

the 'right' to free speech (unless it imposes upon someones reputation or endangers others)

the 'right' to marry, albeit a newly interpreted right that isnt actually mentioned constitutionally,,lol

,,unless you are not of age or mental capacity to consent or you are married


rights are not absolute in a society where peoples actions impact other people , the UNLESS is unstated but present in just about any of those 'rights',,


I have a right to breathe, well thats got no unless, EVERYONE does it and NOONE can stop you from doing it under any circumstance UNLESS,,lol, someone has authority to stop your life to save another or to dispense justice for a crime

'well regulated',,,,,, has several different interpretations in the world of academia


but I do believe, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed would suffice if it was meant as an absolute, that comma, and that other phrase, ,must be meant to have some bearing,,,


kind of like how people quote 'judge not lest ye be judged' to mean judgments are absolutely forbidden


yet that passage doesnt say 'judge not', PERIOD, end of sentence

it states 'judge not lest' (comma, conditional, ) ye be judged

well, every christian knows there will be a judgment day, so it makes no sense to assume this was meant as an absolute to forbid judgment for the sake of avoiding judgment,, this instead is replying to being JUST and CONSISTENT in judgement , to judge only in the manner you are going to be judged,,,,


a well regulated militia, was before our well regulated department of defense,, and that right was to arm those individuals,,, we already spend a big chunk of the budget to fulfill that constitutional right,,lol and we ensure those folks are trained and reasonably sane before we arm them as well,,,,


they have to actually fight our wars,,,,

Wrong again. You aren't pay attention to what actually happens, you are buying into the propaganda from both sides.

The reason why no one has seriously tried to call for a total ban, is because they don't want to. What all these politicians DO want, is for suckers to vote them into ever more lucrative high offices, while they continue to PRETEND either to defend rights which no one is actually threatening, or they PRETEND to favor genuine efforts to limit who can get their hands on weapons.

The one group fools the pro-gun ownership crowd into thinking any and all attempts to protect us from lunatics, is a threat to our freedoms. The group on the other side fools their "supporters" into thinking that they are passing real protections, while continuing to only pass half pf what's needed to ACTUALLY fix anything.

It's ALL political manipulation of the American Public.

show me any UNLESS in the Bill Of Rights!

The Constitution restrains Government, not the people!
Sad that today's Progressives have all but forgotten that,and no longer teach it in School!

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed
to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual
right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the
Constitution that mention 'the people,' the term
unambiguously refers to all members of the political
community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment
extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment
implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and
declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.'

Justice Antonin Scalia (b. 1936)
District of Columbia v. Heller, June 26, 2008