• Sick Bastards Protest At Ground Zero « Ed Gruberman كافر#comment-147
Great story about some really disturbed folks.
Archive for the ‘Men’s Issues’ Category
• Sick Bastards Protest At Ground Zero « Ed Gruberman كافر#comment-147
September 12, 2007NEVER AGAIN! NEVER FORGET!
September 11, 2007Today is September eleventh, the year of our Lord two thousand seven. Six years ago this morning the world changed in a way that many it seems, wish would just go away. Well, it is not going away. We, the free peoples of this world must never forget that.
What got me to thinking about this on this anniversary of the terrorist attack? It was the apparent ambivalence of so many people that I see. That, in contrast with something that I watched many years ago in Israel. I was high atop a mesa that had once been an Israeli fort. Seems that the Romans had decided that the land was to be theirs. These ancient people of Israel had been under siege for quite some time. The legions though, would have their way. The fortress was about to fall, the people though were not. They threw themselves to their deaths over the cliffs rather than be enslaved by the Romans. Now, that, was a powerful statement to say the least. Back to when I stood on top of that desert mountain in Israel; The young recruits of the Israeli Defense Force had run from the sea that was many miles away, across the desert, then up the side of the cliffs. When at the top, they said, in Hebrew,
NEVER AGAIN!
Never mind that thirteen people that I knew died while trying to save others. What absolutely has to be, as a way of life, is that we never forget what they gave their lives for. Our peoples, our ways, our beliefs, and our inalienable rights. That is what those brave men and women died for. Not the individual lives, but for what it means to be an American, and yes, like Rangers, they went after those that were their own, to try and help, or to protect the dead, or to fall with them trying to do that.
On this day I wish to extend my heart felt thanks to all those that serve so that others may live.
Patrick D. Sperry
NREMT-Paramedic Retired
The Grasshopper and the Ant.
September 11, 2007TRADITIONAL VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the
winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter,
the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
*****MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and
well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in
his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be,
that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah
with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, “It’s Not Easy Being Green.” Jesse Jackson stages a
demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall overcome.”
Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake. Nancy Peloski, John Kerry & Harry
Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and
both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the
Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer! The ant is fined for failing
to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is
confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit
against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of
single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house
he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of
spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008.
GUN CONTROL’S ABOMINABLE RECORD
September 9, 2007As Senate Reconvenes… Veterans Disarmament Bill Offers False Hopes
Of Relief For Gun Owners
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the
lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but
by the past. — Patrick Henry, in his “Give Me Liberty or Give Me
Death” speech of March 23, 1775
Patrick Henry had it right. Forget the past, and you’re destined to
make the same mistakes in the future.
Gun control has been an absolute failure. Whether it’s a total gun
ban or mere background checks, gun control has FAILED to keep guns
out of the hands of criminals.
But gun control fanatics still want to redouble their efforts, even
when their endeavors have not worked. Congress is full of fanatics
who want to expand the failed Brady Law to such an extent that
millions of law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to own or buy
guns.
For months, GOA has been warning gun owners about the McCarthy-Leahy
bill — named after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick
Leahy (D-VT). These anti-gun legislators have teamed up to introduce
a bill that will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of
thousands of combat veterans — and other Americans. (While McCarthy
and Leahy are this year’s primary sponsors, the notorious Senator
Chuck Schumer of New York was a sponsor of this legislation in years
past.)
Proponents of the bill tell us that it will bring relief for many gun
owners. But to swallow this, one must first ignore the fact that gun
owners would NOT NEED RELIEF in the first place if some gun owners
(and gun groups) had not thrown their support behind the Brady bill
that passed in 1993 and were not pushing the Veterans Disarmament
Bill now.
Law-abiding Americans need relief because we were sold a bill of
goods in 1993. The Brady Law has allowed government bureaucrats to
screen law-abiding citizens before they exercise their
constitutionally protected rights — and that has opened the door to
all kinds of abuses.
The McCarthy-Leahy bill will open the door to many more abuses.
After all, do we really think that notorious anti-gunners like
McCarthy and Leahy had the best interests of gun owners in mind when
they introduced this Veterans Disarmament Bill? The question
answers itself.
TRADE-OFF TO HURT GUN OWNERS
Proponents want us to think this measure will benefit many gun
owners. But what sort of trade off is it to create potentially
millions of new prohibited persons — under this legislation — and
then tell them that they need to spend thousands of dollars to regain
the rights THAT WERE NOT THREATENED before this bill was passed?
Do you see the irony? Gun control gets passed. The laws don’t stop
criminals from getting guns, but they invariably affect law-abiding
folks. So instead of repealing the dumb laws, the fanatics argue
that we need even more gun control (like the Veterans Disarmament
Bill) to fix the problem!!!
So more people lose their rights, even while they’re promised a very
limited recourse for restoring those rights — rights which they
never would lose, save for the McCarthy-Leahy bill.
The legislation threatens to disqualify millions of new gun owners
who are not a threat to society. If this bill is signed into law:
* As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be
prohibited from owning firearms — based solely on a diagnosis of
post-traumatic stress disorder;
* Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection
seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s (and there goes the
family inheritance);
* Your kid could be permanently banned from owning a gun, based on a
diagnosis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Patrick Henry said he knew of “no way of judging of the future but by
the past.” The past has taught us that gun control fanatics and
bureaucrats are continually looking for loopholes in the law to deny
guns to as many people as possible.
GUN CONTROL’S ABOMINABLE RECORD
A government report in 1996 found that the Brady Law had prevented a
significant number of Americans from buying guns because of
outstanding traffic tickets and errors. The General Accounting
Office said that more than 50% of denials under the Brady Law were
for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than
felony convictions.
Press reports over the years have also shown gun owners
inconvenienced by NICS computer system crashes — especially when
those crashes happen on the weekends (affecting gun shows).
Right now, gun owners in Pennsylvania are justifiably up in arms
because the police scheduled a routine maintenance (and shut-down) of
their state computer system on the opening days of hunting season
this year. The shut-down, by the way, has taken three days — which
is illegal.
And then there’s the BATFE’s dastardly conduct in the state of
Wyoming. The anti-gun agency took the state to court after
legislators figured out a way to restore people’s ability to buy
firearms — people who had been disarmed by the Lautenberg gun ban of
1996.
Gun Owners Foundation has been involved in this Wyoming case, and has
seen up close how the BATFE has TOTALLY DISREGARDED a Supreme Court
opinion which allows this state to do what they did. In Caron v.
United States (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court said that any conviction
which has been set aside or expunged at the state level “shall not be
considered a conviction,” under federal law, for the purposes of
owning or buying guns. But the BATFE has ignored this Court ruling,
and is bent on preventing states like Wyoming from restoring people’s
gun rights.
Not surprisingly, the BATFE has issued new 4473s which ASSUME the
McCarthy-Leahy bill has already passed. The bill has not even been
enacted into law yet, and the BATFE is already using the provisions
of that bill to keep more people from buying guns.
The new language on the 4473 form asks:
Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful
authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are
incompetent to manage your own affairs)….
Notice the words “determination” and “other lawful
authority.”
Relying on a DETERMINATION is broader than just relying on a court
“ruling,” and the words OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY are not limited to
judges. In other words, the definition above would allow a VA
psychologist or a school shrink to take away your gun rights.
This is what McCarthy and Leahy are trying to accomplish, but the
BATFE has now been emboldened to go ahead and do it anyway. This
means that military vets could potentially commit a felony by buying
a gun WITHOUT disclosing that they have Post Traumatic Stress
Syndrome because a “lawful authority” has decreed that they are a
potential danger to themselves or others.
No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to the
McCarthy-Leahy bill. On June 18 of this year, the group stated, “For
the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose
a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans.”
MORE RESTRICTIONS, NOT RELIEF
Supporters, like the NRA, say that they were able to win compromises
from the Dark Side — compromises that will benefit gun owners. Does
the bill really make it easier to get your gun rights restored —
even after spending lots of time and money in court? Well, that’s
VERY debatable, and GOA has grappled this question in a very lengthy
piece entitled, “Point-by-Point Response to Proponents of HR 2640,”
which can be read at http://www.gunowners.org/ne0702.htm on the GOA
website.
In brief, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring
the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that
Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which
has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant
opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun
congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for
relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.
Incidentally, even before Schumer blocked the procedure, the ability
to get “relief from disabilities” under section 925(c) was
always an
expensive long shot. Presumably, the new procedures in the Veterans
Disarmament Act will be the same.
Isn’t that always the record from Washington? You compromise with
the devil and then get lots of bad, but very little good. Look at
the immigration debate. Compromises over the last two decades have
provided amnesty for illegal aliens, while promising border security.
The country got lots of the former, but very little of the latter.
If the Veterans Disarmament Bill passes, don’t hold your breath
waiting for the promised relief.
ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. You
can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by
visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers
are also available).
—– Pre-written letter —–
Dear Senator:
While the NRA does some good work in the areas of shooting
competitions, firearms training, etc., THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME when
they support the so-called School Safety Act, sponsored by Patrick
Leahy in the Senate and Carolyn McCarthy in the House (HR 2640).
Gun owners don’t support this legislation, better known as the
Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is
opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that “For the
first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a
lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans.” Gun owners don’t want
to expand the Brady Instant Check, we want to repeal it. It is
simply un-American to penalize individuals (like veterans) with no
due process by assuming they are guilty until proven innocent.
Anti-gun zealots are always looking to expand the number of citizens
who are prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I
don’t believe that this bill will provide the relief that supporters
are promising.
After all, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring
the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that
Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which
has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant
opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun
congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for
relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.
The Leahy bill is gun control, pure and simple, and voting for it
tells me you don’t care about a little thing known as the
Constitution.
Sincerely,
D.C. Officially Petitions Supreme Court To Hear Gun Ban Case
September 9, 2007What is one of, if not the most dangerous city in America, year after year? If you answered Washington D.C. you get a shiny new nickle. Now, there are many reasons that our nations capital is always near the top of lousier places to be. Tell you what folks I could care less about the reasons. I want good people to be able to effectively defend themselves and others from the bad people.
I also know that many of my friends on the Internet will disagree with what I am about to say. If you are a law abiding, meaning no felonies on your record, person that is a citizen without any serious mental problems, then you should be able to own any weapon that you can afford that is a personal weapon. By that I mean no crew served weapons. If you are against that, then state why you are. Look folks, the FBI has said that we have Hamas and Hezbolla terrorist’s among us. What are you going to fight them with? A 22 single shot rifle? If so, you had better be good with it, very good. Oh, you are not going to fight them? Welcome to the religion of peace then.
If this thing that Washington DC has foisted upon the people that live there spreads across the land, as in it being upheld, then you might as well invest in a prayer rug. Oh, and hand over your daughters to the drug gangs, at least until the head banging worshipers take over.
| Friday, September 07, 2007 |
| This week, the District of Columbia formally filed its petition for review, asking the Supreme Court to hear its appeal of Parker v. District of Columbia (now District of Columbia v. Heller).
On July 16, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty announced the city would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. As we reported in the July 20, Grassroots Alert, while it is too early to tell whether the Supreme Court will choose to hear the appeal, the District’s action sets the stage for a possible showdown over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Since enacting its gun ban, D.C. has ranked at or near the top of the list of most violent cities in America, often earning the distinction of being the nation’s murder capital. Nonetheless, supporters of the law are continuing to parrot their ridiculous claim that, without this constitutionally offensive statute, things would have been much worse! The 30-year-old D.C. experiment has failed. The D.C. gun ban doesn’t make its citizens safer. It does not prevent criminals from getting guns. And it violates the U.S. Constitution. Stay tuned for future developments on this story. |
On March 9, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled, in Parker v. District of Columbia, that D.C.’s prohibition on the possession of a handgun, and keeping any gun assembled and loaded in the home (the condition required for self-defense), are unconstitutional. The court agreed that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right of individuals, not a so-called “right” of a state to maintain a select militia, or a privilege to have guns only when serving in a select militia. The court also ruled that individuals have a right to possess handguns. Senate Votes To Address U.N. Gun Ban Crusade
September 9, 2007| Did the NRA actually get it correct on this one? I seriously doubt it. As always, mark my words, they will bow down and compromise at some point. |
| Friday, September 07, 2007 |
| With the United Nations continuing its efforts to enact draconian, transnational gun control laws in countries around the world, yesterday the U.S. Senate passed the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which included an amendment by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) that seeks to address the U.N.’s ongoing international gun ban efforts.
The gun ban issue in the U.N. has been percolating for more than a decade, and while NRA has been successful to date in precluding the U.N. from enacting its anti-freedom agenda, the bureaucrats at Turtle Bay remain committed in their zeal to push for additional restrictions on the rights of free gun owners in the United States and around the globe. Global registration and tracking of firearms would inevitably lead to the global disarmament of free citizens everywhere; something that we cannot and will not let happen. NRA will remain vigilant in monitoring the U.N.’s anti-gun actions and speaking out in the international community in support of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. |
By an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens.source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3228
Corruption? So what else is new..?
September 9, 2007Seems like those in power have no honor doesn’t it?
|
||||||||
|
Fred Thompson, and why I am not jumping on the Bandwagon
September 6, 2007It seems that many of my best bloging friends are jumping onto the Fred Thompson bandwagon. I am not, and will not. I have serious doubts that I will at any point. Long time readers of this blog are more than aware that my biggest domestic political issues are the first, and second amendment.
Senator Thompson supported McCain Feingold, and apparently still does. That alone, is enough for disqualification in my book.
He also supported, and apparently still does support the Lautenberg Act. That would be the one that turned Anglo American Law on it’s head; Ex Post Facto application of law, the taking of Civil Liberties based upon less than felony conviction, or serious mental disorder, the blocking of any ability for restoring those rights, and, the de facto sexist enforcement of said laws.
Senator Thompson also took great pride in helping to destroy American Tradition by making it impossible for young people to actually own a firearm. No, thanks to Fred and company, you cannot any longer give little Johnny his very first 22 rifle or shotgun.
Check the following for further documentation;
http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
Fred Thompson: “Generally” Consistent
by Craig Fields
Director of Internet Operations
When a person simply musing about the possibility of running for the GOP presidential nomination finds himself essentially tied with the Democratic frontrunner overnight,1 something has happened.
That something was a collective sigh of relief across America’s conservative base. Finally (it was thought), a high-profile candidate… without the liberal baggage of a Giuliani, Romney or McCain.
That’s because Thompson is relatively conservative in his overall philosophy. He has no need to convince voters that he has changed his ways and now sees the light, because he has been fairly consistent throughout his career.
He is in his own words “against gun control, generally.”2 And his voting record shows that to be true, generally. When he voted anti-gun, it was usually to expand federal authority. This is unfortunately consistent with his being a “law and order conservative” (pardon the pun). A complete report on each individual vote is appended below.
Gun owners should also be aware that Thompson unabashedly favors the odious McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. This legislation, characterized by its proponents as campaign finance reform, severely limits the abilities of groups like GOA to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of politicians already in office. In many cases, it becomes illegal to even mention a politician’s name in on-air advertising the month before an election. Thompson — having voted in favor of the restrictions several times — thinks doing so is “not a non-conservative position, although I agree that a lot of people have interpreted it that way.”3
Fred Thompson was elected to the Senate as a Republican in 1994 — the 105th Congress — to fill the remaining two years of then-Vice-President Al Gore’s term. Thompson was reelected (handily) in 1996 to a full six-year term.
The timing was such that many of his “gun votes” on Capitol Hill came during the hysteria following the Columbine tragedy in 1999. It seemed that everyone in the country (except GOA supporters) considered it a foregone conclusion that something regarding gun control had to pass Congress that summer.
The Republican Leadership, especially in the Senate, adopted a “Gun Control Lite” strategy — hoping to preclude major gun bans by passing specific and less onerous restrictions that were largely extensions of current law.
Happily, GOA supporters rose up in truly Herculean fashion that summer, and when the smoke cleared no new gun control at all had made it to the President’s desk. Thompson’s actions at that time were somewhat haphazard (he voted both for and against the “Lite” strategy at different points, while voting against most, but not all, anti-gun amendments brought by other Senators).
In total, GOA tracked 33 votes in the U.S. Senate while Thompson was there. He voted pro-gun 19 times. Those votes are detailed below:
| The U.S. Senate Debated: |
Thompson |
| Government wiretapping of innocent citizens.4 |
Anti-gun |
| Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 ).5 |
Anti-gun |
| Taxpayer funding to anti-gun lobby groups.6 |
Pro-gun |
| Taxpayer funding to anti-gun groups — 2nd vote.7 |
Pro-gun |
| Anti-gun terror bill — final passage.8 |
Anti-gun |
| Taggants in gunpowder.9 |
Anti-gun |
| Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban.10 |
Anti-gun |
| Kohl “Gun Free Zones” ban.11 |
Pro-gun |
| Free Speech restrictions.12 |
Anti-gun |
| Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment.13 |
Anti-gun |
| Gutting of the Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment.14 |
Pro-gun |
| Banning the importation of magazines.15 |
Pro-gun |
| Mandatory unsafe gun storage requirements.16 |
Pro-gun |
| “Lock Up Your Safety” mandatory trigger locks.17 |
Pro-gun |
| Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment.18 |
Anti-gun |
| Anti-gun Surgeon General.19 |
Anti-gun |
| Ending the filibuster of a major anti-gun crime bill.20 |
Anti-gun |
| Background registration checks.21 |
Pro-gun |
| Banning private sales of firearms at gun shows.22 |
Pro-gun |
| Anti-gun juvenile crime bill (S. 254).23 |
Pro-gun |
| Mandatory trigger locks with new handgun sales.24 |
Pro-gun |
| Hatch-Craig Gun Control “Lite”.25 |
Pro-gun |
| More severe regulation of internet gun sales.26 |
Pro-gun |
| Young adult gun ban.27 |
Anti-gun |
| Medium-capacity magazine ban.28 |
Pro-gun |
| Adopting the “Gun Control Lite” strategy.29 |
Anti-gun |
| Gun show ban.30 |
Pro-gun |
| Praising the gun control mommies.31 |
Pro-gun |
| Senate instructions to pass gun control (Reed).32 |
Pro-gun |
| Senate instructions to pass gun control (Boxer).33 |
Pro-gun |
| Attacking gun makers in court.34 |
Pro-gun |
| McCain’s Incumbent Protection (2000 version).35 |
Anti-gun |
| Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster).36 |
Anti-gun |
1A national telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 21-22, 2007 showed Thompson at 44% vs. then-Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton at 43%.
2Fox News Sunday, March 11, 2007, transcript at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html.
3Ibid.
4On June 6, 1995, the Senate voted for “roving wiretaps” by a vote of 77-19. This amendment to the government terror bill (S. 735) would allow government officials to wiretap one’s home if a person under investigation visits the home — even if one had no knowledge the person was a suspect. Thompson voted in favor of this expansion of government power.
5On June 7, 1995, the Senate passed an anti-gun terror bill (S. 735) by a vote of 91-8. This version of the terror bill included: a BATF pay increase of $100 million; a provision authorizing “roving wiretaps” allowing government officials to wiretap one’s home if a person under investigation visits the home — even if one had no knowledge the person was a suspect; a weakening of the Posse Commitatus law to give the military more authority to get involved in law enforcement in certain circumstances; a grant of power to the FBI to conduct “fishing expeditions” and secure one’s financial and travel records in certain circumstances without any evidence one has committed a crime; and finally, the “Randy Weaver entrapment provision” which extends the statute of limitations for violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 from three to five years. Thompson voted in favor of the bill.
6On November 9, 1995, the Senate rejected (by a vote of 49 to 46) the so-called Simpson-Istook provision which would restrict welfare to lobby organizations. This provision was of great interest to pro-gun groups as it would help “level the playing field” by severely limiting federal dollars to groups that have often lobbied for gun control — groups like the American Bar Association, the American Association of Retired Persons and many, many others.
7On November 9, 1995, the Senate passed a compromise version of the Simpson-Istook provision (see note 6). The compromise which passed would only limit those non-profit groups with budgets of more than $3 million from both lobbying and receiving federal grants.
8On April 17, 1996, the Senate passed the conference version of the anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8. The final version of the bill (S. 735) contained several problems, including ones that will: order an “anti-hunter” rifle and ammo study; authorize a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department); potentially punish gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime; federalize many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF; restrict the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated; allow the government to use “secret evidence” against certain individuals; remove protections against wiretapping wireless data; and require banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations. Thompson once again voted in favor of the bill.
9On September 12, 1996, the Senate voted (57-42) to keep an anti-gun amendment off of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Kerry amendment — which Thompson voted for — would have made funds available for a study of tagging explosive materials, including black and smokeless powders (thus setting the stage for registering ammunition). The amendment also sought to further demonize firearms by selectively examining the misuse of firearms by criminals. The study would not examine the number of times firearms are used to save the lives of decent citizens.
10On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.
11On September 12, 1996, the Senate failed to defeat an anti-gun amendment introduced by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). The Kohl Gun Free Zones Ban creates a virtual one-half mile wide “gun free” circle around every American school (or a 1,000 foot zone going in any direction from any school) — a zone which could even include home schools.
12On October 7, 1997, the Senate defeated an “Incumbent Protection Bill” (S. 25) which would have resulted in the government regulation of GOA’s newsletters and other communications with its members, while expanding the relative political power of the liberal media and other anti-gun forces. Senators failed in their effort, 53 to 47, to shut down a filibuster of the bill that was ostensibly aimed at reforming campaign finance laws.
13On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an “Anti-Brady” amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Further, the amendment requires the “immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever.” Finally, if the FBI disregards this latter provision, the Smith language will allow private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorney’s fees. Thompson, in keeping with his tendency to usually vote for expanded federal police power, voted against this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.
14After the Senate passed the landmark Smith amendment by a veto-proof vote of 69-31, a joint House-Senate appropriations conference committee severely weakened its language when reporting it as part of the Omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 4328). Originally, the Smith amendment provided for three things (see note 13 above.) Unfortunately, the requirement to immediately destroy the names was deleted. And, the “private cause of action” was stripped from the bill, meaning that aggrieved gun owners must rely on “oversight” of the FBI to obtain any relief. In a letter sent to Capitol Hill before the vote, GOA urged legislators to vote against the appropriations bill rather than accept this egregious compromise. Nonetheless, The Senate passed the Omnibus bill on October 21, 1998 by a vote of 65-29.
15On July 28, 1998, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) offered an anti-gun provision as an amendment to S. 2312. Her language would prohibit the importation of firearm magazines holding over 10 rounds that were manufactured before the 1994 semi-auto ban was enacted.
16The Senate on July 22, 1998, defeated an anti-gun amendment introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) by a vote of 69-31. Durbin’s provision would make it a federal crime to keep a firearm and ammunition on your premises under the following conditions: you know or should know that a juvenile can gain access to your firearm, and a juvenile does obtain access to it and does as little as exhibit it. Exceptions are provided for guns stored under major security measures (such as lock boxes), for police, or for self-defense.
17The Senate on July 21, 1998, defeated a “lock-up-your-safety” amendment by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would make it a federal violation — subject to a $10,000 “civil penalty” — for an FFL dealer to transfer a firearm to a non-dealer without a trigger lock or comparable locking device.
18On February 11, 1998, the Senate voted 67-28 to confirm Margaret Morrow to the Federal bench. GOA vigorously opposed this Clinton-appointed judge, as she has not only taken strident anti-gun positions, she has showed herself to be a gun control activist.
19Having nominated anti-gun David Satcher for Surgeon General, President Bill Clinton was forced to wait several months as debate raged over his controversial pick. But on February 10, 1998, the President finally realized victory. By a vote of 75-23, anti-gun Republicans teamed up with the Democrats to kill the filibuster over the Satcher nomination. Mr. Satcher was later confirmed by a vote of 63-35. Since the key vote was to end the filibuster, that is the one that was rated by GOA.
20On July 28, 1999, the Senate ended a filibuster led by Senator Bob Smith (I-NH) — a filibuster intended to keep anti-gun crime legislation from progressing any further. After the 77-22 vote, the Senate moved to send the language of the anti-gun Senate crime bill (S. 254) to a House-Senate conference committee. Thompson voted to break the pro-gun filibuster.
21On May 20, 1999, Republican Senators Gordon Smith (OR) and James Jeffords (VT) offered up more restrictions on the sale of firearms. Their amendment, which passed 79-21, subjects pawn shop and repair shop transactions to the same registration and background check requirements as purchases from dealers.
22After a series of votes on provisions relating to gun shows, this amendment offered by Sen. Lautenberg of New Jersey gained the ascendancy. This amendment would ban private sales at gun shows– sales between two PRIVATE individuals — unless the buyer first submits to a background registration check. (Private firearms sales must be routed through a licensed dealer, and the purchase of more than one handgun by an individual will result in that information being sent to the BATF.) Even displaying a firearm at a gun show, and subsequently transferring that gun to a non-licensee (if it is displayed with a notice that it is for sale), will result in a two-year prison sentence– five years for the second violation. This amendment would also impose a series of restrictions and requirements upon gun show promoters. Finally, this provision grants BATF open-ended inspection authority to harass vendors at gun shows, and explicitly gives BATF the right to keep a gun owner registration list for up to 90 days. On May 20, 1999, this amendment passed 51-50, with Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie.
23The Senate passed the gun control laden juvenile crime bill by a 73-25 vote on May 20, 1999. Besides the several provisions related to punishing juveniles who commit crimes, S. 254 contained several gun control amendments (such as not allowing teenagers to even touch certain semi-autos, a ban on magazine imports, a ban on private sales at gun shows, and mandatory trigger locks).
24On May 18, 1999, the Senate passed an amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R) and Herb Kohl (D). This amendment forces gun sellers to include trigger locks with every handgun sold.
25On May 14, 1999, the Senate passed the Hatch-Craig gun control amendment by a 48-47 vote in an attempt to stave off a more severe version of gun control favored by Senate Democrats. Nonetheless, this “gun control lite” amendment would impose several Second Amendment restrictions. It would ban ANY private sale at a gun show that does not first go through a background registration check. In addition, the Hatch-Craig amendment would assign one U.S. attorney in every district exclusively to harass gun owners. And of the $50,000,000 allocated towards this purpose, a full $40 million of it will go to increasing the presence of the BATF– not to investigate murders, violent felonies, or crimes of violence, but to pursue “firearms” offenses (most of which will be recordkeeping and other innocuous errors by law-abiding Americans). It would also impose a lifetime gun ban for juveniles committing youthful indiscretions at a very young age; extend the arcane and confusing juvenile handgun ban to semi-autos; and increase penalties for violating the almost incomprehensible regulations governing the circumstances under which one may legally take one’s child hunting or target shooting with a handgun or semi-auto.
26On May 14, 1999, the Senate tabled (or defeated) an amendment introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) that would regulate the transfer of firearms over the Internet.
27The young adult gun ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic “assault weapon.” While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the “immediate and supervisory presence” of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in the parents “immediate” presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent can receive jail time for this infraction. The provision passed the Senate on May 13, 1999, with Thompson voting in the majority.
28Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pushed an amendment through the Senate on May 13, 1999. The provision would ban the importation of any magazine that can hold over 10 rounds– no matter when the magazine was manufactured. The Senate passed the amendment on a voice vote after Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) put forth a motion to table (or kill) the amendment. His attempt to stop the amendment failed by a vote of 59-39; since that was the deciding vote, it is the one that was rated by GOA.
29On May 13, 1999, a majority of Senators — including Thompson — defeated a motion to table (or kill) an anti-gun amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Larry Craig (R-UT). This amendment was offered as an alternative to gun control proposals being pushed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg. [For specifics of the amendment, see note 22.]
30On May 12, 1999, the Senate tabled (defeated) an amendment introduced by anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on a vote of 51-47. The provision would have banned the private sales of firearms at gun shows unless buyers submitted to background registration checks. Draconian restrictions would have also been imposed on gun show promoters.
31On May 17, 2000 Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) offered a resolution praising the marchers at the so-called Million Mom March, and calling on Congress to pass the anti-gun juvenile crime bill. The non-binding resolution narrowly passed 50-49.
32On Thursday, April 6, 2000, the Senate attached a non-binding gun amendment to the budget bill for 2001. The Senate voted 53-47 in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)– a non-binding provision that asks the House-Senate conferees to get the juvenile anti-gun bill to the floor of each house in no more than two weeks.
33On March 1, 2000, Sen. Barbara Boxer failed in her attempt to instruct House-Senate conferees to finish its work on the anti-gun juvenile crime bill. After attacking Gun Owners of America for its refusal to compromise and for opposing firearms restrictions, Boxer saw her non-binding resolution fail on a 49-49 tie.
34On February 2, 2000, Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered an anti-gun amendment to S. 625 in an effort to help the cities bringing frivolous suits against gun makers. Specifically, the Levin amendment prevents gun makers from declaring legitimate bankruptcy, and thus, discharging any enormous judgments that result from frivolous lawsuits. The amendment failed on a 68-29 vote.
35By 59 to 41, the Senate passed S. 27, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to include Incumbent Protection provisions. The bill severely curtails the ability of outside groups such as GOA to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.
36This was the key vote in the Senate regarding the odious Incumbent Protection bill in 2002 (H.R. 2356). The legislation (see note 35 above) finally became law that year. As he had on previous occasions, Thompson voted in favor of the bill.
So there you have it friends. He looks like a classic Washington insider to me.
Jack McClellan Alert!
September 5, 2007Jack McClellan Alert
OK folks, Sue at Warriors for Innocence has done it again, she has located Jack McClellan and we need to get this on as many websites as possible, he’s out there and he’s stalking, whether he’s REAL or just an attention whore, makes no difference, it’s his WORDS that matter, and he says he IS a pedophile and as such, he IS a DANGER to little kids…
If anyone in the Portland area reads this and spots the monster, send us an email and let us know, a picture and a short story would be great too, turn his tactics around on him, take his picture and we’ll put it on websites all over the USA, lets see how he likes that… Fred
Jack just posted again on his favorite pedophile message board. He’s announced that he’s decided to live in Portland, Oregon because it’s “the biggest media market in Oregon” and he would feel safer there.
Jack originally wanted to live in Gold Beach. Kudos go to the Gold Beach Police who warned Jack that they’d be keeping a close eye on him. Jack immediately ran off crying and complaining about his “safety”.
Jack’s already up to his old tricks and bragging about it as well. He says he “already attended a big GL event in the area (The Oregon State Fair in Salem), and had a great time with no problems. There are several more GL events coming up this weekend that look promising, and I doubt I’ll be bored living here.”
It is painfully obvious that Jack loves the attention. He never would have made this announcement otherwise. So, Jack, don’t whine about how everyone is going to follow you all around Portland. Because they will, now that I’ve emailed a good portion of them.
Let me make this clear. If you are living in Portland, keep an eye out for Jack because he’s stalking little girls. He’s sexually attracted to girls as young as 3 years old. He’s determined to boast about this and rub it in your faces. Don’t let him do this. Don’t give him power over you. Don’t live in fear, instead, live with awareness. Be aware of not only Jack, but all the other Jacks out there that we don’t know about.
There are several events planned for this weekend in the Portland area. WFI has notified these events along with the local police department to keep an eye out for Jack.
Just keep looking over your shoulder Jack…
Cross posted with:
Warriors For Innocence
Trackback URL:
http://texasfred.net/archives/507/trackback/
Bonus Money
September 1, 2007http://texasfred.net/archives/495/trackback/
I can hear it now. The Anti US people will start saying that our soldiers are mercenaries, or that they are too stupid to make it in “the real world.”
What is the problem with getting a few extra dollars? Hell, if there is an underpaid profession, it is that of the Infantryman.
In any case, the lessons that these young people will learn will serve themselves, and society well for many years to come.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 