Second Amendment Rights
April 10, 2013
I found this in my SPAM folder today:
=============================================
Please find an important message from Senator Mitch McConnell below:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for joining me in defending our right to bear arms. Right now, President Obama’s allies in the anti-gun lobby are doing everything in their power to take away our Second Amendment rights.
The right to protect our family and ourselves from whatever threats we may encounter is precious, and we must defend it from Washington liberals.
They want to prevent law-abiding Americans from possessing a firearm while making it easier for criminals to use one against us.
As the Republican Leader in the Senate, I am working with fellow conservatives to fight back on the left’s attacks but I need your help to do so. If you believe that our Second Amendment rights are worth fighting for, will you please donate $5 to our cause?
The Second Amendment ended the “gun debate,” and it’s time for Democrats to understand that. Make no mistake about it; the far-left are using their allies in the Senate, the media, and White House to work to limit your ability to own a firearm.
Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters have been called “stupid” by Piers Morgan, and “heartless mother*****” by Jim Carrey. This vitriol from the left must be combated.
For Freedom,
Mitch McConnell
=================================================
Vitriol? How about Incendiary? The blatant lies about “… taking away Second Amendment rights” really need to stop. I haven’t seen any evidence of anyone messing with Second Amendment rights.
I’m an NRA member; I enjoy target shooting. But, until December 14, 2012, I didn’t know what an AR-15 rifle was. I assumed a rifle which looked like that was a military weapon. I was amazed to learn that this AR-15 was readily available in sporting goods stores, and had become popular among some residents in the Northeast, even across the U.S.
Curious, so I signed into YouTube, typed AR-15 into the search box, and it returned 7.6 Million hits!
I clicked onto a few of the video links, and it opened up a whole new world for me!
Can you imagine a young person who likes to play violent video games – say, Resident Evil 4 – clicking onto this YouTube video?
This is hunting? Home protection? Target shooting?
Second Amendment rights?
Let’s be honest with each other if we ever expect to have a reasonable and rational resolution to this debate…..
Drones, Drama & Filibuster: Oh My!
March 6, 2013
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on a CNN appearance in mid-February that support for President Barack Obama’s drone program was “very scary and worrisome” and he feared it could open a “Pandora’s box” about government’s power.
Today’s decision by Sen. Paul — who was elected in 2010 with support from the Tea Party – to orchestrate a genuine filibuster focused on the potential for the Obama administration to use drones to attack an American on U.S. soil is not a shock.
Scanning various news sources today, I almost concluded that Barack Obama invented the drone, and that he has been the unilateral champion of its use. Paul went so far to say that, “Obama will be the executioner-in-chief if he sees fit.”
What seems to be missing from the news reports is that the first U.S. use of an unmanned Predator drone in a targeted killing took place over eleven years ago (February 2002) in Afghanistan, near the city of Khost. In that case, CIA sources revealed at the time that the intended target was Osama bin Laden. Journalists on the ground in Afghanistan learned from local Afghans that the dead men were unarmed civilians gathering scrap metal.
Then-CIA Director Donald Rumsfeld explained: “A decision was made to fire the Hellfire missile. It was fired.” – This information was primarily sourced from an article John Sifton wrote which appeared in a February 2012 edition of The Nation.
A Reuters story which ran in the NY Daily News on March 3, 2013 tells us:
“Tens of thousands of domestic drones already are in use nationwide, with more to come. They hover over Hollywood film sets and professional sports events. They track wildfires in Colorado, survey Kansas farm crops and vineyards in California. They inspect miles of industrial pipeline and monitor wildlife, river temperatures and volcanic activity. They also locate marijuana fields, reconstruct crime scenes and spot illegal immigrants breaching U.S. borders.
Increase of use in drones by law enforcement, movie studios, environmental organizations and the news media, comes as the U.S. government prepares to issue commercial drone permits in 2015. Many of those already flying do so without the proper permits. Currently, just 327 FAA-issued permits are active.”
Prior to his decision to filibuster today, Sen. Paul had publicly pushed the Commander in Chief to declare his position on the use of drones. On February 21, Sen. Paul had said, “The question which I and many others have asked is not whether the administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction.”
In a March 4 letter to Sen. Paul, Attorney General Eric Holder said that such domestic use of drones is “entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.” Holder also said he couldn’t rule it out under an “extraordinary circumstance.”
Paul’s assertion that the administration has failed to provide sufficient assurances on the issue of drone usage is not universally supported among Republican legislators.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mi), chairman of the House intelligence committee said, “Any suggestion that the United States would use drone strikes against U.S. citizens in the United States is irresponsible. Suggesting that such a thing is being contemplated provokes needless fear and detracts attention from the real threats facing the country.”
Certainly, as this saga unfolds new information will emerge, meanwhile, it seems to be ‘much ado about nothing’.
Wizard of Oz & Sequestration
February 23, 2013
For the first 210 +/- years of our 2-party Democracy, we were blessed to have elected officials who were statesmen and who seemed to place the public good before their own personal agendas.
Since the birth of Americans for Tax Reform under the leadership of Grover Norquist – and subsequently the rise of ‘Tea Party’ backed candidates — we’ve witnessed a series of national dramas which seem to accomplish nothing, but waste scarce resources and divert our elected leaders from doing the job we elected them to do.
The only honest and sustainable way to reduce taxes is to re-engineer and reform government, and that requires a great deal of analysis, planning and making tough decisions.
It seems that some of our elected officials just don’t want to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work; then make the tough decisions which are supported by careful analysis and research.
We just can’t let a farmer from rural Ohio continue to hold our country hostage because of some wealthy campaign contributor(s) he is beholden to.
That’s not a Democracy: it is a ‘Wizard of Oz’ Dictatorship.
And that’s wrong, terribly wrong.
http://www.dccc.org/page/s/sequester-ja?source=fb_auto_share_sequester_ja
The Second Amendment
January 23, 2013
It is true: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is part of our U.S. Bill of Rights.
Historians tell us that our Second Amendment was adopted in December 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The text of the Second Amendment is very simple: “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.”
It is so simple that it has caused 200+ years of discussion, debate and diatribe.
It is widely accepted that our Second Amendment was informed by the English Bill of Rights (1689).
Each seems to illuminate and continue an existing right at the time they were adopted.
The English Bill of Rights is slightly more expansive and specific than our Second Amendment.
One phrase from England jumps out as they describe a definition of “Arms”: “…That the Subjects …may have Arms for their Defence (sic) suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”
Our friends from across the pond may have been prescient.
However, it is unlikely they knew back in the 17th Century that the category of Arms would expand in the future to include: Gatling Guns; Machine Guns; Nuclear Arms; Howitzers; Bazookas; Anti-Tank and Anti-Aircraft guns; Sawed-off shotguns; Military Assault Weapons; and Semi-Automatic Hand Guns.
It would seem that in their effort to be brief and succinct, our U.S. Fore Fathers may have sold us short.
Now, let the Walrus be first to acknowledge: We do have rules and laws in the U.S. which generally prohibit ownership of some of these categories by people for home defense, target shooting and hunting.– including Nuclear Arms, Howitzers and Bazookas.
In 2013, those of us who feel the need to keep and bear arms are currently limited by some regulations on the types of arms which we are able to own, possess and use.
New York State recently passed some regulations which limit possession, ownership and use of certain semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.
The hue and cry from the margin is huge. What has been categorized as “passionate opposition” to defining which weapons and accessories are inappropriate appears to be emotionally informed.
In a January 16, 2013 poll by Sienna College, banning assault weapons and magazine clips of more than seven bullets in NYS was supported by a margin of 73% to 26%.
Did NYS Governor Cuomo and the NYS Legislature violate the purpose and intent of our Second Amendment?
More on: Gun Control
January 14, 2013
I’m a New York State resident, and I’ve been following the recent activities of our legislators in Albany.
I applaud the bi-partisan work of the members of our New York State Assembly; the members of our New York State Senate; and NYD Governor Andrew Cuomo, to act swiftly and deliberately to negotiate and pass comprehensive gun control legislation in January 2013.
Assault weapons have no place in civilian hands in a civilized society. High capacity magazines are a necessary evil for law-enforcement and military purposes; they have no place in any civilian application.
No different than ownership and/or operation of a motor vehicle; possession, ownership and/or operation of a firearm should be predicated by background and identity checks; testing; registration and licensing; plus proof of liability insurance.
The frequently heard argument that the Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is an emotionally charged and incomplete line of reasoning.
There is nothing stated or implied in the Second Amendment which tells us possession, ownership and or use of firearms should be unfettered and outside the purview of laws and regulations carefully designed to protect the interests of the greater public good.
It is unfortunate that the immediate reaction to any talk of ‘gun control’ emanates from (often overzealous) Second Amendment advocates.
The basis of our Second Amendment — which was adopted in 1791 — likely had very clear and relevant context to the 18th century, and to the events which preceded the Revolutionary War.
Now, more than 2 centuries later, it would seem to be helpful to have a rational, detached and thoughtful public discourse to include all facets of a 21st century centric debate on firearms and what makes the most sense for the majority of our fellow citizens today.
I have not met or communicated with any balanced and rational individuals who want to deprive any responsible American adult of their right to own and use firearms.
Nor, have I met or communicated with any balanced and rational individuals who want to deprive any responsible American adult of their right to own and operate motor vehicles.
It seems that through careful analysis and regulation, we have been relatively successful keeping unqualified and/or irresponsible individuals from operating motor vehicles.
I wonder: Why would any responsible and/or qualified American adult believe that we couldn’t accomplish the same outcomes with firearms?
Most gun crimes in New York City and the lower Hudson Valley involve weapons illegally brought into our state. Do we want to continue the illegal trafficking of guns into New York?
History tells us that — in 1791 — gang violence, assault weapons and drug trafficking had not yet been invented. Multi-shot hand guns did not appear until the early 19th century, and did not become commercially viable until 1856 when Smith and Wesson produced the first cartridge revolver.
Laws and regulations developed and designed around the technology, society and economy of the 18th century no doubt have some validity for our current society, yet may need to be carefully examined to see how and where some ‘tweaks’ might make them more relevant for today.
Thank you to Governor Cuomo and our New York State Legislators for taking some bold first steps to bring our state gun laws into compliance with the Information Age. There is more to be done, but you have accomplished some solid reform in January 2013.
Bravo!
Some Thoughts on Gun Control
January 5, 2013
It seems to be time for honest and productive discussion about firearms in New York State and across the U.S.
Although I do not currently own a firearm, I have in the past, and may do so in the future.
I occasionally enjoy shooting at targets and at clay birds. I know I don’t need an assault weapon, high capacity magazines or semi-automatic handguns to enjoy the sport of shooting. In fact, these seem to be the weapons of choice for the military and law enforcement, and unfortunately, for criminals and ‘gang bangers’, not for any hunters or sport shooters I’ve talked with recently.
I was recently in a conversation with some Alaskans who regularly hunt for meat.
Their reaction to using a handgun for hunting? “You’d have to be crazy or really stupid.”
Semi-automatic long guns with high-capacity magazines? “If you can’t hit the target with a couple of shots, you have no business being out in the field with a gun.”
Gun control doesn’t have to mean no guns. I’m not suggesting we take guns away from those who wish to own them and use them responsibly.
There just seem to be way too many gaps and loopholes in our current controls on acquiring and owning weapons, accessories and ammunition.
Gun show loopholes make no sense at all. Selling ammunition online seems to be a very controversial issue worthy of serious examination.
When we allow special interest groups to use emotional arguments which have dubious merit to enrage and inflame their ‘base’, we end up with non-productive and potentially destructive dialogue.
Driving an automobile is considered an American right, yet there are a number of steps required before a driver license is issued to an individual, along with regular oversight and renewal requirements. We require proof of insurance before we allow a motor vehicle to be registered. Why should firearms be any different?
It makes sense to me that possession and/or ownership of a weapon – particularly in densely populated urban areas – ought to come with a license requirement that includes mandatory background checks; psychological and medical evaluations; character references; and some sort of proof of insurance. Training and testing should be mandatory, and a license renewal process ought to be defined which ensures periodic re-evaluation of key variables.
If we want to preserve the right to responsible American citizens to own, possess and use firearms, a critical issue seems to be creating an environment which closes out the proliferation of possession and/or ownership by criminals and those others who don’t meet mutually acceptable criteria.
It would seem that if gun owners and non-gun owners could come together and agree on regulations that protect the right for responsible adults to own firearms while keeping them out of the hands of criminals and those who may be mentally unstable, we would end up with a much better, stronger and responsible outcome than we have today.
Owners of Handguns in New York State
January 5, 2013
On December 14, 2012, one individual — who apparently obtained by force several semi-automatic firearms from a family member — shot and killed 26 innocent victims at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, CT.
The firearms included one rifle – the controversial .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 — which by several definitions has been categorized as an assault weapon.
The other semi-automatic weapons were hand guns – one was a 10 mm Glock which can accommodate a 15 round magazine. The other was a Sig Sauer 9 mm, which can accommodate a maximum capacity of 20 bullets.
Following this tragic event, a nearby regional newspaper – The Journal News — filed a freedom of information act (FOIA) request with Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties in NYS seeking the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in these counties.
By New York State law, the name and address of individual permit holders licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver – is public record.
Owners of ‘long guns’ — rifles or shotguns which can be purchased without a permit — are not subject to public record disclosure.
I just listened to a radio interview with NYS Senator Gregory Ball on the controversial ‘outing’ of the names and addresses of hand gun permit holders by The Journal News.
In the interview, Senator Ball was adamant in his opposition to releasing information (which is required under NYS law) based on his personal values and opinions.
Senator Ball has held elected office in New York State since 2007. Several times, he has taken an oath of office to “…support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York…”
The Journal News published names and addresses of hand gun permit holders from public record information obtained from Rockland and Westchester counties, which is both legal and appropriate in New York State.
Officials in Putnam County have refused to release the gun permit information to The Journal News.
Senator Ball has joined with other elected and appointed public officials in Putnam County to oppose the FOIA request from The Journal News.
This FOIA request seems to follow the laws of the State of New York; thus is fully in compliance with the Constitution of the State of New York.
It is my belief that NYS Senator Gregory Ball has violated his oath of office and thus should be sanctioned and removed from public office and further subject to any civil or criminal penalties which are available and appropriate for elected officials in New York State who flagrantly and blatantly violate their oath of office.
It is time for honest and productive discussion about firearms in New York State and across the U.S.
Firearms
January 4, 2013
On December 14, 2012, one individual — who apparently obtained by force several semi-automatic firearms from a family member — shot and killed 26 innocent victims at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, CT.
The firearms included one rifle – the controversial .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 — which by several definitions has been categorized as an assault weapon.
The other semi-automatic weapons were hand guns – one was a 10 mm Glock which can accommodate a 15 round magazine. The other was a Sig Sauer 9 mm, which can accommodate a maximum capacity of 20 bullets.
Following this tragic event, a nearby regional newspaper – The Journal News — filed a freedom of information act (FOIA) request with Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties in NYS seeking the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in these counties.
By New York State law, the name and address of individual permit holders licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver – is public record.
Owners of ‘long guns’ — rifles or shotguns, which can be purchased without a permit — are not subject to public record disclosure in New York State.
Earlier today, I istened to a radio interview with NYS Senator Gregory Ball on the controversial ‘outing’ of the names and addresses of hand gun permit holders by The Journal News.
In the interview, Senator Ball was adamant in his opposition to releasing information (which is required under NYS law) based on his personal values and opinions.
Senator Ball has held elected office in New York State since 2007. Several times, he has taken an oath of office to “…support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York…”
The Journal News published names and addresses of hand gun permit holders from public record information obtained from Rockland and Westchester counties, which is both legal and appropriate in New York State.
Officials in Putnam County have refused to release the gun permit information to The Journal News.
Senator Ball has joined with other elected and appointed public officials in Putnam County to oppose the FOIA request from The Journal News.
Whether it is religiously or morally right or wrong, this FOIA request seems to follow the laws of the State of New York; thus is fully in compliance with the Constitution of the State of New York.
It is my belief that NYS Senator Gregory Ball has violated his oath of office and thus should be sanctioned and removed from public office and further subject to any civil or criminal penalties which are available and appropriate for elected officials in New York State who flagrantly and blatantly violate their oath of office.
Hopefully, there is a procedure in the NYS Constitution to sanction Senator Ball, and the appropriate officals will step in to rescue my fellow residents, voters and taxpayers in NYS from clearly unconstitutional behavior by our elected officials.
A Letter to Hon. John Boehner
December 28, 2012
Hon. John Boehner
Office of the Speaker
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Boehner:
I’ve been following the saga of ‘the fiscal cliff’ since the end of summer 2012.
It was made very clear to us outside the Beltway (commonly known as citizens, voters and taxpayers) that our elected officials in Congress would take no action until after the November elections.
As disappointing as that news was, it seemed reasonable and appropriate to many of us on the outside to expect that our elected officials would do some talking behind the scenes in preparation for a call to action after the election at which time our elected officials would work together in the best interest of the overall U.S. economy — business, commerce, education and the citizens of the United States.
Now – several months later and just a few days from the ‘tipping point’ a.k.a the ‘fiscal cliff’– we seem to have a continuation of the petty, partisan and puerile drama that has come to categorize our Congress following the national elections of 2010.
November 2010 marked the point in time when a number of conservative tea party candidates were elected to the House of Representatives. The infusion of passionate but neophyte tea party representatives — all of whom signed the Grover Norquist Pledge — precipitated your election as Speaker in January 2011, which coincidently seems to mark the beginning of extreme dysfunction in our nation’s capital.
I have listened to you and some of the ‘young rascals’ who were elected in 2010 under the tea party platform.
When I listen, I hear some really great sound bites, focused almost entirely on the federal government.
There is no one I’ve met who wouldn’t like to see smaller government and reduced government spending — sweetened by the magic elixir of reduced taxes.
The real problem seems to be: Government (as we see and interact with it from outside the Beltway) includes federal, state, county, local, schools and a vast number of entities which operate in the public sector as ‘quasi-government’ agencies.
As a citizen, voter and taxpayer in the U.S., I know I pay: federal income taxes; federal excise taxes; state income taxes; state sales taxes; county property taxes; county sales taxes; city property taxes; city sales taxes; city sewer taxes; city library taxes; and property taxes levied by my local school district. I can quantify the majority of those taxes: what I can’t quantify is the amount of other government and quasi-government fees and taxes I pay daily, weekly monthly or annually: highway and bridge tolls, parking fees, hotel occupancy fees, motor vehicle fees, MTA fees, license fees, daily use fees, and park access fees, most of which are invisible to me.
You and the ‘young rascals’ have some great rhetoric: What I don’t hear from you and your tea party cabal is dialogue, discussion, research or new ideas about re-engineering our overall government in the U.S. for enhanced efficiency and longer term sustainability.
Mr. Boehner: With your intractable and rigid focus on cutting spending at the margins and continued tax breaks for the ultra-rich, I think you and your tea party followers may be threatening the very essence of the United States and our economy as a going concern.
That thought leads me to believe that you and some (or all) of your tea party cabal may be guilty of treason because your actions are diametrically opposed to the best interests of my fellow citizens, voters and taxpayer of the United States of America.
It is my hope, Mr. Boehner, that come Monday, December 31, 2012, you and your followers will move away from treason to align with the majority of American citizens, businesses and American society to ensure a rational, sensible and sustainable solution to the ‘fiscal cliff’ dilemma which currently threatens our country.
Thank you in advance for considering my opinions, and hopefully, for adjusting your posture to a more inclusive and mainstream position.
Sincerly,
The Walrus
Mount Vernon, NY 10552
Fiscal Cliff
November 29, 2012
Mr. Boehner: A large majority of us are really disappointed in you and Eric Cantor.
The majority of Americans have no allegiance to Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers.
We want to see our elected officials come to the table with open minds, seeking to do what is correct and right for our country. We don’t much care who your campaign contributors are, or what sorts of issues you are dealing with in your upcoming election campaign.
We do understand that you – as an elected member of Congress – need to run for re-election every 2 years.
That said: you accepted the position of Speaker of the House, which implies that you agreed to rise above the local issues specific to your rural & primarily agricultural district in Ohio and to function as a leader across our very diverse nation.
I think the vast majority of our fellow citizens expect you to be objective, rational and strategic in your words and your actions.
Your recent contention that “No substantive progress has been made in the talks between the White House and the House over the last two weeks” appears to be both confrontational and incendiary.
Incendiary comments certainly do not support the concept of compromise.
Mr. Boehner: As a citizen, a tax payer and voter in the U.S.A., I can’t vote for you because I don’t live in your Ohio district, but I can say that I am truly disappointed by your callous disregard for the needs, wants and desires of me and the majority of our U.S. neighbors.
walrus51 