[FoRK] Fwd: Rand Paul: Obama Just Banned 1 Million Firearms

mdw at martinwills.com mdw at martinwills.com
Mon Aug 6 08:07:47 PDT 2012

Why is everyone so determined to throw away a guaranteed right?  Millions
of American's alive and dead sacrificed themselves in order to defend and
protect the Constitution of the U.S. (myself included). Only those people
who have put themselves in harms way to protect the Constitution should be
allowed to change it (enough said on my view).  When people who are
totally lacking in common sense and paint broad brushstrokes on gun
ownership are the morons that really need to be weaned from the gene pool.

The basis for the 2nd amendment is found in our own history.  We overthrew
an oppressive government to be free.  The only way that was accomplished,
was everyone that fought against the British had their own guns.  Without
them, we would still be a British commonwealth country.

How long do you supposed Iraq would have been under Hussein if his people
were armed? (The AK-47's they all have today were stolen from Iraqi army
supply depo's during/after the overthrow or taken by the soldiers when
they defected). What about Libya?  They had to steal and kill for their
weapons.  What about Syria today?  The rebels fighting there have to steal
and kill for their weapons and they are screaming for help from outside
countries to give them arms and ammunition.  What about Iran?  Their
students have tried a couple of times to change the leadership but were
suppressed by their own armed security forces.

It isn't an issue of whether guns are good or bad.  The issue is the
eroding of the 2nd amendment by a government that has already passed
legislation that allows U.S. citizens to be assassinated oversea's with
drone attacks. US citizens in the U.S. can be arrested and denied their
constitution rights to a lawyer or court access if they are deemed "a 
threat" (to be defined at a later date). I'm sorry, the events of history
are already forgotten by this group. "History doesn't repeat,  but it is
good at lip-syncing".


> You think the Economist reads FoRK? Or Scalia?
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights
> "The idea that, in the modern world, a country full of people with
> private handguns, shotguns and AR-15s in their households is more
> likely to remain a liberal democracy than a country whose citizens
> lack such weapons is frankly ridiculous. Worldwide, there is no
> correlation whatsoever at the country level between private handgun
> ownership and liberal democracy. There are no cases of democratic
> countries in which nascent authoritarian governments were successfully
> resisted due to widespread gun ownership."
> "When, on the other hand, authoritarian governments are overthrown in
> military uprisings (as opposed to peaceful revolutions, which are more
> common), the arms that defeat them come from defecting soldiers or
> outside aid. "
> http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/29/602491/scalia-rocket-launcher/
> WALLACE: What about
 a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
> SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that
> cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply
> to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that
> can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
> WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?
> SCALIA: Very carefully.... My starting point and my ending point will
> be...  the understood limitations the society had at the time. They
> had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne, so
> we'll see as to what those limitations are as applied to modern
> weapons.
> Muskets bitch.
> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:54 PM,  <mdw at martinwills.com> wrote:
>> Back in the Dec. 7th, 1997 when he made that quote, that's what they
>> made.
>>  I was with a Orange County PD when the riots broke out and rode a 4 man
>> cruiser with riot gear and shotguns for 12 hr x 4 days back then. It was
>> right on, and a lot of my friends asked if I had any 'extra' firearms
>> they
>> could borrow.
>> Regards,
>> Martin
>>> Lost credibility for me when he mentioned police officers in California
>>> making 35k a year.
>>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/03/3446569/see-average-police-firefighter.html
>>>> California police officers made, on average, $92,976, including
>>>> overtime, incentive pay and payouts upon retirement during 2010,
>>>> according to a Bee analysis of data from the state controller's
>>>> office.
>>>> Firefighters and engineers earned, on average, $113,882. Average pay
>>>> for
>>>> police captains across the state was $147,940; for fire captains, it
>>>> was
>>>> $141,525.
>>> Use this database to see the average pay for firefighters, police
>>> officers
>>> and their supervisors in nearly every California city and county.
>>> Updated
>>> Feb. 14 with 2010 data.
>>> Read more here:
>>> http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/03/3446569/see-average-police-firefighter.html#storylink=cpy
>>> On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:38 PM, Gregory Alan Bolcer <greg at bolcer.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 8/1/2012 10:40 AM, Bill Stoddard wrot
>>>>> Take a step back and consider, for a moment, that what you think is
>>>>> the
>>>>> 'reality' of gun owners and gun ownership may not, in fact, be
>>>>> accurate.
>>>> I just can't let go the Charlton Heston quote from 1995.  I still
>>>> think
>>>> the first and second amendments are working just fine.
>>>> Greg
>>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997461/posts
>>>> My favorite Amendments: appreciation - First and Second Amendments to
>>>> the Constitution
>>>> Charlton Heston THIS may surprise you, but I'm not the only man in
>>>> Hollywood with an appreciation for the Second Amendment. There are
>>>> numbers of gun owners -- collectors, hunters, sport shooters -- in the
>>>> film community, plus many more who keep firearms for protection. I
>>>> suspect, in fact, that there are more filmmakers who are closet gun
>>>> enthusiasts than closet homosexuals. Steven Spielberg has one of the
>>>> finest gun collections in California, but never refers to it, and
>>>> never
>>>> shoots publicly. Can you imagine the most famous filmmaker in town
>>>> worried about his reputation?
>>>> Still, many people in the film community oppose firearms, some quite
>>>> virulently. During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, a good many of these
>>>> folk suffered a change of heart. As smoke from burning buildings
>>>> smudged
>>>> the skyline and the TV news showed looters smashing windows, laughing
>>>> as
>>>> they carted off boom boxes and booze, I got a few phone calls from
>>>> firmly anti-gun friends in clear conflict. 'Umm, Chuck, you have quite
>>>> a
>>>> few . . . ah, guns, don't you?'
>>>> 'Indeed.'
>>>> 'Could you lend me one for a day or so? I tried to buy one, but they
>>>> have this waiting period . . .'
>>>> 'Yeah, I know. I remember you voted for that. Do you know how to use a
>>>> shotgun?'
>>>> 'No, I thought maybe you could teach me. This is getting a little
>>>> scary.'
>>>> 'I noticed. It does that sometimes. I could teach you, but not in an
>>>> hour. You might shoot yourself instead of the bad guys. The Marines
>>>> are
>>>> coming up from Pendleton; that'll end it. When it does, go buy
>>>> yourself
>>>> a good shotgun and take some lessons.'
>>>> My friend writer-director John Milius got more calls than I did. His
>>>> answer was more forthright: 'Sorry. They're all being used.'
>>>> Public opinion on this issue seems to be shifting, in view of rising
>>>> violence. No police force can guarantee always to protect all
>>>> citizens,
>>>> nor are the police legally responsible for failing to do so. Besides,
>>>> it
>>>> seems to me ethically questionable to expect a policeman earning
>>>> $35,000
>>>> a year to risk his life to protect you if you accept no responsibility
>>>> for protecting yourself.
>>>> Unlike some people, I support the First Amendment as vigorously as I
>>>> do
>>>> the Second. Indeed, the whole Bill of Rights is a wonderfully unique
>>>> instrument.
>>>> Though in recent years the Bill of Rights has often been cited to
>>>> justify various federal intrusions into individual rights, its
>>>> original
>>>> intent and prime purpose was to protect, in every Article, the rights
>>>> of
>>>> citizens against the intrusion of their government. There's no other
>>>> governmental codicil in the world like it. I'm a fan.
>>>> Now consider the First Amendment. Two years ago I won my most
>>>> significant victory in the public sector since the civil-rights
>>>> marches
>>>> in the early Sixties -- and then we were following Dr. King. This was
>>>> just me versus Time Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in
>>>> the world.
>>>> I got a call from Tony Makris, my guru on matters relating to
>>>> Washington. 'Chuck, you ever hear of a rap performer named Ice-T?'
>>>> 'No, why would I? I remember some rock critic saying, 'Rap is made by
>>>> people who can't sing, can't play an instrument, and can't write
>>>> lyrics.
>>>> It's vocal graffiti!' I believe I can sign that.'
>>>> 'I think you ought to hear these lyrics. They've teed off just about
>>>> every policeman in the country, but Time Warner's stonewalling them
>>>> because it's a hit record, and the press is tiptoeing around because
>>>> the
>>>> guy's black.'
>>>> Tony was right. The lyrics (aside from being badly written) were an
>>>> obscene ode to the killing of policemen. Along with a handful of
>>>> others,
>>>> I did a press conference about it, and Warner backed down to the
>>>> extent
>>>> of changing the album title from Cop Killer to Body Count, without
>>>> removing the song. They were also sending out demo CDs in cute little
>>>> black body bags. (The corporate counterculture at work.) The press was
>>>> very cautious on the issue. My civil-rights credentials dating back to
>>>> 1961 protected me from the accusations of racism that would otherwise
>>>> have been hurled. I was told that Ice-T himself threatened to kill me.
>>>> He didn't, though.
>>>> Then we found that Time Warner had a stockholders' meeting scheduled
>>>> in
>>>> Beverly Hills. I happened to hold several hundred shares of Time
>>>> Warner
>>>> stock (I've since sold it). This meant I could attend the meeting.
>>>> There was the usual gaggle of media outside the auditorium. Inside
>>>> were
>>>> perhaps a thousand shareholders. I doubt that any of them had ever
>>>> heard
>>>> a rap album, though this material is an enormously profitable cash cow
>>>> for Time Warner. Of course that was the whole problem. As someone
>>>> trenchantly observed, 'It's not the money . . . it's the money.'
>>>> By this time President Bush, police across the country, members of
>>>> Congress, and major religious and media figures had condemned Body
>>>> Count. Ice-T had weighed in with the comment, 'I ain't never killed no
>>>> cop . . . I felt like it a lot.'
>>>> Even at this point, the chairman - CEO of Time Warner, Gerald Levin,
>>>> could have said -- no doubt with perfect honesty -- 'Look, I don't
>>>> read
>>>> rap lyrics. If some clown in the record division screwed up, we can
>>>> fix
>>>> it.' Instead, he chose to defend the album in terms of the First
>>>> Amendment, which was ridiculous. Ice-T, in search of his 15 minutes of
>>>> fame, certainly could have performed his work publicly -- but Warner
>>>> had
>>>> no obligation, constitutional or otherwise, to pay him to do so. Its
>>>> motivation was not the Bill of Rights, but simple corporate greed.
>>>> I had the floor for perhaps only eight or ten minutes, but it was
>>>> enough. I spoke briefly and quietly to the meeting, then simply read,
>>>> in
>>>> full, the lyrics of 'Cop Killer,' which almost no one in the room had
>>>> heard or seen, they being too offensive for the media to quote.
>>>> Unhappily, I can't quote them here, since Time Warner would almost
>>>> surely refuse permission, and my editors are also reluctant to print
>>>> what is basically racist filth. I'll simply say that the lyrics begin
>>>> with 'F--- the police . . .' and go on from there.
>>>> 'Mr. Levin,' I said. 'Jews and homosexuals are also sometimes
>>>> attacked,
>>>> though of course not as often as police officers. Let me ask you: If
>>>> this piece were titled, 'Fag Killer,' or if the lyrics went, 'Die,
>>>> die,
>>>> die, kike, die!' would you still peddle it? It's often been said that
>>>> if
>>>> Adolf Hitler came back with a dynamite treatment for a film, every
>>>> studio in town would be after it. Would Warner be among them?'
>>>> The room was death-still. I gave them one more dose, a few lines from
>>>> another cut on the CD, less notorious but even more disgusting. In
>>>> this
>>>> 'song,' Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year-old nieces of
>>>> the
>>>> next Vice President of the United States.
>>>> I left the room in an echoing silence, then repeated much of what I'd
>>>> said inside to the media. One or two journalists said, 'You know, we
>>>> can't run that.'
>>>> 'Yeah, I know,' I said. 'But Warner is selling it.' A week or so
>>>> later,
>>>> the company pulled the album, pretending that Ice-T had asked them to.
>>>> A
>>>> month after that, they terminated his contract.
>>>> I asked the women's organization NOW to join me in condemning the
>>>> album,
>>>> in view of the vicious lyrics about sodomizing little girls. It never
>>>> did. I've never understood why. Perhaps NOW didn't want to attack a
>>>> black man.
>>>> Still, I'm proud of what I did, though now I'll surely never be
>>>> offered
>>>> another film by Warner, or get a good review from Time. On the other
>>>> hand, I doubt I'll get a traffic ticket very soon.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FoRK mailing list
>>>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FoRK mailing list
>>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>> _______________________________________________
>> FoRK mailing list
>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

More information about the FoRK mailing list