Brady Bunch Hates Texas Republican Party Platform...


PDA






Ironbarr
June 22, 2006, 04:41 PM
TOUGH


There are a million stories in the Texas Republican party platform completed last week: Hatred of gays, opposition to a minimum wage, opposition to the endangered species act, establishment of Christianity as a national religion.

And opposition to the Brady Law. The platform calls for the abolishment of background checks on firearm purchases mandated by the Brady Law, which has prevented some million and a half criminals from purchasing guns. ... and some other crybaby overstatement of goals:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=68011

Then follow the TX RP platform links starting at http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer (for page 21)

.

If you enjoyed reading about "Brady Bunch Hates Texas Republican Party Platform..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArmedBear
June 22, 2006, 05:04 PM
They actually DO explicitly oppose the Endangered Species Act.

So do I. And I have a bachelor's degree in Ecology.

The law is immoral, and it creates overwhelming incentives to eradicate any endangered species you find on your property, because it forces a property owner to provide a free animal sanctuary, without compensation.

While we could debate the costs of such a program, a system that fairly eminent-domained a piece of property with full compensation to the owner, in order to preserve a species found there, would not be immoral. The current system is just plain wrong.

Hoppy590
June 22, 2006, 05:12 PM
i donno. some its kinda extreme. no background checks :what: . i dont mind ensuring that only the good guys get gun legaly through, moderate means such as background checks and some licensesing. but no background checks scares me.

the pistolero
June 22, 2006, 05:15 PM
This Marsha McCartney is a real piece of work. I recall reading a quote from her not long after Mark Allen Wilson was shot in front of the Tyler courthouse:

"Concealed Handgun carriers sometimes commit crimes and sometimes are heroes. Unfortunately, the hero part doesn't happen very often and what if he had hit a bystander while he was firing?"

These people are despicable. Utterly despicable. I am starting to think they don't really want to see violence perpetrated with guns go away, because if it did, they wouldn't get their names in the papers anymore. They are nothing but a disgusting gaggle of media <insert word that starts with wh- and rhymes with more>s. :barf:

44Brent
June 22, 2006, 05:19 PM
i dont mind ensuring that only the good guys get gun legaly through, moderate means such as background checks and some licensesing. but no background checks scares me.

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE:

GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm

A. The First Step

In 1903, Parliament enacted a gun control law that appeared eminently reasonable. The Pistols Act of 1903 forbade pistol sales to minors and felons and dictated that sales be made only to buyers with a gun license. The license itself could be obtained at the post office, the only requirement being payment of a fee. People who intended to keep the pistol solely in their house did not even need to get the postal license.[41]

The Pistols Act attracted only slight opposition, and passed easily. The law had no discernible statistical effect on crime or accidents. Firearms suicides did fall, but the decline was more than matched by an increase in suicide by poisons and knives.[42] The homicide rate rose after the Pistols Act became law, but it is impossible to attribute this rise to the new law with any certainty. The bill defined pistols as guns having a barrel of nine inches or less, and thus pistols with nine-and-a-half inch barrels were soon popular.

While the Act was, in the short run, harmless to gun owners, the Act was of considerable long-term importance. By allowing the Act to pass, British gun owners had accepted the proposition that the government could set the terms and conditions for gun ownership by law-abiding subjects.[43] As Frederick Schauer points out, for a government body to decide "X and not Y" means that the government body has implicitly asserted a jurisdiction to decide between X and Y. Hence, to decide "X not Y" is to assert, indirectly, an authority in the future to choose "Y not X."[44] Thus, for Parliament to choose very mild gun controls versus strict controls was to assert Parliament's authority to decide the nature of gun control.[45] As this Essay shall discuss in regards to the granting of police authority over gun licensing, establishing the proposition that a government entity has any authority over a subject is an essential, but not sufficient, element for a trip down the slippery slope.

ArmedBear
June 22, 2006, 05:21 PM
i donno. some its kinda extreme. no background checks

Before 1968, you could order a gun from the Sears Catalog like ordering a lawnmower or a pair of suspenders.

The Gun Control Act was implemented because pissed-off (but political, not violent) black people were carrying guns around, and the white establishment allied with soccer moms (back then they were baseball moms) to put a stop to it.

We don't need background checks, because all they do is burden the law-abiding. They have had no impact on levels of violent crime.

rbernie
June 22, 2006, 05:59 PM
background checks on firearm purchases mandated by the Brady Law, which has prevented some million and a half criminals from purchasing guns.Is that even *remotely* true?

Hoppy590
June 22, 2006, 06:37 PM
Before 1968, you could order a gun from the Sears Catalog like ordering a lawnmower or a pair of suspenders...


sorry, im just a younging ( and a MA resident) so it kinda shocks me to think about being able to walk into a place and just buy a gun with out some form of licences and government run around.. those must have been the good old days the elderly are always reminising about

also. we have a Stevens that was bought from sears. back when my father was younger

Daniel T
June 22, 2006, 06:40 PM
The Gun Control Act was implemented because pissed-off (but political, not violent) black people were carrying guns around, and the white establishment allied with soccer moms (back then they were baseball moms) to put a stop to it.

That may have been part of the reason, but the main impetuses for the law were the Kennedy assassinations, especially JFK's. After all, it occured because Oswald bought a Carcano through the mail, right?

ArmedBear
June 22, 2006, 06:49 PM
Is that even *remotely* true?

It is possible that guns found in the hands of criminals were more likely to have been stolen from law-abiding owners (with the concomitant danger to, or injury and even death of said innocent citizens) than they were in the past. Note that they said "purchasing firearms", not "obtaining firearms". So it could be partially true.

Note also that, in the UK, where handguns are banned entirely, authorities estimate that there are far more handguns in circulation than there were before the ban, when law-abiding citizens had to surrender their registered handguns, so clearly a law that stops purchases through ordinary channels does not lead to fewer armed criminals.

A half-million? How many armed criminals are caught in this country? Are there even that many people in jail, sum total, for crimes committed using firearms? I don't know.

Deathrider1579
June 22, 2006, 07:15 PM
Gentlefolk,

I would like to put forth that while you may or may not agree with the
"extreme" view that the 2ndA Applies with no exceptions, I think if you value guns you have to vote and pull for those people who do.

The reason is that while we probably will never attain the level that I would like to see (full access to all military grade weapons and gear for any and every body) we can easily have what The Brady umm bunch (yeah thatís what I was thinking lol) which to achieve (aka severe limitations to our freedoms). Ergo we have to make THEM compromise, and the best way to do that is to put extreme view points on our side and push hard for them. Because if we put a mid line guy up there he is much more inclined to compromise towards the enemy's view point than one of those guys like me.
Besides what is the worst that could happen? You, me and everyone has access to the same arms across the board and while there would be a small albeit probably violent adjustment period we would come out with a increase in freedom which is worth more any way.

Just some thoughts for yall to ponder,

-DR

ArmedBear
June 22, 2006, 07:22 PM
Agreed with Deathrider, totally.

If we push hard, really hard, then the "compromise" we end up with will be a lot better. There will be a "compromise", because it's politics. The question is, what will it look like?

Henry Bowman
June 22, 2006, 07:28 PM
The whole "background" check Brady Act does not date back to 1968. It is a Clinton era thing. Clinton was the last President before our current one. In other words, you have to be bretty young not to remember those "wild west" days of before background checks.

It is sad that we have accepted infringements so quickly.

Ironbarr
June 22, 2006, 09:00 PM
Henry - Thank you.

Hoppy590 - your...those must have been the good old days the elderly are always reminising about.

I must be a "modern" elderly (73+), but my tale of 2nd Amendment freedom goes like this:

Northern New Jersey, 1947 (try it today... har har):

At 14 I took a Public Service bus and 18 dollars of hard-earned bowling alley work (5-cents a line) to a gun store about 15 miles away where I bought a NIB single barrel H&R Topper 12 gauge, a box of #8-shot, and a hunting license. I climbed back on the return bus with my boxed H&R (not, mind you, in a plain brown wrapper), my bagged shells, and the license filled out and walleted - Oh! And my change. I got home and into the woods/field area before sundown and got a few rounds off - no birds though.

Why is it so hard to believe there was more freedom "a while back"? One reason there's less today is that communication is instant now - blink wrong and it's known now. Also more people - people with more opinions and less "need" for "freedom". I guess, since it seems we don't teach such things anymore - less folks with less experience with doing for themselves and more folks in need of - er, um - services. People with opinions and a need for "services" make it less difficult for those who, for their own agenda(s), would control them.

That H&R sits it the cabinet next to me - still active.

Maybe I should send it in for re-finish... red, white, and blue, that is.

Well, not to wear this out - I'm done.

-AndyB

.

Hoppy590
June 22, 2006, 09:15 PM
you got on a bus and spent 18$ and got all that

i went to an 8 hour class, spent like 70 on the class. another like 100 for the license, waited for all that. then spent 1/2 hour doing paper work and background checks about $200 for the gun and a box of #8. trigger locked, then cased locked then put in a locked trunk, the whole time with one of the owners of the gun shop being his usual smiley self.

i use the word elderly just in the sense of how everyone always says " back in my day!" not to relate a person of old age.

Yeager
June 22, 2006, 10:00 PM
Meh,

I recently came into the real firearm world after a 7 year stint in the less than real replica world. I was shocked at the mere notion of not being able to own some of the things I had grown to expect to be able to. (mainly thanks to the leftist media and their "Military machine guns")

If it were up to me there would be no gun "laws" persay.I would however require people to openly carry their weapons in a visible holster. if you don't carry you pay a tax to the local PD. I would make a class manditory for open carry of smaller Sub guns and FA rifles just to make sure the person in question knows how to atleast control his weapon in FA mode. And lastly I'd enforce a strict he starts shooting you drop him as fast as you can policy. Once the defender has droped said criminal he would raise his hands in the air and be held by his peers untill the proper authorties arrive.

It sounds bad but really what self respecting criminal would open fire if hes surrounded by people armed to the teeth? I beleive our leaders call it "assured Mutual Destruction". :evil:

The_Shootist
June 22, 2006, 11:07 PM
Nice to see we are doing something right! :evil:

I'd like to see NO background checks and repeal of the '30 Class III law.

You know the old saying, when fully automatic weapons are outlawed, only the bad guys will have machine guns! :neener:

Ironbarr
June 22, 2006, 11:17 PM
Actually the H&R was $16.00 even.

Hard to remember many details, but I do remember cigarettes were around 20 cents and two pennies packed in the wrapper. Gas about the same, and a dime bought a whole bag of chocolate covered marshmallow sticks.

Reckon we won't see those numbers again any time soon.

For what it's worth, training is important; glad to see you're on top of it.

Take good care.

.

Sam Adams
June 23, 2006, 04:16 PM
I'd like to see NO background checks and repeal of the '30 Class III law.

Actually, it is the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), but that's just a minor quibble.

I would simply like to have restored to me and everyone else the rights that our parents and grandparents had pre-NFA. They could walk into a store, plunk down some cash, point at a gun - any gun, including full autos - and say "I'll buy that." Then the guy behind the counter would give it to you - no background check, no permission slip from the local PD, no $200 tax, no restrictions about how the gun looked, when it was made, how many rounds it could fire without reload, etc. Even mid-way in between then and now, a mere 38 or so years ago, one could buy anything except a full-auto through the mail, even 20mm semi-auto cannons.

Rights are rights - timeless and immutable. We've given ours away, and its time to take them back.

Vern Humphrey
June 23, 2006, 04:27 PM
background checks on firearm purchases mandated by the Brady Law, which has prevented some million and a half criminals from purchasing guns.

Is that even *remotely* true?

It is a federal crime for a convicted felon to try to buy a gun -- filling out and signing the form is a crime for them.

So if a million and a half criminals tried to purchase guns, surely a million and a half criminals went to jail for that. Right?

Wrong! There are virutally no prosecutions of felons for trying to buy guns under the Brady Act.

During the Clinton Admistration, this issued was raised and a Justice Department spokesman explained why -- virtually all such "stops" are technicalities. He used the example of an elderly black man trying to buy a shotgun. It seems he had been convicted some 50 years before of having a deck of cards with pictures of naked women -- naked white women.

The Brady Law and Jim Crow, hand-in-hand.:barf:

ball3006
June 23, 2006, 04:44 PM
I really care................oh hum.......chris3

mbt2001
June 23, 2006, 04:45 PM
The Brady Bunch should look in the mirror. They are the very picture of intolerance that they accuse us of being....

At least we know that if mutant zombie bikers with bad hair took over, the Brady Bunch would be wishing that they hadn't supported nutty gun laws....

I cannot understand the logic of those folks...

mordechaianiliewicz
June 23, 2006, 05:00 PM
If the only restictions which applied to firearms/ anti-armour, anti-air weapons (that are individually man protable) were a training requirement for full auto, and military rocketry weapons, I think it would be constitutional.

The truth is that the 2A was designed to allow for individually man portable weapons. Nukes, bio weapons, heavy explosives, WMDs, and armour aren't man portable, so they aren't covered, and many of these weapons are too dangerous to be used in self-defense. However, machineguns, subguns, rifles, maybe even RPGs with certain restrictions are part of the spirit of the 2A.

Carl N. Brown
June 23, 2006, 05:08 PM
o A local man had a background check show he had been
charged with a felony; as a teenager he was night clerk
at a hotel that was robbed. He has a videotaped deposition
from the local chief of police that he was charged because
at that time hotel clerks were routimely taken under
suspicion in hotel robberies until cleared. He was cleared,
but the original charge shows up on background check.

o Another local man always is denied on initial background
check because he has a felony arrest record: he had the
same name as a suspected felon and was arrested, but released
on grounds of mistaken identity. Everytime he goes to buy,
sell or trade a gun he takes copies of his appeals form
and the court records showing it was a mistaken identity
arrest.

Just imagine if the funds spendt on the Brady Act had been used
to go after real felon criminals.

(Durty pictures on playing cards in the 1950s, where did I see
that before? Ed Wood's The Sinister Urge?)

Vern Humphrey
June 23, 2006, 05:08 PM
The truth is that the 2A was designed to allow for individually man portable weapons.

No. The intention was that private citizens could own "all the terrible implements of the soldier" (in the words of Tench Cox.)

From Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are given to private citizens, who raise military units or fit out war vessels at their own expense. During most of this nation's history, there were no laws against owning artillery, warships and so on.

In the Federalist Paper Number 46, Madison (who basically wrote the Constitution) paints a scenario where a tyrannical central government uses the Army to subgate the people -- and shows how the right to keep and bear arms ensures the people can defeat such an Army.

To do that, they'd need "all the terrible implements of the soldier."

mohican
June 23, 2006, 05:25 PM
Hoppy590 "i donno. some its kinda extreme. no background checks . i dont mind ensuring that only the good guys get gun legaly through, moderate means such as background checks and some licensesing. but no background checks scares me. "

hoppy

does this mean that criminals go to gun stores, flunk the background check, and thus never have access to guns?

imo, a background check is having to prove that you are innocent

Vern Humphrey
June 23, 2006, 05:34 PM
When I was 16, I bought my first centerfire rifle, through the mail. It was an M1916 Mauser in 7X57.

Guess what? The sky didn't fall!:p

mohican
June 23, 2006, 06:07 PM
vern, you are undoubtably one of those desperados Sherryl Cow sang about getting a mail order gun :rolleyes:

Vern Humphrey
June 23, 2006, 06:13 PM
Sherryl Cow?

Is she one of the Ditzy Dorks, or whatever they call themselves?:D

mbt2001
June 23, 2006, 07:42 PM
I agree that the 2nd amendment is not restricted to "man portable weapons". I do not think that can be extrapolated under ARMS.

One thing that I think is funny and scary, is that the 2nd amendment has been identified as GUNS and most people see it as a GUN issue, when in actuality it is an ARMS issue; however there are laws governing non-gun weapons like nunchucks. They are illegal....

Anyway, think about it. We have the RIGHT to bear all manner of weapons, including NUKES, however that MIGHT be a public HEALTH danger, as would chemical and bilogical weapons...

Ironbarr
June 23, 2006, 08:36 PM
mordechaianiliewicz wrote:

The truth is that the 2A was designed to allow for individually man portable weapons. Nukes, bio weapons, heavy explosives, WMDs, and armour aren't man portable, so they aren't covered, and many of these weapons are too dangerous to be used in self-defense. However, machineguns, subguns, rifles, maybe even RPGs with certain restrictions are part of the spirit of the 2A.
This is not a challenge - just a question... Where does this "truth" come from... concrete evidence? Opinion? PFA?

I can't relate to variations in the past couple hundred years of 2nd Amendment analyses and can only define the words "shall not be infringed" as meaning - in a lesser semantic choice - as "don't mess with it... it IS what is meant" - the right to keep and bear arms - any arms, in any era, at any time, anywhere.

Of course - not in other countries... unfortunately.

There are some arguments that this only relates to the United States as a governing entity and not to the individual states themselves. But then I prefer to believe that a state within the United States would be (and hopefully would want to be) obligated to respect "shall not be infringed".

I propose that the current proliferation of various "harm to others (or the state)" laws be changed to two levels:
(1) Harm without evil intent;
(2) Harm with evil intent

Thus, should I harm someone (physically or otherwise) by accident, etc. punishment would be something less than had I purposely harmed a person. This is much as it is now, though the rule book could conceiveably be thinner. Related to guns... an accidental harm is one thing; use of arms for purposeful harm, something a whole bunch different.

Let's not restrict freedom until a harmful action occurs - then punish IAW the level of harm.

Well, there you go... as the sig states:

If you enjoyed reading about "Brady Bunch Hates Texas Republican Party Platform..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!