Resources - Page 14 - THR

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Activism

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Thread Tools
Old March 21, 2013, 08:53 PM   #326
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Location: Eastern Kansas
Posts: 1,086
how do I watch it?
SabbathWolf is offline  
Old March 21, 2013, 09:19 PM   #327
Contributing Member
Join Date: September 20, 2009
Location: HeArT of DiXiE
Posts: 1,284
Wow great find there hso. This is the most rational RKBA discussion I've seen. It helps that the host's demeanor was calm and neutral.
Surculus ergo sum
docnyt is offline  
Old March 21, 2013, 09:54 PM   #328
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Location: Eastern Kansas
Posts: 1,086
I can't find the actual video. How do I watch it? What do I click on?
SabbathWolf is offline  
Old March 21, 2013, 11:04 PM   #329
Join Date: June 18, 2011
Location: Tidewater
Posts: 5,093
Their politics are usually pretty nearly opposite mine, but there is one thing I have always liked about PBS "anchors," whether on radio or TV; they don't scream at their audience.

This interviewer and guest are a shining example of how a dialog should be undertaken. The guest is dead on in her analysis, and the host doesn't berate her. Brilliant work from both.
Many seek the ruler's favor; but every man's judgment comes from the LORD.

Proverbs 29:26, AKJV
beatledog7 is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 01:06 AM   #330
Join Date: January 1, 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 32
Great video, thanks for sharing!
tjd78z is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 03:22 AM   #331
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
Posts: 1,152
Sabbath, the web design there is not smart.
The words " examined the gun debate." Just before Judy Woodruf, are, in fact a link to the video.
Standing guard even sitting behind a desk.

Occupational hazard of my occupation just not being around (with apologies to Bubba)
CapnMac is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 04:07 AM   #332
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Location: Eastern Kansas
Posts: 1,086
Originally Posted by CapnMac View Post
Sabbath, the web design there is not smart.
The words " examined the gun debate." Just before Judy Woodruf, are, in fact a link to the video.

Thank you. I guess I'm not that smart either sometimes.
SabbathWolf is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 04:40 AM   #333
Join Date: February 26, 2012
Location: burien WA
Posts: 92
dang i missed it, but the Newshour on PBS is the only (other than local news) news i watch on TV.
"hey look lois, the two symbols of the republican party an elephant and a big fat white guy who's threatened by change". Peter Griffin Family Guy
the .480 Ruger, for those who get it no explanation is needed, for those who don't get it, wouldn't understand.
" a AK is a man's weapon, unfortunately you don't qualify" a quote from a member of different forum.
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 02:20 PM   #334
Join Date: March 22, 2013
Posts: 1
My friend Kevin posted a thread below but I thought I'd leave a link in the sticky thread as well. BillTrack50.com makes it easy to search legislation across all 50 states.
willhickey is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 02:46 PM   #335
Join Date: October 6, 2008
Location: Eastern Kansas
Posts: 1,086
I'm not sure I liked how she called the National Guard the Militia?
SabbathWolf is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 05:43 PM   #336
Join Date: April 16, 2012
Location: Maine
Posts: 102
I couldn't watch it on the link provided but found the same video on youtube and was able to watch it, it's good stuff.
Downeast is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 06:10 PM   #337
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Location: Dallas, Republic of Texas
Posts: 1,057
That was a surprisingly level headed discussion considering the program.

Thanks for the link.

America: Stand and FIGHT!
Support the entire Constitution. Not just the parts you like.
Twmaster is offline  
Old March 22, 2013, 06:13 PM   #338
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 290
great find.
Arbo is offline  
Old March 23, 2013, 07:54 PM   #339
Join Date: December 10, 2005
Location: Western Slope of Colorado
Posts: 2,216
Thanks OP.
Furncliff is offline  
Old March 24, 2013, 01:12 AM   #340
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 19
Great video. Obama might be thinking twice about that funding to PBS now, though...
zmoore1991 is offline  
Old March 26, 2013, 08:39 AM   #341
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 46,959
The Lee Amendment vote tells us who our friends are in the Senate (even thought it didn't pass by one vote).

YEAs ---50
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---49
Baldwin (D-WI)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.
hso is offline  
Old March 26, 2013, 08:25 PM   #342
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 54

I know this is old news, but since it hasn't been mentioned I think I should point it out:

I believe this recounting of the NRA's history is inaccurate as told in this video.

I'd really, sincerely appreciate someone correcting me on this. My understanding is that the NRA was started earlier than the instances cited, specifically by two union soldiers upset at the lack of Northern aptitude at reconciling POA & POI.

It's true that some local chapters were organized for the reason he states and that the national organization chartered those local organizations, but the NRA as a national organization wasn't started for these reasons, AFAIK.

The NRA can and should rightly take credit for their involvement in helping freed slaves defend themselves from the KKK, but it's important to qualify this video up front with an acknowledgement that the history isn't quite accurate. Being honest and upfront about this avoids putting us in the position of losing credibility for promoting something that isn't historically accurate and thus distracting from the truly valuable substance of what's discussed.

Again, I'd really like it if someone more knowledgeable on this would correct me. Don't hate - just posting this in the spirit of helping improve our strength of representation and argument.
theshephard is offline  
Old March 26, 2013, 08:57 PM   #343
Join Date: December 17, 2012
Posts: 791
It's not the NRA making that statement, but those individuals.

It may be a case of them talking about the NRA from their particular perspective and context (local chapters, being chartered by the national organization) and not simply being concerned about when the 'national organization' actually formed.

Either way, that's a powerful statement, and since it flies in the face of the MSM, and reinforces the NRA as a positive organization, it'll never make 'prime time'. But I hope more people see it.
kwguy is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 12:33 AM   #344
Join Date: April 7, 2008
Location: Bitter Clinger from PA
Posts: 442
theshepard, I've been doing a lot of research on this lately. Here's something I came across that may or may not be of value to the conversation. It concerns the rifle club that was created by civil rights activist Robert Franklin Williams and chartered by the NRA.


DAVID CECELSKI:What did the rifle club do?
MABEL WILLIAMS: We practiced shooting. We were all members. I was a member as well. We taught the kids how to shoot. We'd—we got our charter. We'd have our little meetings. And that was the backbone of our defense group.

DAVID CECELSKI: And it was like a NRA type thing.
MABEL WILLIAMS: It was affiliated. It was a branch of the National Rifle Association.

DAVID CECELSKI: That [unclear] to white people.

MABEL WILLIAMS: They didn't know for sure because when Robert sent off for the charter he had himself as an author. He had Dr. Perry as a doctor. He had some of the—. Oh, he had one of our officers, McDowell, as a businessman. He had, I think, the women he put down housewives. And he put construction, contractor for the construction workers. And we got our first charter like that. And it's really fun. The year that Rob passed away, the National Rifle Association wanted him to come to Texas to speak about how we survived in the south with guns.

DAVID CECELSKI: [unclear] to do it.

MABEL WILLIAMS: He was going to but his cancer got the better of him and he was unable to go. But he sent a message to them, which they read. And I have a tape that they—. At their anniversary celebration they talked about Robert Williams and how his rifle club allowed them to survive in the racist state of North Carolina. [Laughter]

DAVID CECELSKI: I bet it did.

MABEL WILLIAMS: Oh yeah. And we were just tickled to death that they did that.

DAVID CECELSKI: I like that.

MABEL WILLIAMS: I'm sure when we joined and the years after then, had they known we were a black group, they would have revoked our charter.

DAVID CECELSKI: I think they would have too.

MABEL WILLIAMS: I'm sure they would have. But in the later years when they were under such attack for guns, they came up with the fact that they were proud of the fact that, "Well, if it hadn't been for guns in North Carolina, that man would have been dead", you know. [Laughter]

DAVID CECELSKI: That's great.

MABEL WILLIAMS: "If he hadn't been affiliated with the rifle association." [Laughter] And that's true. But the ironic part that I want people to know is that although we had an association with guns, we knew how to use guns. We trained other people how to use guns, our children included. We never had the occasion to have to shoot anybody. And that if, you know. That's remarkable because a lot of people, when they think about having guns, they think about killing folks. And Robert always—. He was the ultimate teacher, always. He always taught the other people and us that a gun is a weapon that can do terrible damage to people. And the only reason you would ever pick up a gun is for self-defense and not for anything aggressive or not to scare off anybody, and not to play with anybody. But it was serious business when you really had to pick up a gun.
I'd love to read the letter Robert Franklin Williams sent to the NRA.
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." -Jefferson
Prophet is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 04:31 PM   #345
Join Date: September 24, 2003
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,590
In MS, you can look over all the bills: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/201...es/notdead.xml

or do keyword searches: http://index.ls.state.ms.us/2013Session.html

You may need to start with the main legislature page in future years:
NRA Benefactor
Miss. St. Firearms Owners Assn.
LEAA Member
Eagle Scout
Professional Engineer

"He who goes unarmed in paradise had better be sure that that is where he is."
45crittergitter is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 05:42 PM   #346
Join Date: February 25, 2006
Location: PNW WA
Posts: 1,077
More reading on this subject:


Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson
FourTeeFive is offline  
Old April 5, 2013, 06:20 PM   #347
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 445
American Patriot in "Rural Georgia"
"if a little rebellion now & then was good for our country back then, then nothing has changed.The time is definately ripe for another"
Hunt480 is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 04:59 PM   #348
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: 'MURICA!
Posts: 4,175
Senator King - add him to the list

theautobahn mentioned King sent out an e-mail and I just checked and sure enough this is what he wrote.


Thank you for contacting me about guns and gun violence. I recently wrote an editorial for the Bangor Daily News outlining my position on this issue. I've decided to share that editorial here so that you know my most recent thoughts and how I'm approaching the current debate:

(orriginally published in the Bangor Daily News on April 11, 2013)

In the coming days, the U.S. Senate will take up gun control. In my short tenure, no issue has generated as much interest, public engagement or passion as this one. As the debate in the Senate begins, I think it is appropriate that I lay out my position as clearly as possible to the people of Maine. In thinking this through, I have sat with gun owners, hunters, long-time gun control advocates and citizens from across Maine. After a great deal of thought, here is where I stand:

1. The problem of gun violence in our society simply cannot be ignored. Every year, more than 30,000 people die from gun-shots — either accidental, suicide or crime related. Gun murders now total more that 10,000 a year — which is the equivalent of a Newtown tragedy every single day. Put another way, it's as if a town the size of Auburn was wiped out — every man, woman and child — every year, year in and year out. No society that calls itself civilized can accept self-inflicted tragedy on this scale.

2. The Second Amendment is a fundamental and important part of our Constitution and must be respected and observed, and any legislation we pass must square with its terms and respect the rights of law-abiding citizens. I believe the steps outlined below meet that test.

3. Our experience here in Maine demonstrates that widespread gun ownership does not equate to widespread gun crime; we have one of the highest percentages of gun ownership in the country and one of the lowest rates of gun violence. This suggests to me that the key questions are "who can obtain a gun?" and "what are reasonable ways that guns can be kept out of the wrong hands?"

4. I have therefore concluded that the single most effective step we can take is to expand the current system of criminal background checks to all firearm transactions, with common sense exceptions for transfers within families. Just as is the case under the current gun dealer-only system, this can be done without creating a national gun registry and without burdening law-abiding citizens. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those few mentally ill persons who are prone to violence is the best defense we have against gun crime.

5. We should make it a federal crime to traffic guns between states for the purpose of providing them to people who could not purchase them legally and increase the penalties for straw purchasing — buying a gun for transfer to another who is legally prohibited from purchasing it themselves.

6. It is time to limit magazine size to no more than 10 rounds. Gun owners and sportsmen have told me that this limitation would not significantly inhibit their use of firearms and could save lives, particularly in a Newtown or Aurora-type situation.

7. After a great deal of thought, however, I am not prepared to support the proposed ban on so-called assault weapons — principally because I just don't think it will work. It is important to emphasize that these weapons have exactly the same firing mechanism and functionality as the common semi-automatic hunting rifles owned by thousands of Maine residents. Although their looks may be more menacing, they do not shoot any faster, farther, or with more power than conventional hunting rifles; and contrary to popular belief, they are not fully automatic, with the ability to to spray bullets with one pull of the trigger. In addition, the vast majority of gun crimes — well over 90 percent — involve handguns, not rifles, assault or otherwise.

The proposed ban is really about the appearance of particular firearms rather than what they do — and banning a gun because we don't like its looks will not, in my opinion, have a significant impact upon gun violence. In addition, at the time of the 1994 ban, manufacturers simply made minor cosmetic changes whereby banned guns were made exempt from the law, which rendered the ban largely ineffective. I expect the same thing would happen this time around.

8. Finally, it is essential that we do a better job of identifying — and helping — those with mental illness who may be prone to violent acts and take reasonable steps, including universal background checks, to limit their access to firearms.

This is a complex issue, and there are no simple answers, but I am convinced that the steps outlined above — particularly expanded background checks — will diminish the terrible toll that gun violence is taking in our society, while at the same time respecting the Second Amendment and the rights of our law-abiding neighbors who own and use firearms safely every day.

We owe ourselves and our children no less.

Best Regards,

United States Senator

P.S., Many of you have written expressing the view that the Second Amendment is absolute and prevents the passage of any kind of gun laws whatsoever. Without getting into a long discussion about Constitutional interpretation, this view is not supported by Supreme Court opinion or the general history of our Constitutional law.

Probably the best example of this history is the apparently absolute prohibition on infringements on freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) which has long been interpreted to have limits--that free speech does not include the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater, for example.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to allow the regulation of certain kinds of guns and gun commerce. Fully automatic (Tommy) guns and sawed-off shotguns have been heavily regulated for 80 years, for example. This governmental power was reconfirmed as recently as 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which declared the District’s heavy restrictions on handguns unconstitutional. Following the heart of the opinion which struck down the District’s law, Justice Antonin Scalia went on to make this point very clearly,

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

My brief response.
So long as you support the infringement of Constitutional Rights on Americans and Mainers, myself and many others will work passionately to unseat you at your next election.

Maine resident
Registered voter
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

Ryanxia is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 05:28 PM   #349
Join Date: November 21, 2008
Location: Arizona Territory
Posts: 613
I thought #5 was already a federal crime.
MasterSergeantA is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 05:49 PM   #350
Join Date: April 12, 2013
Location: Goleta, CA
Posts: 356
The reason for high capacity magazines is simple:

They are the tools we use to level the field against tyranny in this Nation.

The progression by the left is simple:

High cap>15 round>10 round>7 round>wheelguns only>38 caliber and smaller only>single shot>no shot
bigdaa is offline  

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2016 Firearms Forum, Inc.
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.