Monday, December 17, 2012

Move On.Commies Go For Guns. Gun Owners "Not in Right Mind."

The MoveOn.commies are going for your guns. They're using their extensive email listserv to get the word out. Several Portlanders have signed the various petitions. Listen to my discussion with Kari at 12:52 on Monday's broadcast.

Dear MoveOn member,

It's time to tell the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Congress: We're beyond heartbroken. Let's make today the last day that you block common sense gun regulations that protect all of our families.
That's why I created a petition on******* to the National Rifle Association, Congress, and President Barack Obama, which says:
We are beyond heartbroken as we think of the kindergarteners and others that died in Connecticut. This was the 3rd day in one week with a mass shooting in our nation.
We are parents. Many NRA members are parents. And none of us want to live in a nation where children are gunned down. Today is the day for the NRA and for Congress to step up and start proposing laws that protect children and all people.
Click here to add your name to this petition, and then pass it along to your friends.
The petition statements? 
"We refuse to allow a vocal and extreme minority to dictate to the majority and to prevent the pssas of sensible and necessary gun regulations"

"The second amendment certainly never intended for these kinds of rights."

"It's time to tell the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Congress: We're beyond heartbroken, Let's make today the last day that you block common sense gun regulations that protect all of our families."

"Please ban automatic and semi automatic weapons from being owned by citizens. It is unnecessary. Why would anyone in their right mind need to own one? They don't. Unless, of course, they are not in their right mind." 


  1. Looks like its time for all those well regulated militias to stand up and be heard.

  2. iago, it is BECAUSE of the need for a well regulated militia, that the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall NOT be infringed.

    I could go into all the supreme court decisions about it, but you would not want to hear that. All you would see me as a NRA member. Well, I am not a member of the NRA, never have been, never will be. I will not give money to an organization that supports a candidate that signed a gun ban into law.

  3. Hi Iago,

    Hard to visualize moveon and common sense in the same hemisphere, but lets shoot (sorry) for common ground anyway.

    I'll agree to register my gun and limit magazine sizes to 10 rounds if you agree to "background check" voters and public services users for citizenship. Deal?

    Of course moveon has no real proposals common sense or otherwise to add to the discussion, just more fearmongering and hate against their fellow citizens. Perhaps if Lanza had been a muslim like Major Hassan at Ft Hood, this could just be another routine case of "work place violence".

  4. First Clackamas Mall then Newtown. Over the past week the rightwing guilt on this blog has been palpable.

  5. Hi Rhubarb,

    Clairvoyance added to your repertoire of skills? : ) How about your solution?

  6. What does control over automatic weapons have to do with eighteenth century economic concepts such as communism? Name calling is childish playground habit. Apparently some on this radio program are still in that habit.

    Isn't it wiser to consider a proposed law for its merits and faults? First off, there is a wide grey area in terms of how our citizenry believes we should be armed. We used to be able to carry knives to school. I am not sure that is such a good idea. Should citizens also be able to have anti tank rockets? anti Jet airline rockets? Where should we draw the limit? The second amendment was written in the days of the muzzle loader.

    What ever the framers of the constitution wrote, they could not foresee the weaponry of today, nor could they see how well our democracy turned out to function. Remember that Jefferson considered our government to be an experiment. They even framed the amendment and legal system to allow for new laws to be made as the conditions of society required. When has an assault rifle (not a handgun) been used by self appointed militia for the betterment of our society?

  7. Hi Liam,

    Remember "General Betraeus"? You might want to spend a little time reading and listening to what moveon has to say.

    I agree with you that it is wiser a proposed law's merits and faults be discussed, but that's not how the debate is couched. You demonstrate that by asking the non gray area question about anti tank and anti jet airline missiles in the hands of private citizens. No one advocates that and those weapons are illegal to own in the USA.

    Perhaps you could define an "assault rifle" to illustrate your point? Under Diane Feinstein's lapsed and now reintroduced assault weapons ban, the rifle used in that massacre was legal to purchase and own...and still would be. The rifle was legal in Connecticut as well.

    Your right about the framers not being able to forsee the far future and provided for an ammendment process that required a 2/3s vote of congress and 2/3s of the states to support any changes. Intentionally so, to protect individual freedoms. What they did forsee was that any form of government could become tyrannical if limits were not placed on it to protect the "unalienable" rights citizen's had. The Constition was written with enumerated powers for the federal government to limit it's ability to decrease your rights and freedoms. It would have never been adopted without the demanded addition of a Bill of Rights, the first 10 ammendments, to define those "unalienable rights". The preamble of the Constitution speaks of the "consent of the governed" as its basis for legitimacy.

    Your contention seems to be that since the second ammendemnt was written when only muzzle loaders existed, that it is no longer valid. If that's true, then you must also believe that since anonymous internet smearing, cyber bullying, the anonymous sourced 24/7 news cycle, and pervasive pornography were not present when the first ammendment was written then the "conditions of society" require that it be revisited and changed. Rampant drug sales and inner city violence ddin't exist then so the fourth ammendment must be brought up to date as well. When the fifth ammendment was written, torture was a widely accepted practice, so it needs to be brought up to modern times.

    The President and many others chafe under the negative rights accorded to government which limits their powers over you. That's the American system. Whatever "conditions of society required", the dynamic is always the same, the right of the individual versus the right of society as a whole.

    Your last rhetorical question goes right to the heart of the matter of individual freedom. My assault rifle doesn't have to provide any good for you for me to have the right to own it. I just can't hurt you or anyone else with it. If someone else does abuse their rights, punish them, not me. My rights don't depend on your opinion of what's good for them to exist.. I can say the say the same thing for skanky pop stars, overpaid celebrities, stupid politicans, skateboards, Occupy, and a host of other things that I don't think add to the betterment of society that you might enjoy.

    And that's the answer to your first question regarding the connection between an 18th Century economic question and semi automatic weapons (automatic weapns can be owned but under heavy taxes and restrictions). Communism, facism, and it's progressive companions all seek a utopia at the price of enslaving individuals for the greater good. You need only look at the internment of Japanese Americans, the Alien Sedition acts, or the progressive embracement of Eugenics to see the harm an all powerful government riding a popular wave of emotion can do.

    I congratulate you on the content of your post. You were able to articulate your thoughts in a way conducive to the lively exchange of ideas. Hope you post more here.