![[Masthead]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Light Snow ~ High: 20°F ~ Low: -9°F |
|
|
Obama's Gunna Gitcher Guns and Steve King joins the Confederacy
Posted Friday, July 10, 2009, at 9:47 AM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
So a couple of days ago I got a call from the National Rifle Association. Maybe you got this call, too. They were conducting a poll. But first, they wanted me to listen to a brief message from the NRA President. So I listened.
The President told me all about the upcoming legislation, HR 45, intended to take away our second amendment rights. It was a scary description of this bill. Sounded to me like the beginnings of a police state.
Before I get to the actual "poll question", let's examine the bill a little closer.
HR 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 was written and sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush. The bill was proposed as a response to gunning down of a 16 year old Chicago honor student while riding the bus to school. Another student pulled a gun in a gang-related attack and Blair Holt used his body to shield the little girl sitting next to him. He was killed. The parents and families of the community demanded actions be taken to prevent this from happening again. Rep. Bobby Rush responded with HR 45.
In a nut shell, the bill would:
Now since there's a number of chain emails floating around full of misinformation on HR 45, let's list off some things the bill is not:
There's one more thing that the President of the NRA left out, regarding HR 45: It has no support. The bill has ZERO co-sponsors, Democrat or Republican. The bill has been sent to subcommittee where it will die before ever receiving a vote. It's a dead on arrival.
The NRA poll question
Our exchange went like this:
NRA guy: After hearing what you just heard, would you trust the anti-gunnists in Congress to protect the 2nd amendment?
Me: I can't answer that question honestly. It's a loaded question. (pun intended)
NRA guy: So is that a yes or a no?
Me: I can't answer that question honestly. It's a completely biased and loaded question.
NRA guy: How about I rephrase it?
Me: Give it a shot. Go ahead, shoot. (pun intended)
NRA guy: Would you trust the members of Congress to protect the 2nd amendment?
Me: Yes!
Ironically, I don't trust Congress 100% with any part of the Bill of Rights. I said "yes" just because I know he wanted me to say "no."
Applying Critical Thinking
First off, how can this poll be taken seriously when the NRA completely frames and distorts the issue before asking your opinion? By stating the question with "anti-gunnists", the NRA was employing a prejudicial rhetorical device called a rhetorical definition. This is intended to sway the audience towards a desired answer.
Secondly, if there are anti-gunnists in Congress, wouldn't they have co-sponsored the bill? By deductive reasoning, there are no "anti-gunnists" in Congress, then. Hooray!
One could make the argument that this fear mongering campaign regarding a bill that will never see the light of day is a cynical exploitation of the grief of the family and classmates of Blair Holt to increase NRA memberships. We must always remain vigilant to protect the Bill of Rights, but using intellectual dishonesty weakens that struggle in the long run.
To read the actual text of the bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45...
Additional sources:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blai...
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Rush
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunti...
Steve King does it again
If it weren't for Michelle Bachmann, King would be the biggest embarrassment to the Republican members of Congress.
Rep. Steve King was the only congressman to vote against a resolution on July 7th that acknowledges the role that slaves played in the construction of the U.S. Capitol Building. According to the text of the resolution, which passed 399-1, its simple goal is to recognize those who constructed the Capitol with a marker.
King released a statement explaining why he opposed a House measure to erect a plaque:
"Last night I opposed yet another bill to erect another monument to slavery because it was used as a bargaining chip to allow for the actual depiction of 'In God We Trust' in the CVC. The Architect of the Capitol and liberal activists opposed every reference to America's Christian heritage, even to the extent of scrubbing 'In God We Trust' from the depiction of the actual Speaker's chair in the U.S. House of Representatives.
This is just the latest example of a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America's Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol. Liberals want to amend our country's history to eradicate the role of Christianity in America and chisel references to God or faith from our historical buildings.
So apparently King rejects acknowledging the role that slaves played in the construction of the U.S. Capitol Building because the liberals wanna steal his religion.
Aside from the fact that these two issues are unrelated; when did it become so fashionable to act like Christianity is an oppressed minority? And a second question: Is it time to start the fictional War on Christmas yet? Maybe someone should point out that most of the slaves who built the capital were Christians. Maybe we could let King tack something on to the plaque to the effect of: AND THEY WERE CHRISTIAN! with a big bold font.
Steve can always find a way to express bigotry with religion.
One of the all time classics was when he responded to the observance of Ramadan with a resolution (H.Res. 847) saying that Christmas and Christians are important. Seriously.
I can see where Steve is going with this. As long as you are representing your religion in Congress, you can still get votes without concern for representing your actual constituents with real policy ideas.
But apparently this didn't wash with a segment of the population, so the following day he went on an Iowa radio station and offered a new explanation: complaining that the slave labor resolution wasn't a "balanced depiction of history".
"And of the 645,000 Africans that were brought here to be forcibly put into slavery in the United States, there were over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to put an end to slavery. And I don't see the monument to that in the Congressional Visitor Center, and I think it's important that we have a balanced depiction of history."
Really Steve? You don't? The Capitol Visitor Center is simply trying to recognize the work of those who built the Capitol. If he steps right outside the Capitol, he'll see the Ulysses S. Grant memorial. The Grant statue faces west toward the Lincoln Memorial. At the Congressional Cemetery lies the Arsenal Monument, a memorial in honor of women who died while performing services for the Union Army. And there's also an African American Civil War Memorial that honors the contributions that African-American troops made to the war effort.
But then again, Maybe King is upset that all of those memorials represent the Union side.
As a commenter on one of my sources pointed out; If we want to count up the total number of Americans who lived as slaves from the seventeenth century until 1865, Rep. King's number of "645,000 Africans" looks even more absurd.
To read the actual text of the resolution that acknowledges the role that slaves played in the construction of the U.S. Capitol Building:
http://snipurl.com/mi44y [thomas_loc_gov]
To read about King's bill honoring that threatened and rarely observed occasion, Christmas:
http://snipurl.com/mi1v2 [www_politico_com]
Additional sources:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/08/stev...
http://snipurl.com/mi0ce [tpmdc_talkingpointsmemo_com]
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/09/king...
Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Owner and founder of a liberal/progressive online news aggregator, former candidate for State Representative, media reform activist, internet communications consultant.
Hot topics Democrats Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory... again(41 ~ 11:29 PM, Feb 2)
Steve King Does it Again
Random Charts, Graphics, Facts and Observations
PSA: How to identify paid shills and propagandists
Guess who said the following...
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Nice piece on Steve king. So, he's a NeoConfederate as well as a Neo Con. Amazing the way these racists and bigots insist on living in fantasy worlds of their own imaginations. As far as his "balanced depiction of history" there are more memorials to the Confederate side of the Civil War than there are to Union troops. This is the result of decades of revisionist history trying to change WHAT the Civil War was about, (Slavery) and what the Confederacy stood for (Slavery) and what the leaders of the Confederacy were trying to maintain (Slavery). Southern Partisans try to conflate the intentions of Jefferson Davis et al, with the feelings of the "common Man" who was doing the actual fighting- who may have been fighting for no other reason than because people wearing blue uniforms and carrying guns were heading his way.
In addition to the marker acknowledgeing the Slave labor that built the Capital (in the Land of the Free) we should also get around to removing some of the more misleading moonuments to those who fought to maintain Slavery as well.
I wonder if Steve King would still win an election if the majority of voters were aware of some of the things he's said, despite the 5th district being so conservative. I would certainly hope not.
I hate to say this but the Civil War was about Slavery. Shocker I know. You mite think that one half of the United States went to war with the other just over Slavery. Although Slavery was one of the issues the Civil War was primarily about states rights
I'm glad to have Steve King as my Representative in Congress. I think he dose the job we sent him there to do and dose it will.
i like Iowa, I'd be interested to hear what King has done that makes you so proud. I haven't seen him propose any useful legislation or do anything useful at all, really. Could you maybe present something to sway my opinion?
Sir, regarding Mr. Rush's Firearms Bill: You might find by investigating sources other than HCI that the supposed "paranoia" of Second Amendment supporters is based in fact, that the "slippery slope" argument derided by anti-gunners did happen in Great Britain over the course of the twentieth century:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/70562...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/arti...
http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.h...
The main point of Olson and Kopel's essay, is to show that, to one generation what is an "eminently reasonable limitation", to the next generation is not quite enough. Also that, with each generation of added regulation, the public which is giving up its rights, becomes desensitized to the loss of those rights.
British Subjects, along with their "gun rights" also lost freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, and almost all right to self-defense.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk... (The result of this one is the usual from British politicians: "We'll make more laws punishing anyone we find with a gun!")
Violent crimes, almost unheard of about 1900, are now rampant. Gun violence is rampant, yet almost all guns are illegal. And because guns are illegal, people have taken to stabbing each other, and the authorities are about to require that knives not be made with "stabbing" points on them. No one can legally carry a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches, either. And the police are finally forced to be armed.
The Australians and Canadians have gone in largely the same direction.
Happily in the US: Anyone who wishes to ban firearms must get past the Second Amendment, and the constitutions of 44 states which also enshrine the "right to keep and bear arms". This is not a "Right to Hunt", rather it goes to the basic human right to defend yourself against criminals, or a government acting in a criminal manor.
But don't believe me: Check out what the Founders said of the Second Amendment in their writings, what numerous State Courts said in the early 1800s, and notice that the US Supreme Court finally has clarified that the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is an individual right, not related to membership in a "militia".
For crime statistics, go to CDC, BATF, FBI. For research try Gary Kleck (Florida State University Criminologist) and Dr. John R. Lott.
After you look at the stats, then check out Handgun Control, Inc/Brady Campaign and have a good laugh: I did!
Now to President Obama and his political appointees:
The President has, as an Illinois state and US Senator a voting and speaking record of being against gun rights. (But he said, after being elected President (sic) "Don't worry; we're not going to take your guns.")
Eric Holder, Rahm Emmanuel, and Hillory Clinton all have made statements against gun rights, for further restriction on gun ownership, etc. Their pronouncements have little or nothing to do with facts and published, authoritative statistics. Why whould we then trust them?
The GAO "US Guns in the Mexican Drug Wars" has been heavily mis-quoted by the above listed persons, reflecting a bias that doesn't coincide with fact, and which promotes an anti-Second Amendment agenda. So why should we trust them?
Janet Napolitano's DHS published a report which painted veterans and conservatives as "extremists". The report was withdrawn, but the damage has been done: Why should we trust her?
I am a veteran, currently serving in Iraq; I believe in my 2nd Amendment right to defend myself and my family. I am trained and capable, yet I do not walk around (when home) waving my "gun rights" in everyone's face. I have not yet had to act in self-defense of my home or person, but am prepared to do so.
By defending the US Constitution (I took an oath to do so), does that make me a "Conservative Extremist"? Holder, Clinton, Emmanuel, Napolitano also took similar oathes: By attacking the Second Amendment, are they not then traitors to their solemn promise to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"?
Think about it.
Mr. Templeton,
To quote you...
"I haven't seen him propose any useful legislation or do anything useful at all, really."...
Please present your definition of "useful".
Thanks,
Dan
Mr. Smith, you may define "useful" however you like. Perhaps if you present the most useful (under the definition of your choice) legislation that Rep. King has introduced, I may be persuaded to feel differently about him. I'm always open to new information and willing to adjust my perspective accordingly.
Mike in Iraq: First, thanks for your service to our country and for your assistance to the Iraqi people.
I don't know if you missed the part where I said that I don't trust any member of Congress 100% with any part of the Bill of Rights, but I think we agree more than we disagree.
You suggested that I investigate sources other than HCI. What is HCI and where did I use them as my sole source? I linked to the actual text of the bill, the Snopes article that gives the background of the bill, the Wikipedia article on the author of the bill, and the ESPN article that explained how the bill was dead in the water. My blog entry is specifically regarding the misleading phone call and the facts behind the bill. I think the overall topic of gun rights is too large and complex to discus in a blog entry. But as I said before, I think we agree more than we disagree. That being said, if you are going to mislabel my citations, you may want to look at your own. I go out of my way to use strictly informational, rather than persuasive, material in my citations. Persuasive material is typically used when a quote has been lifted. Doing so limits the opportunity for rhetorical fallacies, bias, and slant. I'm not saying that you are purposefully pushing opinion pieces as fact, but when you read something, you may want to ask yourself if the material is intended to inform you or to persuade you. I say this not just because of the nature of your sources, but you actually repeated some information that wasn't factually correct. Nobody likes to be misinformed. I'm sure you don't either.
On the topic of Obama and his political appointees: Can you present examples in context of Obama's anti-gun rights record? I'd be interested to see it and think it should be publicized.
As far as an anti-gun agenda: You know... if there was such a big push by the Democrats to take our guns, I'd think HR45 would have some co-sponsors. At least one. I also think there'd be some kind of push to renew the assault weapons ban. The way Obama is portrayed in some outlets, you'd think he would have done it in his first 100 days. But he's not signaled any interest in doing so, that I'm aware of.
The DHS report did not paint veterans and conservatives as "extremists". It warned of the rise of right-wing extremism and increased efforts to recruit veterans. (Timothy McVeigh, as an example) It didn't say conservatives or veterans were extremists. I would suggest that this misunderstanding of the report may reflect the use of persuasive material rather than informational material to form perspective.
Again, as I said, I think we agree more than we disagree.
Mr. Templeton,
Here is a way we might discover what you consider "useful" (it's the word you chose). Take your word, the way you meant it, and give us an example of what you consider the most "useful" legislation President Obama introduced during his time as Senator Obama. This will clear up for you, for me, for all of us, what you mean by "useful".
Thanks,
Dan
Dan, how did you get to be on the school board without knowing the definition of "useful"?
Yes, the Civil War was fought over states rights. And what was the issue that caused this division of opinion over states rights? I believe it was slavery!
Why is gun regulation always conflated to mean an assault on gun ownership? Do driving laws vastly restrict ones purchase, ownership and use of cars?
What is it you're REALLY afraid of?
use⋅ful/ˈyusfəl/ [yoos-fuhl]
--adjective
1. being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society.
2. of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying common needs: the useful arts; useful work.
That outta settle that eh?
http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2009/07/18...
Fear of Obama Gun Grab Prompts Nebraska's GOP Party Head to Shop Til He Drops
Lisa Derrick Saturday July 18, 2009 6:52 pm
Mark Fahleson, chairman of the Nebraska Republican Party, suffers from a current popular delusion sweeping the righter-winger sections of the country: That Obama will ban or severely restrict all gun and ammunition sales.
From California and New Mexico to Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and New Jersey, gun sales, legal and illegal, are soaring. The FBI reports that background checks required for gun purchases have jumped over 25% between January and May of 2009-- from 4.8 million to 6.1 million--compared to the same period last year. Gotta make sure your militia's well-armed, that you have enough assault rifles to mow down a herd of deer, and that Granny's got a Glock because of cuts to the police force!
Robert House, owner of Classic Firearms in Virginia Beach, said:
I've never seen anything like this. There have been fistfights at gun shows over the last box of ammunition.
Jeff Schramm, owner of Schramm's Ammo in Sunnyvale, Texas told the Dallas News:
Mr. Obama and Joe Biden are the best gun salesmen ever. People are scared and buying everything they can.
Not to be left out of the trend--which seems to be the macho version of grabbing the last Tickle Me Elmo or Cabbage Patch Dolls at the toy store--GOP party animal Fahleson tweeted:
Discussing what Obama's election has meant for gun sales. Off to Cabela's we go.
Nice plug for a big sporting goods chain, dude. Wonder how the other Nebraska gun shops feel about that?
Your article did make me think a little, so I did go to the weblink you provided and read the bill. It did go thru what it would take to obtain a license, one of being a test on how to properly store a gun(using the term "store" several times). Then under "enforcement" it gives the attorney general the authority to enter any place where firearms are stored.
I wish the congress would spend as much time,effort and money on trying to fix the real problem, which is the demented people using the weapons. Seung-Hui Cho planned his devastation long enough that if he couldn't get a gun,(which under current laws he shouldn't have) he would have built pipe bombs and tossed them in every classroom.
Finding out why society is becoming so kill crazy toward one another should be the focus. There are too many "weapons of several people destruction" to just focus on guns.
Allen223, you nailed it. I would vote for a candidate that ran on the platform of "a gun in every pot" as long as we had free effective mental health care programs in this country. I have no problem with law abiding citizens packing heat everywhere they go, but I do worry about the guy who thinks he NEEDS to be packing heat every where he goes. As an example: in Kansas City I new a guy who was a paranoid schizophrenic. He was a waiter in a popular restaurant and used to hide loaded handguns all over the restaurant. That's the kind of thing that scares me. Is the solution that everyone in the restaurant be armed? I don't think so. The last thing I need is a bunch of Missouri hillbillies having a shootout while I'm trying to enjoy my chicken alfredo.
You mentioned that the bill "gives the attorney general the authority to enter any place where firearms are stored.". It's my understanding that this applies to places of commerce, not private residences.
I think we agree on the main topic. If we addressed the mental health problem and the drug problems a little more aggressively, maybe those people wouldn't feel the need to carry guns hidden in thier shoe or strapped to thier back or where ever.
As for your paranoid schizophrenic, he would be taken care of, and If I had to worry about Missouri hillbillies having a shootout while eating, I think I would eat somewhere else. Or move to another state.
Thanks for the clarification on the attorney general's powers. I just wish they could just write "not private residences", so it wouldn't have to go to the courts later for interpretation
It's easy to miss. It's in section 403.
This discussion has been very entertaining to say the least and encouraging too. I carry a firearm on the job as I work in Executive Protection. I also have a concealed carry permit and carry a firearm most of the time. I became concerned one Sunday when, as an usher in my church, I escorted our Church Administrator, to do a drop in the church safe of our weekly contribution, that the back door of our church was much too close to the offices where the safe is located. From then on I started carrying my firearm to church to protect him when he drops the weekly contribution into the safe. Now our region is meeting at another location and I protect a team who counts the weekly contribution and then I make the deposit at the local bank. I believe it's far better to have a firearm and not need it, than to need a firearm and not have one. Benjamin Franklin said it well, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote".
Liberal playbook, page 1, sentence 1: "If you do not agree with somebody or their ideas, call them racist, biggot, or religions extremist."
Good Job!