Member since: Fri Sep 8, 2006, 12:47 PM
Number of posts: 9,489
Number of posts: 9,489
- 2013 (101)
- 2012 (99)
- 2011 (5)
- December (5)
- Older Archives
Found this on the Conelrad blog (an excellent compendium of Cold War information).
Some background: After leaving office, Dwight Eisenhower moved to Indian Wells, California and joined
the Eldorado Country Club. He got a letter from a future neighbor, and after reading said letter Eisenhower wrote a friend for advice.
I found what he said in that letter to be completely antithetical to what the GOP has stood for recently:
CADDYSHACK: EISENHOWER’S FALLOUT SHELTER DILEMMA
It was in late September of 1961 that President Eisenhower received the aforementioned letter from his future neighbor, Mary Florsheim Jones, proposing her idea of a community shelter for the new residents of Eldorado. Mrs. Jones was the wife of celebrity Allan Jones (father of Love Boat crooner, Jack Jones) and an heiress to the Chicago footwear fortune. Mr. Jones, a singer and actor, had performed as part of Eisenhower’s inaugural festivities which might be why the former president was giving the letter his attention.
My dear General Eisenhower:
I am taking the liberty of writing to you to ask you to help my husband and I to start a group of fellow Americans joining together to build a Bomb Shelter at Eldorado Country Club. I know you are building there this summer and so are we. Our home is on the second green and we had originally thought we would build a shelter for ourselves. This seems selfish and I thought perhaps we could ban together and ask for a piece of land and make this a community project that might also set a good example.
A letter from you endorsing this idea if you think it a good plan is all we would need to start the idea into a reality.
My husband asked me to remember him to you; he sang at both your inaugurations.
Thank you for your consideration of our idea.
Very Sincerely yours,
Mrs. Allan Jones.
September 19, 1961
President Eisenhower’s letter to Gosden is fascinating because it reveals his own conflicted attitudes about survival as well as his concern for the service workers at the country club – many of whom may have been black Democrats. The note begins with some friendly pleasantries before moving on to the former president’s community shelter quandary:
... I enclose a letter from Mrs. Allan Jones, who proposes that all of us at Eldorado join together to build a bomb shelter, apparently on the theory that this would be a good example for others as well as a possible refuge for those of us who might be living there during a catastrophe. So far as I am personally concerned, I am not sure whether I would really want to be living in this country of ours should ever be subjected to a nuclear bath. But even if I were persuaded that the building of a shelter would be good, I would most certainly insist that it would have to be ample to take care of all of the caddies, the workmen on the golf course, together with everybody that works in the clubhouse, including waitresses, maids, janitors and all the rest. Certainly, I do not want to offend the lady, but I wonder whether you could give me your opinion of how to answer her.
Eisenhower to Freeman Gosden RE: Country Club Fallout Shelter by Bill Geerhart
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:51 AM (2 replies)
Westford Selectmen Withdraw Proposal To Ban Assault Weapons
WESTFORD (CBS) – A thunderous round of applause and a standing ovation greeted the news Wednesday night that a proposed town bylaw to restrict some assault weapons was going to be officially withdrawn.
The overwhelming majority of the close to 400 people who packed a special meeting of the Westford Board of Selectmen opposed the idea.
The man who originally proposed it told the crowd the debate had not gone as he had hoped...
...“I thought there would be a reaction,” Jeffries said. “But I also thought maybe some other towns in Massachusetts might have also tried something similar and none of them did. So it left us isolated as the only ones.”
Gun Prohibitionists are getting repeatedly dope-slapped by the false consensus effect lately...
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:48 PM (10 replies)
Read the following in the Sunday Boston Globe:
Crime soared with Mass. gun law
By Jeff Jacoby
| Globe Columnist
February 17, 2013
IN 1998, Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the toughest gun-control legislation in the country. Among other stringencies, it banned semiautomatic “assault” weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked.
“Today, Massachusetts leads the way in cracking down on gun violence,” said Republican Governor Paul Cellucci as he signed the bill into law. “It will save lives and help fight crime in our communities.” Scott Harshbarger, the state’s Democratic attorney general, agreed: “This vote is a victory for common sense and for the protection of our children and our neighborhoods.” One of the state’s leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. “The new gun law,” he predicted, “will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief.”...
...The 1998 legislation did cut down, quite sharply, on the legal use of guns in Massachusetts. Within four years, the number of active gun licenses in the state had plummeted. “There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998,” the AP reported. “In June , that number was down to just 200,000.” The author of the law, state Senator Cheryl Jacques, was pleased that the Bay State’s stiff new restrictions had made it possible to “weed out the clutter.”...
...Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globe reported this month — “a striking increase from the 65 in 1998.” Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent...
Not being subject to the delusion that the validity of a claim depends upon who is making the claim, I followed James Thurber's advice and looked it up on the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports website...
...and it looks like the Globe's pet libertarian got that one right-the murder rate in Massachusetts for 1998
was 2.0 per 100,000 inhabitants, went to 3.2 in 2010 and subsided to 2.8 in 2011, a 40% increase over
The robbery rate rose as well, albeit not at nearly the same rate as murders: 96.6 in 1998 to 105.0
in 2010 and 102.7 in 2011.
One wonders what happened in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, where gun laws have essentially been
the same for decades.
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Mon Feb 18, 2013, 02:30 PM (30 replies)
Mass. police chiefs sued over gun license limits
By DENISE LAVOIE
AP Legal Affairs Writer / February 12, 2013
BOSTON (AP) — Six Massachusetts residents, backed by a gun-rights group, are suing four police chiefs, claiming restrictions they place on gun licenses violate their Second Amendment rights.
A state law allows police to issue licenses to carry guns with restrictions limiting their use for sporting reasons, hunting or target practice. The federal lawsuit filed by Commonwealth Second Amendment Inc. claims those restrictions prevent gun owners from using or carrying handguns for protection.
The suit says policies on when to issue restrictions vary widely from town to town. Some communities refuse to issue licenses to carry guns without restrictions, while others issue some license without restrictions, but only if the applicants establish that they have a pronounced need to carry a gun, the lawsuit says. Still other towns issue licenses without restrictions.
‘‘Massachusetts’ (license to carry) scheme results in otherwise-qualified, law-abiding citizens of Massachusetts being denied the right to carry a firearm for self-defense, while other, similarly situated residents of Massachusetts are permitted to exercise their right to bear arms to protect themselves,’’ the lawsuit states...
Finally, someone is taking on the unConstitutional "may-issue" laws!
Since these laws fly directly in the face of the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald,
expect them to be overturned (and the taxpayers of these various towns on the hook for the legal bills...)
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:02 PM (1 replies)
The cops in this case would be the New York State Sheriffs' Association:
Sheriffs’ Response to NY SAFE Act
Following passage of the SAFE Act by the State Legislature and approval by the Governor, the Sheriffs now have had the opportunity to review the language of the new law and wish to make our comments available. The Sheriffs of New York state support many of the provisions of the SAFE Act, and believe that they will enhance public safety and help to shield citizens from gun violence. However, there are also some parts of this new law that need clarification, and some that we think should be reconsidered and modified to meet the concerns of the law enforcement community and the public at large.
We have identified the following six provisions of the new law which we believe are helpful and will increase the safety of our citizens. These include:
After detailng the parts they do like, they discuss what they do not, among which are:
•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want....
• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.
•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.
Once again, the impulse to 'do something NOW, dammit!' has led lawmakers astray. I wonder, what's
the over/under on when anti-rural bigotry pops up in a post?
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:42 AM (13 replies)
Guns fly off the shelves
Worry about new controls spurs sales in New England
By Callum Borchers and Todd Wallack
Globe Staff / January 29, 2013
Gun manufacturers and retailers throughout New England are struggling to keep up with surging demand as buyers, worried their options may soon be limited, snap up firearms and ammunition.
Shops say they have sold out of many popular gun models, including variations of the AR-15-style rifle used in last month’s mass shootings in Newtown, Conn. Some retailers have resorted to capping the number of bullets customers can buy in an effort to preserve dwindling inventories, or taken to marking up prices.
The sharp increase in sales is fueled by the looming prospect of greater controls on firearms. Proposals to further restrict or regulate ownership are pending nationally and in Massachusetts.
The surge in purchases can be gauged by the wave of background checks required for prospective gun buyers. Nine of the 10 busiest days for background checks ever recorded by the FBI were in the past two months. In December alone, the agency performed 25,251 checks for would-be buyers in Massachusetts — an increase of 73 percent from a year earlier...
Good. I hope John Rosenthal got indigestion after reading that..
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:47 AM (9 replies)
Mass. keeps mental health data from FBI gun checks
State law prevents sharing of records on mental health
By David Uberti | Globe Correspondent
January 28, 2013
WASHINGTON — Despite its reputation as a state with strong gun-control laws, Massachusetts for more than a decade has not provided mental health records to an FBI database for gun background checks, the result of a 43-year-old state law prohibiting such sharing.
Massachusetts has submitted just one mental health record to the federal database since 1999 — apparently as a test — at the same time that the FBI has processed 1.6 million background checks of Bay State residents who seek to buy guns from federally licensed dealers. The situation has sparked concerns that firearms could fall into the hands of the mentally ill.
Governor Deval Patrick has twice tried unsuccessfully to get legislative approval for the sharing of mental health data. Both attempts failed to gain traction in the state Legislature amid opposition from gun-rights activists.
The governor renewed the effort earlier this month when he proposed universal background checks that include mental health information. Supporters said that momentum for revising the measure may have reached a tipping point in the wake of the shooting of 26 people in Newtown, Conn.
I should note that means Massachusetts does not report information about those judged incompetent in a court of law, which information should be passed onto the Feds.
Seng-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter would not have been reported under Massachusetts law.
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:52 PM (2 replies)
...including at least one poster in this thread.
I can count on the fingers of one hand those DUers that have stated their willingness to
personally join in on gun confiscation.
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:09 PM (0 replies)
First, there was the Brady Campaign boycott because Starbucks basically ignored them
and refused to flatly ban open-carry of guns in their stores where otherwise legal:
Brady Campaign Urges Starbucks To Prohibit Guns In Its Retail Outlets
Feb 5, 2010
Washington, DC – Radical gun enthusiasts have begun parading into California restaurants and coffeehouses in recent weeks brazenly displaying handguns. The gun activists have frightened customers, alarmed police and caused at least two restaurant chains to establish firm policies prohibiting firearms in their retail locations.
Ten days ago, gun violence opponents in California started urging a third chain, Starbucks, to similarly prohibit the "open carry" of firearms in its retail establishments, but Starbucks has rebuffed their requests. Today, the national Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence joins with its chapter leaders in California and across the nation in urging the Starbucks Coffee Company to bar the carrying of firearms in its shops.
Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, today sent a letter to Howard Schultz, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Starbucks Coffee Company, asking him to change their policy. "I am writing to urge you to reverse Starbucks’ current policy allowing persons to carry guns, both openly and concealed, into your stores," Helmke wrote. "On behalf of the Brady Campaign and its chapters across the country, I ask you to consider the rights of the vast majority of your customers to bring their families, including their children, into your stores without being confronted with the threatening presence of open-displayed guns."...
That didn't work out so well for the Bradys, as see:
Starbucks posts significant increases in earnings and sales in second quarter
by Austin Lewis
April 22, 2010
Coffee retailer Starbucks Corp., based in Seattle, Wash., reported significantly higher earnings based on improved domestic and international sales. Starbucks surpassed Wall Street’s estimates by four cents. The stock rose slightly Wednesday.
Starbucks earned $217.3 million, or 28 cents earnings per diluted share, in the second quarter ended March 28, up nearly eightfold from $25 million, or 3 cents per diluted share, in the same period last year. Earnings reflected a $5.8 million charge related to restructuring....
Now, remember those numbers. Cut to one year ago- some bright spark declares that HE will succeed where
the Brady Campaign failed (emphasis added):
Press Release About Starbucks Boycott
Posted Jan 30 2012 by ngac with 0 Comments
Starbucks’ “Pro-Gun” Policy Prompts Gun Victims’ Advocate Group to Launch Nationwide Boycott on Valentine’s Day 2012
CHICAGO, Jan. 23, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine’s Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.
This boycott is being called by the National Gun Victim’s Action Council (NGAC), a network of 14 million gun victims, the faith community including the: Episcopal Peace Fellowship, United Church of Christ, Fellowship of Reconciliation (46 peace fellowships and 43 affiliate fellowships), secular groups working to reduce gun violence and many of the organizations that support passing sane gun laws...
...Starbucks has the legal right to ban guns but despite having been petitioned by thousands, asked at a shareholder meeting, and a direct appeal made to their Board, Starbucks clings to this policy that puts millions of Americans at risk every day and encourages the spread of guns being carried in public.
IMPACT OF STARBUCKS BOYCOTT: Fineman says, “Starbucks steadfast support of the NRA’s lethal pro-gun agenda damages its ‘socially conscious company’ brand. Further,” adds Fineman, “Monte Carlo Simulation risk analysis indicates that 90% of the time, our boycott will reduce Starbucks stock price by an amount no rational company would allow.”...
Starbucks posts 13% higher profit
January 24, 2013|Jim Jelter
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Starbucks Corp. (US:sbux) reported late Thursday its fiscal first-quarter profit rose to $432 million, or 57 cents a share, from $382 million, or 50 cents a share, a year ago. Revenue for the quarter ended Dec. 30 rose 11% to $3.8 billion from $3.44 billion. Analysts surveyed by FactSet had expected the Seattle-based coffee giant to earn 57 cents a share on $3.85 billion in revenue. Starbucks stood by its fiscal 2013 revenue growth target of 10% to 13%. Starbucks shares fell 1.1% to $54.00 in after-hours trade.
Protip: Don't let Eliot Fineman give you financial advice- or believe gun control advocates who tell you
how 'popular' their views are...
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:59 AM (41 replies)
Hmmm, let's see if some testimony from a parent of a gun violence victim is more equal than anothers...
...Ron Forsyth believes the gunman is the only person to blame in Steve Forsyth's death – that no law could have kept him safe.
"I believe all the rhetoric in Washington is just that, rhetoric," he said. "You can't really enforce legislation on rate of fire or size of clips or kind of ammunition because if you do, then the good guys won't be able to get it and the bad guys will have it."
He believes his son's legacy isn't about guns, but about all the people one man can touch during his lifetime.
"His celebration of life drew 2,500 people and they were all there for him," Ron Forsyth said.
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:10 AM (18 replies)