HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jimmy the one » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

jimmy the one

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:26 AM
Number of posts: 1,663

Journal Archives

Invitation to a poll on Hillary, gun control advocate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026527444

Here's the jist of it. It's on General Discussion (x-posted from rkba too, but link is GD). I didn't think of doing it here since I think (hope) we would all choose response #1 - as the democrat candidate in nov 2016, which is irrelevant to the poll's intent - except for the wandering souls in here desperately seeking rkba:

I prefaced: Many democrat gun enthusiasts have admonished democrat politicians who support gun control, often saying or suggesting or implying that they would not vote for such a person if they were running in their own district. Or that democrat politicians and the democrat party are somewhat doomed for taking on gun control positions.
How does this rationale sit with election 2016 & Hillary Clinton? presuming Hillary is heiress presumptive to the democrat nomination, will her gun control stance affect your 2016 vote against a surely far more 'pro gun' republican nominee? (third party candidates, regrettably, deemed negligible for this poll, but use your discretion).

Some background: Hillary Clinton lashed out at opponents of gun control regulations, saying they hold a viewpoint that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans. “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” http://time.com/2891821/hillary-clinton-2016-gun-control/

lapierre-head: I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we've got and in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Mr LaPierre said.


Poll choices:
1) I WILL vote for presumptive nominee Hillary, no matter what
2) I WILL vote for Hillary, despite her gun control advocacy
3) I will ABSTAIN from voting, due her gun control position
4) I DON'T KNOW if I will vote for her or not, due gun control issue
5) I will NOT vote for Hillary, due her gun control position
6) I will NOT vote for Hillary, for other reasoning
7) Prefer not to answer


What I mean is, even tho you may not prefer Hillary, when it comes down to brass tacks I hope we'd all vote for her instead of jebwalkerubio. But, perhaps I'm off base.


Posted by jimmy the one | Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:23 PM (0 replies)

Will you vote for Hillary, gun control advocate?

Many democrat gun enthusiasts have admonished democrat politicians who support gun control, often saying or suggesting or implying that they would not vote for such a person if they were running in their own district. Or that democrat politicians and the democrat party are somewhat doomed for taking on gun control positions.
How does this rationale sit with election 2016 & Hillary Clinton? presuming Hillary is heiress presumptive to the democrat nomination, will her gun control stance affect your 2016 vote against a surely far more 'pro gun' republican nominee? (third party candidates, regrettably, deemed negligible for this poll, but use your discretion).

Some background: Hillary Clinton lashed out at opponents of gun control regulations, saying they hold a viewpoint that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans. “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” http://time.com/2891821/hillary-clinton-2016-gun-control/

lapierre-head: I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we've got and in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Mr LaPierre said.

As Hillary Clinton mulls running for president in 2016, she has been careful to shy away from broad, sweeping policy declarations. But not when she delivered harsh criticism of gun culture in America and denounced the idea that "anybody can have a gun, anywhere, at any time." Clinton didn't dispute Americans' right to own guns. But she said access to guns in the US had grown "way out of balance." "We've got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime..".

Gun rights groups have long considered Mrs. Clinton their foe. Her 2000 Senate campaign centered on a push to keep guns off the streets, and she was a forceful advocate of creating a national gun registry.. as she faced off against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary, she positioned herself as more conservative than him on gun control. She backed off the proposal for a national registry..


As presumed Democrats here on the Democrat Underground, will you or won't you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016? .. expound upon your reasoning if you wish. I know it's an 'unscientific internet poll', just amongst ourselves, could be interesting.
Posted by jimmy the one | Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:37 AM (93 replies)

Will you vote for Hillary, gun control advocate?

Many gun enthusiasts here on rkba have admonished politicians who support gun control, often saying or suggesting or implying that they would not vote for such a person if they were running in their own district. Or that democrat politicians and the democrat party is somewhat doomed for taking on gun control positions.
How does this rationale sit with election 2016 & Hillary Clinton? presuming Hillary is heiress presumptive to the democrat nomination, will her gun control stance affect your 2016 vote against a surely far more 'pro gun' republican nominee? (third party candidates, regrettably, deemed negligible for this poll, but use your discretion).

Some background: Hillary Clinton lashed out at opponents of gun control regulations, saying they hold a viewpoint that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans. “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” http://time.com/2891821/hillary-clinton-2016-gun-control/

lapierre-head: I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we've got and in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Mr LaPierre said.

As Hillary Clinton mulls running for president in 2016, she has been careful to shy away from broad, sweeping policy declarations. But not when she delivered harsh criticism of gun culture in America and denounced the idea that "anybody can have a gun, anywhere, at any time." Clinton didn't dispute Americans' right to own guns. But she said access to guns in the US had grown "way out of balance." "We've got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime..".

Gun rights groups have long considered Mrs. Clinton their foe. Her 2000 Senate campaign centered on a push to keep guns off the streets, and she was a forceful advocate of creating a national gun registry.. as she faced off against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary, she positioned herself as more conservative than him on gun control. She backed off the proposal for a national registry..

As presumed Democrats here on the Democrat Underground, will you or won't you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016? .. expound upon your reasoning if you wish.
Posted by jimmy the one | Thu Apr 16, 2015, 02:00 PM (32 replies)

ACLU position on second amendment

Gun Control Updated: 1/17/2013 ACLU POSITION Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
..... For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that {collective militia} view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.
However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.


Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.
Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

I guess they didn't: July 22, 2010, An ACLU insider with a state affiliate told me the national organization is in the middle of “rethinking” their position on second amendment rights. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/22/aclu-rethinking-second-amendment/#ixzz3U5Hbzwrw

current wiki 2015: Gun rights – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with NRA to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendmen
Posted by jimmy the one | Wed Mar 11, 2015, 09:50 AM (4 replies)

Was Reagan, 1981-1989, a pro-gun president?

Pro gun arguments first, gun control follow; should be interesting from democrat aspect

Reagan entered 1980 presidential campaign as a known supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.
2 Reagan left little doubt about his stance on {2ndA}: “In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea.”
3 Saying {2ndA} “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” .. “the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.”
4 His presidential administration did not bring about any new gun control laws of significance.
5 The lone piece of significant legislation related to gun rights during the Reagan administration was the {FOPA} Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Which contained numerous pro gun regulations some which follow.
Among other things, {FOPA, signed by Reagan}: .. made it easier to transport long rifles across the US, ended federal records-keeping on ammunition sales and prohibited the prosecution of someone passing through areas with strict gun control with firearms in their vehicle, so long as properly stored.
5a {FOPA86} In order to comply with the prohibition on a Federal registry of non-NFA items, background check records are legally required to be destroyed after 24 hours.
5b The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power — in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment..{this was rightwing BS}.
5c {FOPA} mandated that ATF compliance inspections can be done only once per year.. a follow-up inspection would be if guns could not be accounted for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
9 A more lasting impact of Reagan’s policy on guns was the nomination of several Supreme Court justices — Sandra Day O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy — the latter two were still on the bench for a pair of important Supreme Court rulings on gun rights in the 2000s: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Rights-Ronald-Reagan.htm

Gun Control Support: Post presidency, also rumored in early stages of alzheimers: March {1991} .. .. that former President Reagan had endorsed a national 7-day waiting period for handgun purchases, ... opponents of gun control say they feel betrayed by Mr. Reagan, the prince they had campaigned for, idolized and trusted. "I felt somebody had stabbed me in the back," said Metaksa, a former official {NRA} who headed Sportsmen for Reagan/Bush. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/30/us/old-ally-wounds-gun-control-foes.html
In the past, Mr. Reagan, a lifetime member of {NRA}, spoke favorably of waiting periods and background checks. But he always said it should be a matter for the states to decide.
President Reagan will forever be remembered fondly by Second Amendment supporters, many of who are among the American conservatives who consider Reagan a poster child of modern conservatism. But words and actions of Reagan, the 40th President.., left behind a mixed record on gun rights.

Pre Presidency: mainstream American view at the time: Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill which repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms to protest the bill. The bill was signed by Repub Calif Gov Ronald Reagan..
Posted by jimmy the one | Fri Feb 6, 2015, 10:28 AM (14 replies)

Shared blame, gun accident

A glaring gun problem in a nutshell. Both sides share blame in this one.
Note, warning, video shows the hand being shot - but daily news a lot worse:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/16/1358191/-Kentucky-police-officer-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-gun-store-VIDEO?detail=email#

Posted by jimmy the one | Tue Jan 20, 2015, 12:52 PM (1 replies)

Canadian Sgt@Arms was not carrying a gun

Oct 23, 2014: (in honor ceremony at Canadian parliament): Later when the Canadian national anthem was sung, a tear could be seen on his cheek. Then, in a breach of precedent, the Prime Minister thanked him at the end of his speech, went over to him to thank him and then embraced the leaders of the two main opposition parties. Members once again applauded the man who had stood on guard for them.
... No doubt the NRA will attempt to show how this proves how the "good guy with a gun" was able to defeat the bad guy and therefore open carry is justified. In reality, when the incident started, Kevin Vickers was only armed with his ceremonial sword. He does not carry a gun in the normal course of his duties but keeps one in his office safely under lock and key:

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau ... shot a ceremonial guard at the National War Memorial then proceeded to the Parliament. There, Zehaf-Bibeau, armed with a .30-30 Winchester lever action rifle shot a security guard in the foot, and entered the Hall of Honor. It was in this area that Vickers, armed with a pistol retrieved from a lockbox, engaged Zehaf-Bibeau, killing him.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338619/-Kevin-Vickers-Was-Not-Carrying-A-Gun?detail=email#

This shows a dramatic difference between America with it's guns all the time mentality, & countries with saner gun policies.
Note the minimal damage, save the death, done by a lever action rifle. Imagine had he an ak47 or AR15 with a super 30 clip.
Posted by jimmy the one | Sat Oct 25, 2014, 01:12 PM (14 replies)

Propagunda vs Truth

Politifact rated 130 'gun claims' from both sides & neutrals I suppose, & the results are as expected, the gun lobby lies more & relies on deceptive propaGUNda far more (since 'honest' or inadvertent errors will arise from all input).
.... a 'half true' rating does not equate to a 'half truth' to deceive, just means about half the basis was factual, the other half inaccurate.

Rating .... Gun control opponents ....Gun control supporters .. april 2013
True ..................17%................... 20%
Mostly True ........16...................... 38
Half True ............. 22 ...................30
Mostly False.......... 7 .................... 3
False ..................24 ...................... 8
Pants on Fire .......14 ........................2

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/07/how-claims-about-guns-often-miss-target/

Dismissing 'half true' results akin to a push, the remaining results are basically True & mostly true vs False & mostly false, giving the following results:

Gun Control Advocates tell mostly+ the truth 81.7% of the time (58/71)
Pro Gun zealots tell mostly+ the truth 42.3% of the time 33/78.
Ergo, Gun Control advocates won this survey by telling the truth twice the rate of gunnuts.

Gun control side mostly+ false approx. 18% of the time
Gunnuts mostly+ false approx. 58% of the time, three times more the rate, when discounting half true results.

Including half true results but disregarding them & using strict percents:
Gun control advocates tell mostly+ the truth 58% of the time, while mostly+ lying 13%.
Gunnuts tell mostly+ the truth 33%, while mostly+ lying 45%, nearing half the time!

Either way they look at it, gunnuts lose the credibility survey.

Politifact: .... when politicians or groups make claims about current laws being insufficient -- a common tactic for gun control supporters -- they often earn Half True ratings because they leave out important details or take things out of context. By contrast, claims about the Obama administration's plans for gun control, often made by people and groups opposed to gun control, typically earn a False or Pants on Fire.
Posted by jimmy the one | Thu Oct 2, 2014, 12:12 PM (5 replies)

NRA asked to remove ted nugent from bd of dir

.. columnist Frank Carroll, a member of the National Rifle Association, is calling for NRA board member Ted Nugent and "anyone else who either backs him or avoids their responsibility to confront him" to be removed from the NRA's leadership.

I suppose it's a start, at least one republican* from America is on the record as wanting to depose ted nugent. Yay.
* I presume.

Nugent caused widespread controversy this year over his characterization of President Obama as a "subhuman mongrel." Citing that comment and Nugent's lengthy history of racially inflammatory commentary, several concert organizers have canceled Nugent appearances while other concerts have been protested.

In an August 12 {2014} column, Carroll called the NRA "an organization I belong to and agree with on many issues," while bemoaning that Nugent is a representative of the gun group. He added, "No wonder conservatives are struggling to lead in this country. At the very time we need authentic, humane, passionate conservatives and patriots the most, the best we can come up with are people like Nugent? Get real, NRA. Nugent has to go."

Carroll also took issue with other members of NRA leadership, including Fox News contributor Oliver North, who have refused to condemn Nugent's inflammatory commentary:
What's really not OK is the failure of NRA leaders to unequivocally and immediately suspend Nugent from further representation of the NRA and our members. Instead our leaders, from Oliver North down the line, have equivocated, dodged, danced and tiptoed around an issue from which there is no escape. Nugent must go, for the sake of the integrity of our organization and our own credibility as members of a powerful and nation-wide lobby engaged in guaranteeing the rights and responsibilities of free Americans.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/08/13/conservative-columnist-kick-ted-nugent-out-of-n/200412
Posted by jimmy the one | Thu Aug 14, 2014, 03:01 PM (2 replies)

Does the nra really have 5 million members?

jan 2013, mother jones: In 2008, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center, came across more evidence of the NRA's fuzzy math. He pointed to a piece of junk mail that the NRA's treasurer had sent to members peddling a specialized insurance plan aimed at gun owners. The pitch stated that "with about 3 million NRA Members 'on our side of the table,' we negotiated a bargain price." Sugarmann has an intriguing theory why this number may be more credible than the one that the NRA routinely gives the press: The underwriter for the insurance plan was in California, where making "untrue, deceptive, or misleading" statements in insurance materials is outlawed.

Last week, the NRA claimed that it had added 100,000 new members in the weeks following he Sandy Hook massacre. "Our goal is to get to 5 million before this debate is over," a representative of the group told Politico. If all of the NRA's numbers are to be believed, it will hit its target by this fall {2013}.

UPDATE: A source writes in with another strong indication that the NRA's true size is closer to 3 million. The NRA gives members a free subscription to one of four magazines: American Rifleman, American Hunter, America's 1st Freedom, or NRA InSights. The first three magazines are audited by the Alliance for Audited Media, which as of July gave them a combined paid circulation (including newsstand sales) of 3.1 million. NRA InSights is an online-only magazine for kids, with a circulation of 25,000. Though some NRA members may opt out of a free magazine, it's likely that others pay to subscribe to more than one of them. Add in the fact that non-NRA members can pick up the magazines on the newsstand, and the 3.1 million figure is almost certainly an upper-bound for the NRA's true size.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/nra-membership-numbers
Posted by jimmy the one | Mon Jul 21, 2014, 03:15 PM (4 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »