Speech and Debate Banned by Gun Control Advocates

August 21, 2013

I’ve joined the ranks of others who have been banned from posting on the “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America” Facebook page. My crime? I disagreed with their position and had the audacity to say so in a comment on August 19, 2013.

Not all my friends agree with my positions on the 2^nd Amendment / gun rights / gun control. Some have debated with me or asked me to clarify or consider alternative perspectives. Not one has told me they think I express myself abrasively, abusively or otherwise offensively. In fact, I’ve been complimented by friends that both agree and disagree with my positions for keeping the conversation civil and for backing up my thoughts and opinions with sources – articles and data. They appreciate the factual basis of my arguments. That’s not to say everything I write is factual. I’ve introduced a fair amount of opinion, sarcasm, etc., but not the insulting language very typical from both sides of the gun control debate.

But that approach isn’t good enough for gun control advocates like Moms Demand Action… and others. They don’t want to debate. They don’t want to hear the opposition. And they most certainly don’t want their audiences to read or hear it. They think it’s okay to attend political meetings and shout down candidates with opposing views but then won’t even let opponents comment on their Facebook pages.

This is the second time I’ve been banned from a Facebook page. The other? The other is on the page of an Illinois state politician. He’s a Democrat. He’s an outspoken advocate of gun control. I found out after I’d been banned from commenting on his page that before holding office he was actually employed in a gun control advocacy position. Oh, and I went to high school with him. We weren’t close friends or anything but I connected with him on Facebook and another social media site because of our past high school and football team associations. So even people with a shared past are not invited to participate in open debate when they disagree with the gun control agenda.

How can we ever trust the opposition when they don’t even want to have a fair, open and honest debate? What they’d rather infringe on 1^st Amendment rights in order to infringe on 2^nd Amendment rights? We can’t.

Below is a link to the Moms Demand Action… post that I commented on. My comment has been removed but I’ve included it here in its entirety following the link. In terms of chronology, my post would have been #95, I believe.

https://www.facebook.com/MomsDemandAction/posts/413373335447259

“How misleading can you be? "MINORS"? If you want to disagree or debate, at least be honest about it. People of age 18+ in our country are not legal minors. Yes, I know "minors" appears in the article headlines of the left-leaning Salon and Huffington Post, but it doesn't appear in other media headlines or even in the bodies of the Salon and HP articles.

From the comments above, several of you seem in favor of the drinking prohibition before age 21 but much of the world doesn't operate that way. You obviously want the handgun age limit maintained at 21 (or worse). How about voting rights? Shall we push back voting rights to age 21 too? If you want to make the argument that "minority" status should be pushed back to 21 across the board then have that argument. But know that if you push back the voting age of the so-called "minors" that you'll lose a large portion of the uninformed voters who support liberal or progressive politicians.

Current law already allows 18-20 year olds to own guns, at least in some states - rifles and shotguns - as well as to "possess" handguns. If these impulsive, emotional and not fully developed young men so many of you are worried about wanted to go on a killing rampage of a single person or a group, they can already do it with those tools, pressure cookers, or others.

There was a comment above by @Susie B Grande saying "19 year olds should not be able to access guns." "Access"? Really? There goes a huge portion of our military - the very people who provided you with the freedom to express your opinion. No one should be allowed to learn to hunt before 21? No one should be allowed to enjoy target shooting? Sorry, Boy Scouts of America. Too bad for those families whose teenage children have used guns to defend their families in their homes. I've read 2-3 of those stories just this year, including one today. Those are just the ones I've come across. I don't search them out. And no opportunity for parents to teach responsible gun ownership and use in a consistent and repetitive manner to children as they grow up?  If you mean "own guns" then say that. "Access" has an entirely different meaning and takes the argument to a different level. Are you aware of the teenagers in our age who literally hunt without parental supervision to put essential food on their tables? Susie, as easily as you tell someone that they're 'part of the problem' because they agree with the NRA's position on this issue, you are part of the problem of the erosion of our Constitutional and civil liberties.

How old do you think the soldiers and militiamen of our American Revolution and Civil War were? And those who fought in Vietnam? Iraq & Afghanistan?”

===
August 22, 2013

I found this article about the intolerance of Moms Demand Action interesting, particularly in light of my post yesterday.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/08/who-knew-moms-were-so-intolerant-of-your-constitutional-rights/#axzz2ciWXlaUd

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/speech-and-debate-banned-by-gun-control.html
Firearms Blog Collections

Landlord Bans Firearms

August 20, 2013

Earlier this month, Castle Rock, Colorado resident, retired Marine and gun owner Art Dorsch was informed by his landlord, Ross Management Group, that "firearms and weapons are prohibited" and that "As of October 1, residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property."

These articles say "courts have supported the rights of landlords to impose "reasonable regulations" on tenants. "The question is: is an outright ban of firearms reasonable in light of the US Constitution?" " This becomes an issue of an individual's 2nd Amendment rights vs. those of a private property owner. As we know, the rights of the property owner take precedence. Those owners can declare their homes and businesses 'gun free' although there's recent legislation that forces business owners to allow people to store firearms in their cars in their parking lots.

So, while this is unpalatable to most gun owners and 2nd Amendment / gun rights supporters, it's the situation we're sometimes faced with.

BUT...

In this case, Ross Management Group overstepped its authority. It seems the housing is actually publicly funded and RMG manages the property.

This case turned out right. The policy was rescinded before it was implemented and this Marine veteran and other residents will be allowed to keep both their firearms and their homes.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/348974/339/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns

http://bearingarms.com/colorado-marine-told-to-get-rid-of-his-firearms-or-find-another-home/

http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=349123

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/landlord-bans-firearms.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Colorado Firearms Blogs

So-Called "Gun Buy Back" Programs Illegal?

August 7, 2013

Late last month I wrote about how so-called "gun buy back" programs may be illegal as a consequence of Colorado's new gun control laws concerning background checks. Here's another instance of the same. This post is from "1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC" on their Facebook page.

What seems typical of gun control laws, this probably wasn't a foreseen or intended consequence of the mad rush for "universal background checks".

I am interested in that $5 background check fee though. The ones I've priced all cost between $25 and $50. In many, if not most, places, Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) are able to charge whatever they want for the mandatory service. Maybe the gun control crowd would be a little more successful if they'd reduce the very real costs of their initiatives for consumers. I wish I could find a $5 background check! Plus, they just might have found a few more supporters for more background checks if they'd made it easier, simpler, faster, more accurate, more effective, etc. You know - dealt with real issues instead of just "controlling" legal firearms.

But back to the topic of "gun buy back" programs - they're completely ineffective in reducing gun violence or crime involving guns, of course. They're just another feel-good measure used to distract people from the real issues.

"1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC

Oh Georgia!

Regarding the buyback this Saturday in Augusta...we will seek to stop this buyback and all other upcoming buybacks in the state of Georgia, or any other State, and we will ask for prosecution of those that continue with the buyback in Georgia based on THIS law.

A gun dealer shall not sell or deliver any handgun to another person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer or licensed collector, until an instant criminal history background check is conducted and approved by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The information required to be provided includes one photo identification, name, birth date, gender, race, social security or other identification number of such potential buyer or transferee. A $5.00 fee to cover the costs of each check will be collected. Antiques and replicas, curio and relic firearms as defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and holders of a permit or license to carry a pistol are exempt from the instant check.

(Link to Firearm Sale Laws in Georgia)
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/georgia.aspx"

===
August 8, 2013

Another lost soul. Not lost to death - just to a meaningless and ineffective use of time and money that may also be illegal in the name of 'greater good'. Past friends used a phrase jokingly - 'if only I could use my powers for good'. Here are a couple guys trying to use their powers for good but who are hopelessly misled and believe their own nonsense and that of outspoken gun control advocates.

So-called gun "buy back" programs do little or nothing to reduce crime; may be illegal under state law because they're not completing background checks with each "transfer" of the firearms and because they may be considered "straw purchases"; and do not get guns "off the street". The guns turned in come out of closets and bedrooms and basements and garages. They're unwanted guns, not the tools of criminal behavior. I hadn't considered before this article that these programs may also encourage criminal activity - the theft of firearms to turn in "no questions asked". It has been previously mentioned that this may also be a method of disposing of guns used in crimes "no questions asked".

The "crowdfunding" (crowdsourcing) element of this is new to me. Programs I've read about have so-far been funded with public funds or private donations. Public funds should never be used for several reasons that I won't go into here. I understand they've been successful in raising more than $10,000. I wonder how long their success will continue. Eventually, even the well meaning people donating have to do the math in their head, right? There are over 300 millions firearms in the United States and MOST of them will NEVER appear in one of these programs. It's an exercise in futility, among other things.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Crowdfunding-underwrites-gun-buyback-4715672.php

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/so-called-gun-buy-back-programs-illegal.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Real Consequences of Colorado Gun Control Laws

Los Angeles Police Hypocrisy on Gun Crime

August 7, 2013

I tend to agree with the gist of this article. The Los Angeles police officers should not be charged or prosecuted for these suspected gun crimes AS LONG AS no one else is! BUT, as long as they're arresting others for like crimes who are being charged, prosecuted or convicted of administrative, victimless crimes THEY SHOULD BE TOO!

The point is NOT to charge everyone with a gun crime. The point is that gun control laws are overburdensome, unnecessary, ineffectively applied and probably unconstitutional and should be repealed. Maybe if the enforcers are held to the same or a higher standard the enforcement will be more reasonable.

http://www.calgunlaws.com/lapds-hypocrisy-about-gun-prosecutions/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/los-angeles-police-hypocrisy-on-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections

Illinois Representative Monique Davis Lacks Responsibility and Leadership

August 7, 2013

Anyone can be elected to office. Anyone. Several convicted criminals have gained or re-gained office. There are plenty of village idiots in office. Several come to mind. Here's another idiot from Illinois - Illinois Representative Monique Davis, as shown in this 5:05 video interview with Bill O'Reilly.

"They're not sure that black people are shooting all these children. There's some suspicion, and I don't want to spread this but I'm just going to tell you what I've been hearing, they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids."

That's right, the Chicago Police Department is killing people. She doesn't want to spread it but she said it in a radio interview and then basically defended her actions and words in this television interview.

If she thinks that her role as an elected official is to "repeat" what her constituents are saying regardless of how ridiculous or irresponsible it is then she has no idea what leadership is and is not deserving of holding office or public trust.

http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/is-this-chick-nuts-are-chicago-cops-culpable-for-all-the-black-shootings/

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/illinois-representative-monique-davis.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs

Police Lose Firearms

July 30, 2013

It's unfortunate any time a law enforcement officer (LEO) or agency 'loses' firearms or other weapons. I wouldn't say it's epidemic but it does happen more frequently than most people realize. LEOs are people too and are sometimes forgetful, negligent, etc.

http://politicalblindspot.com/seattle-cop-forgets-his-ar15-in-public/

Here are two other incidents referred to in the first story.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060112225111/http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/03/19/roachs_gun.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20041109132241/http://www.wdtn.com/index.cfm?action=dsp_story&storyid=49503

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/police-lose-firearms.html
Firearms Blog Collections

"Trayvon Martin" Law

July 27, 2013

I have so far chosen to not post any original content about Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman but it's gotten too difficult as the country has gone crazy and it's painfully obvious that most of the people talking either have no idea what they're talking about or are ignoring facts as they push their own messages and agenda.

Tracy Martin, the father of deceased teenager Trayvon Martin, would like there to be a law enacted in Congress bearing Trayvon's name. Specifically, he'd like the federal legislation to roll back "stand your ground" laws. How sentimental. How completely ludicrous.

I have a suggested name for the bill. How about "Don't Commit Felony Assault On Anyone Because They Just Might Have a Gun and You Might End Up Justifiably Dead".

Even immediately after typing that I already have a problem with it. It's redundant and I'm not a fan of redundancy. Like other proposed gun control laws, the redundancy is that there are already laws on the books that cover the topic. It's called "assault" and it's a felony and Trayvon Martin committed it! He did that along with illegal drug possession, illegal drug use, possession of stolen property and likely robbery considering that he had a whole collection of stolen items in his school locker. Granted, none of those lesser charges contributed directly to Trayvon's death that night. But felony assault did!

There's also a little problem with the fact that "stand your ground" was NOT an issue in the George Zimmerman trial. Yes, yes, yes, the jury heard and used the phrase "stand your ground" during its deliberations. But there's a different between the casual use of a phrase and the implementation of law under that category. That law was NOT pursued by the defense and the case was made, to a verdict of "not guilty," under standard "self defense" law. So wanting Trayvon's death to roll back "stand your ground" laws is like wanting his death to stand for lowering speed limits or any other thing that was NOT related to his death or the trial.

I don't know the story of how Trayvon saved his father's life. It's mentioned in this article and elsewhere. But I don't need to. A single act of goodness does not make someone a good person and a bad person is capable of good or kind acts. I don't know who Trayvon was in whole. Neither do 310 million other Americans. You're certainly not getting the complete picture from the same mainstream media and outspoken lobbyists and group advocates that've been twisting this whole incident into things its not. Good or bad, Trayvon took George Zimmerman's life into his hands when he decided to commit felony assault on him by physically assaulting him, jumping on top of him, and pounding him into the ground. Consequently, he also took his own life into his hands - at the hands of his victim.

"I vow to do everything in my power to not give up the fight for him." Where was that fight and commitment, dad, when it counted - when it could have prevented or influenced him from becoming a criminal and "gangsta" (in Trayvon's own words, I believe)?

"He said his son should serve as an inspiration for others." Yep, the inspiration should be to NOT live the way Trayvon did and do the things he did.

"...his legacy is that Trayvon helped bridge the gap of America" Not going to happen. The country is deeply divided, not bridged, over this incident because of the relentless exploitation and misinformation being spread by the most vocal. Now that includes Trayvon's parents.

Even though Trayvon did commit criminal acts, his death is a tragedy. I think there were errors in judgment on both sides - Martin's and Zimmerman's. But there's nothing wrong with the laws that applied in the case. "Stand your ground" is legitimate on its own, was NOT used in the Zimmerman trial, and benefits more black people in Florida than 'whites' (which Zimmerman is not). Everyone has a right to self defense, whether it's under a heading of "stand your ground", "castle doctrine" or something else. Trayvon could have gone home that night. All he had to do was - GO HOME! He decided to commit felony assault instead. He killed himself.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/trayvon-martin-father-tracy-speaks-capitol-hill-94692.html

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/trayvon-martin-law.html
Firearms Blog Collections