Feb 28, 2018

The Constitutional Argument To Ban AR-15 Type Weapons AND Clearly GOP & NRA Policy Positions & Actions Proves That Their INTENT Is Evil

1. Why The Analogy For Assault Rifles Needs To Change As The Musket Of The Founding Fathers Is Really The Jet Fighter & Apache Helicopter of Today!
2. To Understand The GOP Position On Guns Follow The Blood Money
3. Is The NRA A Terrorist Organization? A Look At The NRA's Incendiary Rhetoric And Attack Ads
4. Right Wing Conspiracy Machine Attacks Students From Parkland School Fighting For Non-Stupid Gun Laws

This is a walk through the Constitutional arguments for banning semi-automatics, high powered, rifles (and possibly handguns that are not revolvers and certainly restricting magazine size), followed by a look at the evil intent that MUST lie at the foundation of NRA & GOP antics (with proof of actions taken). This is my first attempt at a synthesis and is meant to be an introductory overview to the correct viewpoints on this issue.

AMERICA'S GUN PROBLEM 16/19/2017 Jordan Klepper points out that the gun violence epidemic is uniquely American -- just like apple pie.

USA isn't the only country awash with guns BUT it is the only country with astronomical deaths rates by guns and this can be directly connected to lack of regulations...

The country had one mass shooting in 2001, but a resulting anti-gun referendum failed to pass. The Swiss will not give up the gun. Can their system work in the U.S.?

BBC:  is violent crime so rare in Iceland?

Iceland is awash in guns, yet it has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. US law student Andrew Clark asks why.

Stuff like safety training (& yes, even additional safety features on guns, like only responding to the owners fingerprints, would help) , individual training and restrictions on types of firearms would help tremendously here.

With the statistics making it clear that with guns heavily regulated gun deaths are lower (even in western countries awash with guns) we come to the question. "why has the GOP & NRA been pushing unlimited guns with no restrictions with its clear that regulations reduce gun deaths"?

As one Court Justice (and others since) have pointed out, the whole NRA argument about guns and the second amendment is a hoax....

No, there’s no 2nd Amendment right to AR-15s
Ari Melber’s special report reveals why the second amendment does not apply to AR-15s or any assault style weapons -- and it never has.

Notes: Everytime the issue of guns comes up, the NRA & GOP start talking about a misinterpreted version of the 2nd Amendment (to take the debate OFF of guns)...

Republican Justice notes, this is a fraud...

If we look JUST to our own court system for precedent we discover the Supreme COurt has NEVER said all types of guns are protected under the second amendment

Even Scalia agrees that peopel don't have a constitutional right to all weapons or as many as they want...

Scalia closes with 'as they clearly are' i.e. referring to types of guns that need to be banned

The problem seems to hinge around the fact that the GOP & NRA ALWAYS leave out the part of the 2nd Amendment that says "Well Regulated"...

Stephen Asks God's Stance On The NRA

Notes: Notice a religious rather than Constitutional argument is used by the NRA chief...

Colbert counters with a Constitutional argument...

i.e. : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In other words; WITHIN the regulations deemed necessary for security of free people living in a free State, the people can have firearms for self-defense. There is nothing about the people forming their own militias making Militia Making a State right (i.e. States can create their own little well regulated militias like police or state cops or national guard or just a little State militia/army... in fact, gun ownership could be limited JUST to State militia members if people focused on just the first half of the Amendment like the NRA & GP focus on the second half. The second half does say "the people" so it seems correct to assume that the people can have guns for self-defense or hunting within a well regulated State where war machines are not available to the people as its not part of the regulations deemed necessary for the security of the State... which is clearly the case nowadays. See it as militias within militias. The State is a militia and some basic firearms are allowed for hunting and self defense, then the State can have little a little army such as State militia or cops and then there is the army of the whole country... i.e. a structure that keeps the State safe and secure for ALL the people in all walks of life!) - Note: banning guns bad for society, while keeping within rules and arguments already specified, would ALSO fall under the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.

Then the question becomes, does having semi-automatic, high powered, rifles make society safe for people to bear arms? Not really. A person handling a firearm in a normal way would simply get sprayed by the bullets of a semi-automatic rifle as aiming is not a big requirement (as the number of bullets make up for not needing to aim). A person trying to aim bullets verses a person spraying bullets with ease creates a scenario where ONLY Deadpool could survive an "assault weapons" assault and survive....

If someone like deadpool has a problem with this sort of weapon how can you expect a teacher, with no expertise in weapons and no experience in combat operations, being able to successfully face down such a weapon?...

Here’s how a handgun compares to an AR-15
Stephanie Ruhle takes a look at what teachers would be up against, if they were armed with a handgun and confronted with an AR-15. MSNBC Terrorism Analyst Malcolm Nance explains just how outgunned these teachers would be.

Notice how powerful this weapon is compared to a hand gun...

Basically, you are asking teachers - and other innocent citizens - to master these sorts of skills so murderers can buy their high powered - rapid fire - massive magazine weapons...

Clearly GOP & NRA Policy Positions & Actions Proves That Their INTENT Is Evil 

I just want to show here, through an accumulation of evidence, that there is simply no way to see the right wings positions on guns as a result of rational and patriotic thought but the opposite. Since right wingers follow thier leaders without question, to find the source of evil intent around guns... thats how far we have to look and no more.

One of the first pieces of legislation passed by Congress and signed by Trump was SPECIFICALLY to get guns into the hands of the mentally ill... who but people with evil intent could possibly do such a thing? (Trump would sign anything, he's not a real man)

Trump words on gun tragedy ring hollow given past legislation

CNN did note that gutting this specific law to keep guns out of the mentally ill but didn't notice the criminality of the behavior...

Trump's one piece of gun-related legislation undid restrictions aimed at mental illness
But there is one important thing Trump has done on the issue of gun control during his time in office. A little less than a year ago, on February 28, 2017, he signed a measure nixing a regulation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of some severely mentally ill people. It's critical to note that it's not at all clear it would have applied to the shooters in Florida nor Las Vegas, and there's no reason to believe it would have stopped the massacre.

This information certainly indicates that at no time was the GOP in any way trying to stop the epidemic of shootings but only to enhance it.

NRA has a pattern of supporting laws that are destructive and illogical in nature. This is a good example that most people can agree with (except NRA & ISIS)...

EXCLUSIVE - JORDAN KLEPPER - TERRORISTS ARE PIECES OF S**T - UNCENSORED 16/19/2017 Jordan Klepper thoughtfully points out that allowing ISIS members to buy guns without background checks is a bad idea.

Notes from screenshots:

Standard NRA/GOP argument i.e. its impossible to stop criminals from getting guns (I'm assuming they mean any kind of gun and thus any kind of weapon... in which case I point to the regulation of Uranium as a great example of a weapon a criminal can't just get thier hands on, i.e. regulations work)

Some statistics;

The loopholes to avoid background checks that teh NRA MUST be aware of since thats all they are concerned with...

Clearly laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is not a top priority of the NRA judging by the current laws after years of NRA lobbying.

NRATV host: It would be “simply unacceptable” to make it more difficult for Las Vegas gunman to get his firearms Grant Stinchfield on Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock: "So make it harder for him to get his firearms means make it harder for all of us to get our firearms"

GRANT STINCHFIELD (HOST): This is a very important point, that even the president didn’t address: Piers Morgan says make it harder for the Las Vegas shooter to get his firearms. There is no law, or proposed law today that would have stopped him from getting his firearms. He would have passed every background check, there was no evidence of mental illness, not one new law would have stopped him. So make it harder for him to get his firearms means make it harder for all of us to get our firearms. And that is simply unacceptable. It is our right in America to keep and bear arms. The left wants to get in the way of that right, and they do it under the guise of somehow being called common sense gun control. There was nothing common sense about where Piers Morgan was going there, I want to make that clear.

Here we discover that the NRA actually actively seeks to REDUCE and END research into guns, i.e. this shows thier agenda is about something OTHER than facts and what is best for the citizens and welfare of society (read the Constitution where it mentions "General Welfare")...

SCARING THE GUN LOBBY 16/19/2017 As Jordan Klepper delves into firearm-related suicide statistics, he reveals what terrifies the gun lobby the most.


In other words, we have a statistic that less guns (i.e. less access to guns for everyone by more regulations) would probably lead to less deaths by suicide!

Here the NRA pushes and passes a law that helps criminals get thier guns past State lines where criminals may be allowed to have guns! (An attempt to make domestic abuse issues worse?);

JUST BETWEEN US - AMERICA IS GUNNY AS F**K A House panel is set to approve a bill allowing good guys with guns to carry concealed weapons across state lines, even if they happen to have violent criminal pasts.


More proof of evil intent...

On ABC’s This Week, NRA’s Dana Loesch pushes gun lobby lie that NRA created the background check system Loesch also misleads about lawsuit NRA supported that inhibited background check system

National Rifle Association (NRA) spokeswoman Dana Loesch on ABC’s This Week falsely claimed that, the NRA “created” the current gun background check system and whitewashed the NRA's role inhibiting the national background check system.
Discussing the Parkland, FL, shooting with ABC host George Stephanopolous, Loesch recycled the NRA lie that the organization “created” the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). In reality, the NRA fiercely opposed the 1993 Brady background check bill, which created NICS, and continued to lobby against it after its passage. Loesch also misled about Printz v. United States, an NRA-supported lawsuit that strongly inhibited NICS after the Supreme Court ruled for the NRA’s position. From the February 25 edition of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

The NRA’s new talking point about background checks is bullshit

Three different times during a 24 hour period, NRA leadership bemoaned that states are not required to submit disqualifying records into the background check system:
  • At CNN’s town hall, NRA national spokesperson Dana Loesch said, “We had three lawmakers on this stage and only one of them hinted at reinforcing the background check system. It is only as good as the records submitted to it. Only one of them even got anywhere close to mentioning that. We have to have more than 38 states submit records.” Loesch also asked Stoneman Douglas student Emma Gonzalez, “Do you know that it is not federally required for states to actually report people who are prohibited possessors, crazy people, people who are murderers?”
  • Loesch used the talking point again during her February 22 speech at CPAC, saying, “I want you to all ask yourselves, where are the stories about how only 38 states submit less than 80 percent of criminal convictions to the background checks system. It’s only as good as what’s submitted to it. How many of you knew that? No. Why isn’t [Sen.] Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] calling for that? I have to question whether or not they want this system to fail.”
  • NRA CEO LaPierre hit the same point to attack the press during his speech, saying, “No one gets ratings by telling the truth about how to stop mass killers. So they don’t report that 38 states submit less than 80 percent of their felony convictions to the system, leaving more than 7 million felony convictions in the dark.”
There’s one major problem with this talking point: The NRA’s actions are the reason states can’t be required to submit disqualifying records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
During the 1990s, the NRA backed a lawsuit Printz v. United States that sought to block the implementation of NICS, which was created by the 1993 Brady Bill.  
While the system eventually went into effect, the outcome of Printz damaged its effectiveness, as the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in favor of the NRA’s argument that requiring states to perform background checks for a federal system violated the 10th Amendment.

NRA national spokesperson Dana Loesch lied to Stoneman Douglas student Emma Gonzalez

mma Gonzalez, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, had a simple question for National Rifle Association (NRA) national spokesperson Dana Loesch during CNN’s gun violence town hall: “Do you believe that it should be harder to obtain the semi-automatic ... weapons and the modifications for these weapons to make them fully automatic, like bump stocks?”
Instead of providing the NRA’s well established positions on these questions, Loesch gave a series of dishonest explanations that sought to hide the NRA’s fringe absolutism against gun regulation.
After some niceties, Loesch purported to answer Gonzalez's question by saying, “I don't believe that this insane monster should have ever been able to obtain a firearm, ever. I do not think that he should have gotten his hands on any kind of weapon. That's number one.”
According to Loesch, “This individual was nuts and I, nor the millions of people that I represent as a part of this organization, that I'm here speaking for, none of us support people who are crazy, who are a danger to themselves, who are a danger to others, getting their hands on a firearm.”
Loesch was lying.
The NRA opposes adding prohibiting categories to the gun background check system that could have included the Stoneman Douglas gunman. As the NRA’s website states, “NRA opposes expanding firearm background check systems, because background checks don’t stop criminals from getting firearms.” It also opposes a policy called a “Gun Violence Restraining Order” or a “Red Flag” law that has been widely cited as a policythat could have stopped the gunman from having access to firearms. These laws allow family members and law enforcement to petition courts to temporarily remove people’s access to firearms who are a danger to themselves or others.
Loesch’s dishonesty didn’t stop with that claim. Moments later, while talking about the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), Loesch said, “It is not federal law for states to report convictions to the NICS system. It's not federally mandated.” Loesch also argued that the states can convict a person, they "can adjudicate the mentally unfit," but "if a state does not report it to the National Crime Information Center, when you run that form, this individual -- this madman passed a background check." (NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre also used this talking point in his February 22 speech at CPAC.)
What Loesch failed to mention is that states can’t be required to report disqualifying records because of the outcome of a 1997 NRA-backed lawsuit Printz v. United States.
The lawsuit was the NRA’s attempt to invalidate the entire national background check system in court before it could be implemented. While the system eventually went into effect, the outcome of Printz damaged its effectiveness, as the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in favor of the NRA’s argument that requiring states to perform background checks for a federal system violated the 10th Amendment.

No comments:

Post a Comment