NRA Hijinks
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
The Ferguson cops are already getting cameras. They're installed, I think. Or perhaps will be shortly.
Another issue that classic liberals, libertarians and thinking conservatives should be able to agree on. These forfeiture laws are a relic of the failed War on Drugs, and have now become just a shady way for police forces to get money, often from people who are minding their own business.
As many people become increasingly suspicious of Big Brother and use cash more, they may become more vulnerable to this sort of modern highwayman.
It seems fairly simple to me to resolve this by requiring a criminal conviction prior to a forfeiture. It likely won't happen because of the unfortunate alliance of big government democrats and chest-pounding war on drugs republicans.
Migrant politician Torres reflects shape of things to come for gun owners
It’s frowned on in “progressive” circles to use the term “illegal alien,” with “undocumented immigrant” being a preferred, more politically correct term. The thing is, in the case of Norma Torres, a current California State Senator running for U.S. Congress, the latter would just not apply.
That’s because Torres, escaping horrible conditions in her native Guatemala, and sent to this country as a child by her father, received a temporary visa.
She was documented.
She also, per The Associated Press, “overstayed that visa, but her family helped her obtain legal residency while she was in her teens. She became an American citizen in the months leading up to the 1992 presidential election.”
The point here is not to render a judgment on nor to debate about any of the admittedly terrible and personally complex circumstances and decisions that elicit natural human sympathies -- it is merely to lay out what happened.
And what ultimately happened was entirely predictable.
Regular readers of this column know it is one of the few venues, following a lead established by Gun Owners of America, warning that the administration’s position -- that those who have violated U.S. immigration and residency laws have “earned” the right to citizenship -- will lead to an increase of millions of Democrat voters and a political threat to the right to keep and bear arms.
But forget what GOA says, and about past columns here, and again let’s focus solely on that which simply is. To do that, let’s again reference the AP report.
“Hispanics make up nearly 70 percent of the district that she seeks to represent, and nationally, Latinos overwhelmingly support Democrats,” it observes.
And nationally, aside from individual voting records which can be consulted, and aside from being the party from which the overwhelming majority of “gun control” measures are demanded, the official Democrat platform calls for “reasonable regulations ... like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole.”
Torres is in lockstep with that program.
Per Project VoteSmart documentation of her voting record on guns, Torres voted to prohibit semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazine, to expand the list of crimes that disqualify individuals from firearms ownership, to prohibit lead ammunition for hunting, to prohibit open carry, and to expand firearms registration, among other bills considered in the California Senate. And there is no reason to believe this “‘symbol of leadership’ for migrants” won’t do the same thing at the national level.
“Torres says she agrees that the U.S. cannot take in all people suffering from hardships,” the report continues. What Torres has not defined, and the report does not elaborate on, is what criteria should be used to determine who makes the cut and who does not, what measures should be taken to remove those who fail to clear the bar, and what costs, financial and otherwise, will be forced on the American people to bear, both to admit and to cull. But again, that’s not the discussion being offered here.
What’s indisputable by all objective assessments is that the executive action Obama now says he plans for after the elections, will be another step in the direction of manipulating an electorate that supports Democrat policies and that enables anti-gun politicians, legislation and judicial appointments.
What’s also indisputable by all objective assessments, in light of National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s admission that “all freedoms are connected,” is that continued avoidance of the illegal immigrationissue by NRA, using its traditional “single issue” excuse, is not a credible position for the powerhouse gun group to maintain.
Because like it or not, Torres is unbeatable in California. Unless reversed, the trend will be to expand such districts, and the influence they have over us all.
David Codrea
--------------------------------
Wish I could vote for her.
It’s frowned on in “progressive” circles to use the term “illegal alien,” with “undocumented immigrant” being a preferred, more politically correct term. The thing is, in the case of Norma Torres, a current California State Senator running for U.S. Congress, the latter would just not apply.
That’s because Torres, escaping horrible conditions in her native Guatemala, and sent to this country as a child by her father, received a temporary visa.
She was documented.
She also, per The Associated Press, “overstayed that visa, but her family helped her obtain legal residency while she was in her teens. She became an American citizen in the months leading up to the 1992 presidential election.”
The point here is not to render a judgment on nor to debate about any of the admittedly terrible and personally complex circumstances and decisions that elicit natural human sympathies -- it is merely to lay out what happened.
And what ultimately happened was entirely predictable.
Regular readers of this column know it is one of the few venues, following a lead established by Gun Owners of America, warning that the administration’s position -- that those who have violated U.S. immigration and residency laws have “earned” the right to citizenship -- will lead to an increase of millions of Democrat voters and a political threat to the right to keep and bear arms.
But forget what GOA says, and about past columns here, and again let’s focus solely on that which simply is. To do that, let’s again reference the AP report.
“Hispanics make up nearly 70 percent of the district that she seeks to represent, and nationally, Latinos overwhelmingly support Democrats,” it observes.
And nationally, aside from individual voting records which can be consulted, and aside from being the party from which the overwhelming majority of “gun control” measures are demanded, the official Democrat platform calls for “reasonable regulations ... like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole.”
Torres is in lockstep with that program.
Per Project VoteSmart documentation of her voting record on guns, Torres voted to prohibit semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazine, to expand the list of crimes that disqualify individuals from firearms ownership, to prohibit lead ammunition for hunting, to prohibit open carry, and to expand firearms registration, among other bills considered in the California Senate. And there is no reason to believe this “‘symbol of leadership’ for migrants” won’t do the same thing at the national level.
“Torres says she agrees that the U.S. cannot take in all people suffering from hardships,” the report continues. What Torres has not defined, and the report does not elaborate on, is what criteria should be used to determine who makes the cut and who does not, what measures should be taken to remove those who fail to clear the bar, and what costs, financial and otherwise, will be forced on the American people to bear, both to admit and to cull. But again, that’s not the discussion being offered here.
What’s indisputable by all objective assessments is that the executive action Obama now says he plans for after the elections, will be another step in the direction of manipulating an electorate that supports Democrat policies and that enables anti-gun politicians, legislation and judicial appointments.
What’s also indisputable by all objective assessments, in light of National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s admission that “all freedoms are connected,” is that continued avoidance of the illegal immigrationissue by NRA, using its traditional “single issue” excuse, is not a credible position for the powerhouse gun group to maintain.
Because like it or not, Torres is unbeatable in California. Unless reversed, the trend will be to expand such districts, and the influence they have over us all.
David Codrea
--------------------------------
Wish I could vote for her.
Another dumb fuck liberal bitch who knows absolutely noting about forearms. But thinks she's qualified to regulate them. There is no gun show loop hole and the assault weapons ban accomplished nothing.
Why would a gun owner not want to talk to their child's doctor about gun safety?
One year ago I wrote an article about how Florida's state legislature had passed a law prohibiting doctors from discussing gun safety at pediatric visits. The law drew immediate and strong objection from all the major medical organizations, including my own, the American Academy of Pediatrics. Reason seemed to prevail, as the US District Court quickly handed down an injunction against the gag law. Reason however does not sell guns or bankroll politicians in conservative states.
On July 25, 2014 the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the original legislation, imposing harsh penalties on any physician who discusses gun safety with his or her patients (or in this case, of course, the minor's parents.) The Court's majority held that a state legislature can in fact prohibit a doctor from discussing with a patient any medical issue that it (the state) finds politically distasteful. The ruling asserts that there is no First Amendment protection for physicians who provide their best medical advice to patients. Appeals court Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote that the law "simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters."
Why would a gun owner not want to talk to their child's doctor about gun safety? The answer is: that's the wrong question. They do want to talk about it.
I work in a rural area where gun ownership is common. I routinely ask families about guns at every well child visit and I have never had a parent -- gun owner or not -- raise an objection. I am pleased to say that most gun owning parents answer readily that yes, their guns are hidden and locked up. If they do not take these measures, I encourage them to do so. Even among parents who don't own guns, I am struck by the number of times an unexpected light bulb goes on, when a mother's forehead will furrow, and she'll turn to her child asking "Does Grandpa keep his guns locked up? We'll have to ask him the next time we're over there." Mission accomplished. Freedom still reigns.
Parents can even lie if they want to. Just the other day I asked the mother of a five year old if there were guns in the house. She said no, but the little guy chimed in "What about the one on the shelf?" The shelf? Really? I offered my safe storage advice to a very sour looking lady. As the AAP made clear in a recent statement, pediatricians are being urged to continue these conversations even as the legal battle rages on.
I apparently need to point out here that I don't -- excuse the expression -- hold a gun to anyone's head. I have no more clout in making parents take my advice about guns than in getting them to stop serving Pop Tarts for breakfast. They are completely free to reject my advice -- something parents do on a regular basis. But at least we had the conversation. Yet the NRA argued successfully that when doctors raise the issue of gun ownership, we are "forcing" patients to divulge private information that is medically irrelevant to their health care.
We routinely screen all the adolescents in my practice for depression. Irrelevant? Too private? One of the most crucial questions I need to ask in the context of any mood concern is "Is there a gun in the house?" I ask this because the association between guns in the house and increased fatal suicide risk has been well documented. The risk when the gun is kept loaded is even higher. What could be a very impulsive move following a breakup with his girlfriend will allow no second chances for a heartbroken boy. Parents need and want this information. They are often in my office because they are worried sick about their teen. They are looking for all the help they can get, and the stakes are too high to mince words. Considering what might be "politically distasteful" is the last thing on anyone's mind.
So the real question is: Who exactly is the Florida state legislature trying to protect? Not responsible parents and their children. The lawmakers are protecting the gun manufacturing industry that bankrolls their campaigns and they hope they are protecting the votes they crave from their most conservative base. These groups would have us believe that only gun owners should be allowed to speak about guns, and helpless, tongue-tied gun-owning parents need to be constitutionally protected from their subversive pediatricians. This mindset, perversely, has become not only the new definition of free speech, but the new legal standard of medical practice in Florida.
Maggie Kozel, M.D.
One year ago I wrote an article about how Florida's state legislature had passed a law prohibiting doctors from discussing gun safety at pediatric visits. The law drew immediate and strong objection from all the major medical organizations, including my own, the American Academy of Pediatrics. Reason seemed to prevail, as the US District Court quickly handed down an injunction against the gag law. Reason however does not sell guns or bankroll politicians in conservative states.
On July 25, 2014 the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the original legislation, imposing harsh penalties on any physician who discusses gun safety with his or her patients (or in this case, of course, the minor's parents.) The Court's majority held that a state legislature can in fact prohibit a doctor from discussing with a patient any medical issue that it (the state) finds politically distasteful. The ruling asserts that there is no First Amendment protection for physicians who provide their best medical advice to patients. Appeals court Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote that the law "simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters."
Why would a gun owner not want to talk to their child's doctor about gun safety? The answer is: that's the wrong question. They do want to talk about it.
I work in a rural area where gun ownership is common. I routinely ask families about guns at every well child visit and I have never had a parent -- gun owner or not -- raise an objection. I am pleased to say that most gun owning parents answer readily that yes, their guns are hidden and locked up. If they do not take these measures, I encourage them to do so. Even among parents who don't own guns, I am struck by the number of times an unexpected light bulb goes on, when a mother's forehead will furrow, and she'll turn to her child asking "Does Grandpa keep his guns locked up? We'll have to ask him the next time we're over there." Mission accomplished. Freedom still reigns.
Parents can even lie if they want to. Just the other day I asked the mother of a five year old if there were guns in the house. She said no, but the little guy chimed in "What about the one on the shelf?" The shelf? Really? I offered my safe storage advice to a very sour looking lady. As the AAP made clear in a recent statement, pediatricians are being urged to continue these conversations even as the legal battle rages on.
I apparently need to point out here that I don't -- excuse the expression -- hold a gun to anyone's head. I have no more clout in making parents take my advice about guns than in getting them to stop serving Pop Tarts for breakfast. They are completely free to reject my advice -- something parents do on a regular basis. But at least we had the conversation. Yet the NRA argued successfully that when doctors raise the issue of gun ownership, we are "forcing" patients to divulge private information that is medically irrelevant to their health care.
We routinely screen all the adolescents in my practice for depression. Irrelevant? Too private? One of the most crucial questions I need to ask in the context of any mood concern is "Is there a gun in the house?" I ask this because the association between guns in the house and increased fatal suicide risk has been well documented. The risk when the gun is kept loaded is even higher. What could be a very impulsive move following a breakup with his girlfriend will allow no second chances for a heartbroken boy. Parents need and want this information. They are often in my office because they are worried sick about their teen. They are looking for all the help they can get, and the stakes are too high to mince words. Considering what might be "politically distasteful" is the last thing on anyone's mind.
So the real question is: Who exactly is the Florida state legislature trying to protect? Not responsible parents and their children. The lawmakers are protecting the gun manufacturing industry that bankrolls their campaigns and they hope they are protecting the votes they crave from their most conservative base. These groups would have us believe that only gun owners should be allowed to speak about guns, and helpless, tongue-tied gun-owning parents need to be constitutionally protected from their subversive pediatricians. This mindset, perversely, has become not only the new definition of free speech, but the new legal standard of medical practice in Florida.
Maggie Kozel, M.D.
Probably because the doctor puts your name on a list, or keeps records that you own guns that can or will be used for privacy violations down the road. I mean, you don't honestly expect us to believe the government won't use that eventually to force gun owners to pay higher insurance rates, or other malicious purposes, do you? Hell, they already suggested that in California. The problem is there's no official list to use. Yet.
Actually, I take that back. I'm sure you do. And that's why we don't want doctors to know. I'm in Florida and was asked when I took my little one to the doctor for the first time "do you own firearms". I told them "nope". I wanted to tell them "piss off, wanker." But that would have been good enough as a yes.
Take your privacy violations and shove them up your ass.
Agreed. The reason they have no business asking is that guns are not a medical condition, it's none of the doctor's freaking business and yes, there is certainly the potential for your name to go on a list. Next thing you know, Social Services is banging on the door with some cops.
This doctor's studied confusion as to why anyone would object is just precious. She knows very well it is an attempt to misuse the access a family physician has to push the anti-gun agenda. "Guns are bad", etc. Does she have some sort of special knowledge about firearms or is she just another liberal busybody.
This doctor's studied confusion as to why anyone would object is just precious. She knows very well it is an attempt to misuse the access a family physician has to push the anti-gun agenda. "Guns are bad", etc. Does she have some sort of special knowledge about firearms or is she just another liberal busybody.
Is that a trick question?