portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government | legacies

House Democrats Sing Civil Rights Anthem In Support Of Taking Away Our Civil Rights

(video clip of Representatives singing "We Shall Overcome")  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXMqClUuGIA


 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/06/432580.shtml#446844

re-posting ^this (comment on newswire article preceding this one) as a topic of its own.

stunned and amazed.


even the ACLU came out against the current Senate legislation  link to www.aclu.org

Orwellian doesn't begin to encompass it.

who would knowingly cast their own citizen vote for any one of these so-called 'representatives'? ...

p.s. (and heads up to Rep. Lewis et al.) Martin Luther King Jr. owned a handgun and was on an FBI watch list.
How far this country has fallen (even, unbelievably) since USA Patriot Act and 9/11.


1960s Icon Of Civil Rights Leads House Democrats In 'Sit Down' To Have Them Taken Away
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/06/432580.shtml

homepage: homepage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXMqClUuGIA


Except 23.Jun.2016 06:54

Mike Novack

Most folks reading stuff at this site would not classify unrestricted gun ownership among "civil rights"

How about considering a "market based" solution the libertarians claim to be oh so much in favor of. Allow gun ownership but require any gun owner to carry sufficient liability insurance to cover any eventuality in which that gun ended up being used improperly.

That's Right Mike! 23.Jun.2016 07:54

Tracy Mapes

Let's Bolster the Insurance Industry!

You Dumbass! Why the fuck do you think this Country is in the shape it is in? Being forced to pay for shit we never needed or asked for by lobbyist, politicians and out of control corporate legislation.

Now, endless "False Flag" entertainment. Fuck You, Fuck the Government. There is No Law, only a Criminal Facade standing before the People as legitimate government.

Lol, aha Novack outs himself, + throws in Strawmen 23.Jun.2016 12:34

_

nice Mike, you're one of the "regulate guns" (Lol) folks. keep in mind Mike et al. that there are more guns than people i.e. greater amount of firearms than per capita residents in the USA. and the number of guns grows/increases faster than the U.S. population.

you'll never 'control' / "regulate" them, there are simply too many. One of the primary fallacies whenever "regulators" attempt to compare the U.S. to any other nation in terms of gun laws or regulations. the United States is unique on Earth, and in countries of recorded history in this respect.

RE: Strawman. That is "gun insurance". Lol.

Let's take your comment remarks :

Mike Novack wrote:
Most folks reading stuff at this site would not classify unrestricted gun ownership among "civil rights"
--------


Who is "most folks" Mike? Is that a vetted numerical sample?
You speaking on behalf of a populace we're unfamiliar with / haven't been discretely identified, here?

"unrestricted gun ownership" Where in the U.S. do we have that Mike?
Ever bought a gun? Go to a gun retailer and tell us what happened, when you bought your firearm.
There is an electronic database check (NICS), and a piece of Federal paperwork (Form 4473) with _fingerprints_ which are each completed for _every_ purchase.
^this is "unrestricted" Mike?
Thanks for Strawman #1.



Mike Novack wrote:
How about considering a "market based" solution the libertarians claim to be oh so much in favor of. Allow gun ownership but require any gun owner to carry sufficient liability insurance to cover any eventuality in which that gun ended up being used improperly.
--------

ah Strawman #2. "Gun insurance" lol.

ok most guns (of the > 300 million circulating in the U.S.) do not get used. Fact. Unlike cars (presumably your 'car insurance' analogy was intentional) of which only a small percentage are never used, prior to being recycled/scrapped. Who can afford to 'collect' cars?


Furthermore, when guns actually do get used, most of the time they are actually in relative terms of a "greater danger" (??) to the owner-handler of the firearm itself, than they would ever be a threat to a nearby-standing other person.

This is simply statistical reality.


(RE: inherent danger of any gun to its handler. There is what responsible gun owners know well as The Four Rules (of gun handling) this is of course the solution. It's kind of like 'driver's Ed' for guns, but much simpler, easier / FAR faster to learn, and common-sense based.)


Also for example, in urban/suburban scenarios where guns are used everyday i.e. at legitimate Shooting Ranges, these facilities are policed by Range Officers who enforce safety and handling rules. Some of the primary of which, are don't 'sweep' the muzzle at other persons/areas where people occupy.
(Note well: it's illegal in most urban areas/cities, to brandish or display a gun publicly. Which is why most of the people who end up doing so, whether or not they're ever caught/punished for something, are gangbangers or another variety of criminal.)

Rural scenarios (state-public lands, private land/ranches etc.) where persons go to shoot firearms, or hunt, also are largely devoid of other people to be endangered. The only 'endangered' might ? be the animal object of a particular type of hunting.

Finally, more than three-fourths of gun crimes (woundings and murders) in the U.S. annually are committed with illegal (i.e. guns without serial numbers, 'black market' guns) or stolen firearms.
oh and btw they are not 'assault rifles' (rifles only have ever accounted for less than 4%, a number which is decreasing with time, of firearm murders  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/06/432540.shtml  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/06/432540.shtml  link to knowledgeglue.com ).
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/06/432580.shtml#446843


You really think the hoodie who held up 7-11 is going to have 'gun insurance' (let alone have purchased his heater at a sporting goods store/gone thru NICS check + filled out 4473)?
Lol

So the very notion of "insurance" for gun ownership is ridiculous. You have no way of even making a vague metric by which to assess a rate for premiums, let alone purported risk/damages (to whom? even). Strawman #2 down.

+ Except yo Mike, you should be on the DNC bro 23.Jun.2016 22:12

_