Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: The Courage Campaign Is Now Getting Into The Fray...

  1. #1
    Regular Member WOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Onalaska WA
    Posts
    225

    The Courage Campaign Is Now Getting Into The Fray...

    Now that Gay Marriage has been settled here in WA, the Courage Campaign folks have found an outlet for their energies. Yup! You guessed it! An Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazine Ban! Break out the e-mail address's and contact ALL of your legislators, senators and anyone else, it's on!
    Be safe, be prepared, and carry on!

    Alle Ihre Basisstation jetzt zu uns gehören

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761


    Uh, ya got a link or anything . . ?

  3. #3
    Regular Member WOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Onalaska WA
    Posts
    225
    Join our campaign to renew the ban on assault weapons.

    I live in a small town, much like Newtown. When I heard the news on Friday, like parents all across our country, my first instinct was to run to school, pick up my 5 year old son Jack from kindergarten, and never let him out of my sight again. When I did pick him up at the end of the day, I held him close and fought back tears when I saw 26 candles already lit in rememberance outside his elementary school.

    Enough is enough. No child, no parent, no country should ever have to live through a day like Friday again. Newtown should never have happened. Aurora should never have happened. Tuscon should never have happened. The time for change is now.

    Will you join our campaign to pass a new assault weapons ban? Courage Campaign is prepared to devote major resources to this fight, but only if you, and others are on board.

    It’s simple. Civilians do not need assault weapons. The only members of society who do are soldiers and our most finely trained law enforcement professionals. Otherwise, they have only one use: mass murder. In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed an assault weapons ban, but it expired after 10 years because too many elected officials on both sides of the aisle fear the National Rifle Association (NRA).

    We’re going to ban assault weapons. Again. And this time it will stick. Are you with us?

    We know how to win. We've done it before, but we cannot do it unless we build a movement. That means YOU. Join us and take the first step.

    Enough is enough.

    Sarah Callahan, COO
    Courage Campaign
    Last edited by WOD; 12-17-2012 at 08:45 PM.
    Be safe, be prepared, and carry on!

    Alle Ihre Basisstation jetzt zu uns gehören

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761
    So no link then? Where did this information come from?

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by WOD View Post
    Join our campaign to renew the ban on assault weapons.

    [snip ranting]

    We’re going to ban assault weapons. Again. And this time it will stick. Are you with us?

    We know how to win. We've done it before, but we cannot do it unless we build a movement. That means YOU. Join us and take the first step.

    Enough is enough.

    Sarah Callahan, COO
    Courage Campaign
    Did that uppity assault weapon go out on its own and kill again?
    Bad assault weapon! No biscuit!

    BTW, just what IS an "assault weapon"? I tried to look it up in my OED, but it wasn't listed there. However, I did find this on Wiki: "A common usage is to interchange the term with assault rifle, but unlike that term, "assault weapon" has no consistent or specific definition and so is subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that include common non-military-style firearms."

    Just what is it that Ms. Callahan wants to ban? Just about everything that can be used to "assault" someone? Baseball bats? Rocks? Squirt guns? Ice cubes? Mr. Bubble? I grow weary of knee-jerk opportunistic responses.

    Ms. Callahan: Your job mandate is to run "a multi-issue progressive advocacy organization focused on achieving full equality for all Californians by solving California’s structural governance problems and restoring marriage equality to the state." What I fail to see is how banning "assault weapons" affects "California's structural governance problems."
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  7. #7
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Beat me to it SM!

    They are a "progressive" group.

    I am a libertarian, and I find nothing "progressive" about gun, or "accessory" bans in a free society. We tried that, it did nothing.

    Its time to try it another way, starting with a culture shift toward firearms education and a REAL dialog about carry in every day life being the solution.

    As I heard another person put it...

    "I would rather have a shootout than a massacre."

  8. #8
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    So do you suppose she's IGNORANT of the fact that no "assault weapon" was used in the school massacre, and both handguns used were purchased & registered according to the already strict CT laws, with requisite low-cap CT-legal mags, or is she simply IGNORING it?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761
    So do you suppose she's IGNORANT of the fact that no "assault weapon" was used in the school massacre, and both handguns used were purchased & registered according to the already strict CT laws, with requisite low-cap CT-legal mags, or is she simply IGNORING it?


    Actually it was an AR-15 clone that was the tool for most of the killing.

    Yes Yes I know that technically the AR-15s are not assault weapons. You know what? Perception is reality, and the perception is that AR-15s are assault weapons. We need to stop debating the minutiae of the thousands of different types of guns. It makes us look like kooky idiots. They're all guns, and the can all kill people. Let the debate proceed from there.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by WOD View Post
    It’s simple. Civilians do not need assault weapons. The only members of society who do are soldiers and our most finely trained law enforcement professionals. Otherwise, they have only one use: mass murder. In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed an assault weapons ban, but it expired after 10 years because too many elected officials on both sides of the aisle fear the National Rifle Association (NRA).
    Great. The argument that the police (who have no duty to protect you) are the only ones who need the ability to engage in defense of anything. That the standing army that exists only through a constitutional loophole is useful but the group of people specifically in charge of national defense in the constitution don't need to have weapons. The claim that assault weapons exist in the first place. The claim that assault rifles are high powered. And then inevitably the claim that there are weapons out there MORE powerful than the dreaded "assault weapons" so we need to ban those too.

    Their propaganda is so tired and old, do they even actually NEED to spew any of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    BTW, just what IS an "assault weapon"? I tried to look it up in my OED, but it wasn't listed there.
    Generally speaking, the definition of 'assault weapon' is "scary looking gun". Scary being semantically interchangeable with tacticool depending on who you're talking to. A less used definition I've run into is "gun I personally am scared of", which could theoretically extend to brightly-colored plastic squirt guns, depending on the person using that definition.
    Last edited by Difdi; 12-18-2012 at 02:24 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Boomboy007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    140

    Minor correction.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    So do you suppose she's IGNORANT of the fact that no "assault weapon" was used in the school massacre, and both handguns used were purchased & registered according to the already strict CT laws, with requisite low-cap CT-legal mags, or is she simply IGNORING it?
    Just an FYI: There is no magazine capacity limit in CT. However, they do have an "assault weapons" ban that names many rifles by name or make, and restricts "assault weapon features" (pistol grip, removable magazines, adjustable stocks, flash hiders, etc) to a maximum of two. It ends up being similar to the "California Compliant" rule, just not quite as strict.

    BUT! They DO allow class 3!!!

    Screwed up state. I am glad to have left.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Steptoe, WA (wtf is that!?)
    Posts
    99
    I honestly feel sorry for all the kids in this, people are just using their deaths to further their agendas. This is typical of the PRK, also this reminds me, since every school shooting ,or whatever hell people like to phrase it now days, hasn't there been a ban attempt for a specific feature of a gun. I am getting tired of having deja vu.
    Last edited by ApacheBunny; 12-18-2012 at 05:38 AM.
    Whoever thought switching to your sidearm was faster than reloading your rifle has never been hit in the **** with a swinging barrel.

    You cant fight the Gorgatron with your keys all... willy nilly..

  13. #13
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomboy007 View Post
    Just an FYI: There is no magazine capacity limit in CT. However, they do have an "assault weapons" ban that names many rifles by name or make, and restricts "assault weapon features" (pistol grip, removable magazines, adjustable stocks, flash hiders, etc) to a maximum of two. It ends up being similar to the "California Compliant" rule, just not quite as strict.

    BUT! They DO allow class 3!!!

    Screwed up state. I am glad to have left.
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    [/COLOR]

    Actually it was an AR-15 clone that was the tool for most of the killing.

    Yes Yes I know that technically the AR-15s are not assault weapons. You know what? Perception is reality, and the perception is that AR-15s are assault weapons. We need to stop debating the minutiae of the thousands of different types of guns. It makes us look like kooky idiots. They're all guns, and the can all kill people. Let the debate proceed from there.

    Cite please guys? The last thing I saw said that the rifle was left in the car -he never actually used it- and only handguns were used in the shooting. I always see CT lumped in with NY, CA, et al, in the "no hi-cap sales" disclaimers on website, I assumed they had a capacity ban too.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  14. #14
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Cite please guys? The last thing I saw said that the rifle was left in the car -he never actually used it- and only handguns were used in the shooting.
    No cite, sorry, but the latest, apparently from the ME, is that the majority of the wounds were from rifle fire, the shooter killed his mother and himself with a pistol, and left a shotgun in the car.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/media-...6#.UNCTpG872Ew

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

    http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

    What is an "assault weapon"? Well that depends. Ambiguety must be built in to ensure maximum confusion, so read well and read often.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  16. #16
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    To whomever may respond to this young lady:

    CT already has an AWB and magazine size limitations. The weapons used were legally obtained by their owner, and illegally obtained by the shooter.

    Now that wwe see the results of strict gun control laws (as in CT), maybe it is time to think about the adults that were killed and why they did not have the tools to defend themselves? Why did not the school staff have one weapon to defend these kids with? Oh yes, gun control laws.

    People with evil intent do not abide by laws, law abiding citizens do. That is why all these adults (and children) died. No-one was able to use compairable force to defend themslves and the children. think about it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761
    Cite please guys?


    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/NATL-As-Mourning-Continues-Focus-Turns-to-Gun-Control-183877701.html

    Police have said that 20-year-old gunman Adam Lanza ambushed the elementary school with a Bushmaster AR 15 rifle—




  18. #18
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    [/COLOR]http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/NATL-As-Mourning-Continues-Focus-Turns-to-Gun-Control-183877701.html

    [/FONT][/COLOR]


    An AR-15 rifle purchased legally by a woman who took up hobby shooting, and apparently without any concept of the responsibility or security of those firearms.

    I will say it again, we need to change the culture, not the firearms.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kennewick
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    An AR-15 rifle purchased legally by a woman who took up hobby shooting, and apparently without any concept of the responsibility or security of those firearms.

    I will say it again, we need to change the culture, not the firearms.
    Unfortunately changing the fire arms is easier.

    But in defense of the mother: Who would ever believe, in a million years, that their child would be capable of something like this? There is a world of difference between a troubled child and child that shoots up an elementary school. I'm sure that if the mother even suspected that the child's access to her guns would become an issue she would have secured them.

    /shrug

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    I rec'd email from courage(sic) this morning. She said she had just watched the NRA and was disgusted. It seems all she got from the NRA announcement was that they want more guns not less.
    The man speaks for thirty minutes and all she heard was one sentence.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  21. #21
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    I rec'd email from courage(sic) this morning. She said she had just watched the NRA and was disgusted. It seems all she got from the NRA announcement was that they want more guns not less.
    The man speaks for thirty minutes and all she heard was one sentence.
    Not that far off. All I heard was "MORE POLICE"
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Not that far off. All I heard was "MORE POLICE"
    Yeah, I have never put faith in "progun" organizations.

    They did make a good point that the only thing to stop that guy would have been an armed citizen.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •