Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Washington Needs a Vertebrae Transplant

  1. #1
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Source

    Washington Needs a Vertebrae Transplant
    Mark Shields
    [CDATA[

    More members of Congress today, by a large margin, have more college and graduate degrees than members did 20 years ago. The current members are generally more media savvy and more socially polished than their often rough-edged predecessors. But what they lack -- and what the earlier guys had a lot more of -- is backbone.

    You want proof? Let's begin with the assault rifle, the one modeled after the military weapon and built to fire hundreds of rounds of ammunition in a matter of seconds. This assault weapon was the firearm of choice in mass murders just in the last month of four police officers in Oakland, three Pittsburgh police officers, 13 civilians in Binghamton, N.Y., and 10 more in Alabama.

    What is the response from official Washington? Solemn expressions of concern and promises of prayers for the families and the communities drowned out by the National Rifle Association's mantra that "guns don't kill people" -- peanuts do.

    Washington and the leadership of both political parties in the city need a collective vertebrae transplant. Just listen to what one of the country's great conservative leaders, the late Sen. Barry M. Goldwater, R-Ariz., said about these assault weapons in 1990: "I am completely opposed to selling automatic weapons. I don't see any reason why they ever made semi-automatics. I've been a member of the NRA. I collect, make and shoot guns. I've never used an automatic or a semi-automatic for hunting. There's no need to. They have no place in anybody's arsenal."

    So much for the sportsman's argument for assault rifles of the kind that the Binghamton killer used to fire, according to police, 98 shots in one minute.

    Shortly before Goldwater made his position so abundantly clear, the then-attorney general of California, John Van de Kamp, a Democrat, stood on the floor of the California state assembly in Sacramento holding in his hands an AK-47 semi-automatic weapon and said to the legislative body's 80 members: "Ladies and gentlemen, take a look at your watches and start counting. You are lucky that I am the attorney general and not some nut. Because if I had the ammunition, I could shoot every member of the assembly by the time I finish this sentence -- about 20 seconds."

    But 1994 will forever be remembered as the year when Democrats lost their heart for standing up to the gun lobby. The Democratic Congress and President Bill Clinton had enacted a ban on 19 types of automatic weapons. That ban had passed the Democratic House on a 216 to 214 vote, guided by the then-Clinton White House advisor (and now Obama White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel -- and it was blamed by many Democrats for their party's November loss, for the first time in 40 years, of House control.

    In the middle of the recent killing sprees, 65 House Democrats, mostly from rural and conservative districts, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder announcing they would "actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban (on assault weapons)."
    President Obama has long been on record for a permanent ban on assault weapons. But one respected Capitol Hill Democrat, a longtime champion of gun control, despairs: "These (recent) killings have, unfortunately, not moved the needle."
    What would be required to get this Congress to act? "It would take at least a major massacre of kindergarteners."

    So, as of today, the NRA rules. Today's congressmen apparently value their own seats and survival more highly than they do the lives of the police officers who, as they patrol their beats to keep our neighborhoods safe, are regularly outgunned by criminals armed with automatic assault weapons. Where do you go for a vertebrae transplant?

    To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at http://www.creators.com.

    DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

    COPYRIGHT 2009 MARK SHIELDS
    ]]>

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Well, most people don't "need" guns at all. That's not the applicable standard, however. Most people don't "need" to run newspapers either. I'm a licensed collector and I consider it a privilege to help preserve the historical legacy of firearms which have helped to secure the blessings of liberty for our nation. People like my father, who is not a "gun person" nonetheless were called upon to put down the likes of Hitler and Tojo, not with reasoned argument or harsh language, but with Garands, M-1 carbines, etc., and I consider it shameful that people not only choose to be ignorant of this history, but actively seek to destroy "unpleasant" reminders of these events. I happen to find a certain elegance in their design and function. But I guess that makes me perverse, to their thinking...

    I have yet to kill anyone with my mil-surp semi-autos (or by any other means), so I think this "what could happen?" concern is misplaced. Criminals - by definition - are not deterred from malfeasance by the passing of laws. Further, the previous "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban anything - not even proper select-fire assault weapons - it merely jacked the price up for the grandfathered inventory.

    -ljp

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    If Congress needs a backbone, Mark Shields needs a brain. For f's sake, he *WAS* a Marine (note, I'm using the pejorative was intentionally, as he obviously has stopped protecting and defending the Constitution), but he cannot tell or explain the difference between an "assault weapon" and an "automatic." The AWB didn't ban 19 types of automatic weapons, it removed a class of features that made whatever weapons they were used with more ergonomic!

    Not to mention his talk of "nobody needs a semi while hunting" line of whargaarbl. I'm sure talking to him is like trying to get through a brick wall using your forehead. I think we have an emoticon for that

    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Scranton, Pa, ,
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    Wow 98 shots in a minute with an assault weapon from the guy in NY! Whew! Oh wait... he didnt have an assault rifle he had two pistols. Yeah those assault rifles can really shoot alot!

    I love it when they get the facts all tidied away.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    This article is so screwed up with miss-used terms, flagrant and outright manipulations of terms and weapons types, and just about everything else. I don't believe he was a Marine because it's awfully hard to imagine a Marine making those kinds of errors (but alas, I'm sure many do).

    Assault weapons used interchangeably with assault rifles. Automatic used interchangeably with semi-automatic, banning, controlling, confiscating. These are not Americans. These are anti-Americans operating as agents for anti-American causes, whether they know it or not.

    When they came for the catholics, I wasn't a catholic so I didn't worry,
    When they came for the protestants, I wasn't a protestant so I was Ok.
    .
    .
    .
    And when they came for me, who was left to speak?

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Exact same job they did when they passed laws against Marijuana - lies, ********, and propaganda, nothing of the truth.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Scranton, Pa, ,
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    Exact same job they did when they passed laws against Marijuana - lies, bull@#$%, and propaganda, nothing of the truth.
    You mean it used to be legal? :shock:

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    YllwFvr wrote:
    hsmith wrote:
    Exact same job they did when they passed laws against Marijuana - lies, bull@#$%, and propaganda, nothing of the truth.
    You mean it used to be legal? :shock:
    Yes, for many, many years: http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/...vlr/vlrtoc.htm

    That is well worth a read
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    I keep reading these stories about how gun grabbers are so dismayed that there is no public outcry for gun control in the wake of all of the recent shootings... and I giggle my ass off!

    I guess people have FINALLY realized that making guns illegal won't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns. Or perhaps, they have finally realized that the police can't protect them, or most likely, both.

    It's not the time to let up, though. Keep shouting the truth to anyone that will listen, and even to those who don't want to hear it! The fight to keep our rights and our guns will NEVER be over, because the gun grabbers will never give up- and neither will we.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I find it amusing at the number of pundits that write on topics they don't a the foggiest clue about.
    You want proof? Let's begin with the assault rifle, the one modeled after the military weapon and built to fire hundreds of rounds of ammunition in a matter of seconds. This assault weapon was the firearm of choice in mass murders just in the last month of four police officers in Oakland, three Pittsburgh police officers, 13 civilians in Binghamton, N.Y., and 10 more in Alabama.

    I don't know of any "assault weapon" that can fire "hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds" unless he's talking about 60 seconds. And I bleeive the rifles that were used is some of these mass shootings were not "assault weapons" to begin with. They were assault "style" semi-automatic rifles.

    The Binghamton shooting was carried out with handguns, not a rifle.

    Where does this guy get his info?
    John Van de Kamp, a Democrat, stood on the floor of the California state assembly in Sacramento holding in his hands an AK-47 semi-automatic weapon and said to the legislative body's 80 members: "Ladies and gentlemen, take a look at your watches and start counting. You are lucky that I am the attorney general and not some nut. Because if I had the ammunition, I could shoot every member of the assembly by the time I finish this sentence -- about 20 seconds."

    Sorry, but Kamp was a nut. He'd have had to been one hell of a marskman to pick off all 80 members of the assembly that quick, while relaoding at least one magazine, an get it done in 20 seconds. Can't be done, of course, but apparently these people don't recognize reality.

    It appears that Mark Sheilds idolizes grandstanders.
    But 1994 will forever be remembered as the year when Democrats lost their heart for standing up to the gun lobby. The Democratic Congress and President Bill Clinton had enacted a ban on 19 types of automatic weapons. That ban had passed the Democratic House on a 216 to 214 vote, guided by the then-Clinton White House advisor (and now Obama White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel -- and it was blamed by many Democrats for their party's November loss, for the first time in 40 years, of House control.

    What the hell is this guy complaining about? They passed the friggen gun ban! How could this be considered "the year when Dems lost their heart"? Sounds like the stood up to the gun lobbies to me. Of course, they shot themselves in the foot in the process (oooooh the irony).

    This Sheilds fellow doesn't seem to understand the "spanking" principle.
    In the middle of the recent killing sprees, 65 House Democrats, mostly from rural and conservative districts, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder announcing they would "actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban (on assault weapons)."
    Those House Dems DO understand the "spanking" principle. They don't want to get spanked, like the last time.
    To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns,
    I've learned all I need to know about Mr Sheilds, just by reading the one column.

    He's an idiot!

Posting Permissions

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