Monday, February 26, 2007
Democratic Values Shining Through
Republicans in D.C. (and really only there because of the lack of credible coverage being delivered to Americans through their media) are aghast at some of the measures being enacted by Democrats in Congress this year. I guess they shouldn't have been after the Democrats' first action in the House was to do away with the supermajority needed to enact taxes, instead now requiring a simple majority.
Then Sunday came this story off of the AP wire, telling of a series of bills that would protect homosexuals as a class in the way greater than the protections afforded actual genetic classifications, such as race and gender. In this case, we are talking about "anti-gay bias," which I suppose could lead to suits against corporations by people passed over for promotions who suddenly will be gay for purpose of the suit. Also in the crosshairs of Congressional Democrats is the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Also Sunday, I received this alert from the NRA regarding another Democratic pet issue - their continued assault on your Second Amendment rights:
THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban
On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."
McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.
With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:
. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)
. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")
. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."
. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")
. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!
***
Gee, I wonder if they'll have anything to talk about at CPAC this week...
Then Sunday came this story off of the AP wire, telling of a series of bills that would protect homosexuals as a class in the way greater than the protections afforded actual genetic classifications, such as race and gender. In this case, we are talking about "anti-gay bias," which I suppose could lead to suits against corporations by people passed over for promotions who suddenly will be gay for purpose of the suit. Also in the crosshairs of Congressional Democrats is the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Also Sunday, I received this alert from the NRA regarding another Democratic pet issue - their continued assault on your Second Amendment rights:
THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban
On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."
McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.
With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:
. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)
. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")
. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."
. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")
. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!
***
Gee, I wonder if they'll have anything to talk about at CPAC this week...
Labels: Homosexuality, Second Amendment
Permalink posted by Rob Huddleston @ 6:26 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
At first glance, I saw your Label that read, "Homosexuality and Second Amendment, and my first thought was, "Gays with Guns?" Sounds like an adult film.
That aside, what is wrong with laws that state one can't discriminate against gay people in the work place?
No consenting adult of any stripe should be discriminated against in the workplace (or elsewhere) for what they do with another consenting adult.
Gay rights is purely a civil rights issue.
Post a Comment
That aside, what is wrong with laws that state one can't discriminate against gay people in the work place?
No consenting adult of any stripe should be discriminated against in the workplace (or elsewhere) for what they do with another consenting adult.
Gay rights is purely a civil rights issue.
<< Home
