
The blog is a view of life, science, politics and education from an engineering perspective. As engineers, we are taught to view the world objectively. We can hope, believe and calculate a particular outcome, but natural laws are inflexible and pay no heed to who we are or what we believe. We must approach the objective dispassionately, while compensating for our own distorted perceptions. Balance is also a key element; balancing between the ideal and the pragmatic, balancing cost and functionality, balancing analysis with action, etc.
Scheduling routine critical self-analysis is the foundation to objectivity. If we do not fully understand and compensate for our own failures, tendencies, habits and skewed thought processes, we will not see the world as it is. Without a regular critical self-analysis we will see the world as we are and then fall prey to self-delusion.
Failure is a great teacher. When failure is coupled with perseverance, it produces the fruit of patience and humility. An engineer, fresh out of engineering school is typically set up for failure early and often. The failure breaks the new engineer of any ideas of self-importance, arrogance and book smarts. Only then can the new engineer be formed and molded into a productive element in the industry.
Thanks,
Bernie
Conflict within the NRA
After the Newtown shooting, the National Rifle Association, with roughly 4.3 million members, deactivated its Facebook page, had stopped tweeting on its Twitter account and had been issuing a "no comment" to any media outlet seeking a response.
But late Tuesday, the group broke that silence with a statement:
"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters -- and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown. Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting. The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
There are two major forces at work within the NRA. With the increased talk of gun control, the NRA has added an average of 8000 members per day and has received an large influx of contributions. But since the statement was released, the NRA website has been overwhelmed by member furious at the thought of the NRA softening its opposition to gun control. Of course, the official statement didn’t explicitly state that it would moderate its position, but it gave a tone of moderation.
The NRA is seen as the primary restraining force to gun control, but its members believe this it is also providing less restraint against government than is desired.
Some NRA members have demanded to see the books to determine if money was a factor in the new moderate tone. With just a cursory look at the main sources of revenue in December, it became clear that Karl Rove may have influenced the NRA into a softer stance. The NRA has received over $600,000 in donations from Crossroads GPS and Rove’s super PAC, American Crossroads. Although this amount of money is significant it represents a small percentage of income. During the 2012, the NRA spent a total of $17.6 million on political campaigns; including $243,000 on Tommy Thompson’s Senate campaign.
Karl Rove is not a well-liked individual in conservative circles. His support of many pro-choice, big government candidates has angered many conservatives, but his disdain for the second amendment is a particularly sore spot.
The NRA is a 501(c)(4) group and is not required to disclose its donors. But in order to maintain 501(c)(4) status with the Internal Revenue Service, social welfare must be the main focus of these groups, so they cannot have more than half of their overall spending go toward politics. Therefore the expenditures are public documents.
Many NRA members are openly talking about their displeasure with the NRA and joining the GOA (Gun Owners of America), a gun rights lobbying group which is much more rigid in its ideology. But with the tremendous influx of new members and money, the NRA appears to have momentum and even the most conservative members do not want to hurt that momentum. Thus they are stuck between great displeasure over the lack of response by the NRA and the excitement of the rise in membership.
While members look for a convenient spot to jump ship, the lament is that nearly every conservative group gets hijacked by moderates sooner or later.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- The Raw Milk Debate (98)
- Congressional hearings (79)
- Israeli attack on Syria (101)
- The reserve currency (121)
- Who Is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? (185)
- The Boston tragedy (6)
- Dmitry Orlov, The coming collapse (183)
- clash of ideologies (120)
- Chavez (90)
- F-35 update (14)
- Virtual on-line schools (51)
- Webster Tarpley (37)
- Australia's anti-insult law (34)
- Phil Mickelson (38)
- The Syrian conflict (14)
- The Good Samaritan (24)
- Political satire of PJ O'Rourke (63)
- Conflict within the NRA (68)
- My priorities (29)
- working hard to avoid paying taxes (83)
- New Developments in Egypt (52)
- Avoiding the fiscal cliff (45)
- The time of pain and miracles (12)
- The criticism - course correction continuum (27)
- The Petraeus Hearings (22)
- U-2 Spy plane (3)
- The parable of the Prodigal Son (29)
- Defending the freedom to fail (43)
- The Benghazi attack (43)
- Tammy Baldwin (65)
- Who was Jesus? (27)
- The collapse of a civilization (24)
- What is the final objective of liberalism? (37)
- The Matrix (19)
- Sheeple (9)
- The Sheboygan crime (5)
- Apologist in chief (18)
- The emergence of the F-35 (11)
- Chicago Teacher's strike (17)
- Understanding President Obama (136)
- The truth about Green jobs (17)
- Plastics supplier in Ontario (16)
- The real war on women (101)
- Fast and Furious (71)
- The Electric Vehicle (30)
- The Cost of Government (26)
- Crumbling moral infrastructure (24)
- Cracks appear in the derivative markets (14)
- tackling tradition (51)
- Obama's war on religion (73)
- Electric motor efficiency standards (33)
- Energy subsidies (48)
- The truth about Arab Spring (50)
- Einstein; on God and creation (65)
- The cost of driving is artificially high (27)
- The Brothers Karamazov (7)
- Compliance with regulation (22)
- Mining in Wisconsin (109)
- Ownership of tools (33)
- The car that government built (19)
- More The Engineering Perspective posts





68 Comments
Pierre Del Norte - Dec 20, 2012 6:03 PM
I think that is why we have this thing called the constitution.
WFB resident - Dec 20, 2012 7:29 PM
hand arms and feet than by rifles !!!! lol... Yet the PDLS's want to ban rifles ! morons
!
jman99 - Dec 20, 2012 11:22 PM
So, do you think they'll go to war over this?
Bernie Ziebart - Dec 21, 2012 9:03 AM
Pierre,
The issue is that my interpretation of the constitution differs vastly from President Obama's interpretation of the constitution. I believe that the founders had a different concept of the 2nd amendment than Joe Biden does.
Pierre Del Norte - Dec 21, 2012 9:18 AM
Isn't that why we have a Supreme Court - to resolve these differences of opinion?
I still don't get it.
Are you unwilling to accept the decision of the Supreme Court?
That would be very disturbing Bernie.
Pierre Del Norte - Dec 21, 2012 9:20 AM
One more thing Bernie. When did you give-up your full professorship in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago?
bamaphd - Dec 21, 2012 9:45 AM
What about the other guys? The GOA.
jman99 - Dec 21, 2012 10:54 AM
I say Armed National Guardsmen at schools to keep guns out.
Mucho - Dec 21, 2012 11:18 AM
The NRA and Texas have a little better plan.
jman99 - Dec 21, 2012 12:58 PM
No, as of this morning the NRA plan is pretty close to mine other than using policemen rather than National Guardsmen for the task of protecting the schools.
So, you are wrong there.
WFB resident - Dec 21, 2012 1:08 PM
do not care about the Constitution ! That is why we must fight these PDLS wing nuts
who are open to restricting the constitution for what it originally was set to do !
Pierre Del Norte - Dec 21, 2012 1:10 PM
Watching what is left of the GOP being devoured by it's own conservative lunatic fringe.
I need to pop some popcorn!
Bernie Ziebart - Dec 21, 2012 1:19 PM
Have you heard of the Dred Scott decision? Or Roe v Wade? Or upholding Obamacare? There are plenty of Supreme court decisions in which I think they got it wrong. Of course, I have to comply with it, but it doesn't mean I agree.
George,
The belief is that Rove gave money to the NRA to influence a more moderate stance on the second amendment (to water down the message, purpose and ideology) Just because Rove gave money to the organization that does not mean that he necessarily agrees with the charter of the organization.
Example.
The Koch Brothers donated to the Jim Doyle campaign. Do you think they agree with Doyle on all things? Of course not, they wanted to buy influence.
jman99 - Dec 21, 2012 1:22 PM
The really scary part is that the current "fringe" is not conservative enough for some and they want more.
It's like a distillation. The concentration get higher as the volume is reduced.
WFB resident - Dec 21, 2012 1:31 PM
You guys are oblivious to the facts of what happened with say : Benghazi ! Man
made Global warming ! Our economy! hell , the list is endless !!
I for one am happy to see that true Righties are starting to squeeze out those Rinos
Like Romney and Swartzeneggar ! If you want to call it devour , that is fine . You
need to get me a bowl of popcorn also though !!
Mucho - Dec 21, 2012 2:07 PM
Wow! I totally agree - All those people "left of the GOP" are lunatics.
Jman - I meant what I said about the NRA and Texas. Combine their plans and you have a winner. Let individual communities foot the bill for their own schools and policies that they feel are appropriate. The liberals always run to the Feds and picking our wallets.
KM High already has their security guard. Don't see much point having the feds take his job and having other communities nationwide pay for what the locals voted for.
jman99 - Dec 21, 2012 8:22 PM
http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/546488_574637585883355_758747758_n.jpg
WFB resident - Dec 21, 2012 8:36 PM
MGarber - Dec 22, 2012 9:39 AM
"... the lament is that nearly every conservative group gets hijacked by the extreme conservatives sooner or later."
there. I fixed that for ya. Youre welcome.
WFB resident - Dec 22, 2012 11:12 AM
extreme for extremes !
Bernie Ziebart - Dec 22, 2012 1:05 PM
Harvard University started out as a conservative Christian seminary for training missionaries. I would dare say that it is no longer their charter.
Founding Mission Statement of Harvard College (1643)
"Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed, to consider well that the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3), and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning."
Mr Balanced - Dec 22, 2012 1:29 PM
I had the fortunate opportunity to view, live, the NRA press conference. LaPeirre asked the media how his NRA staff knew of so many violent games but the media did not. One in particular that teaches how to kill young school kids. But the media knows of no such game or doesn’t report this type of culture that permeates our children and many of their parents. He went on to pinpoint more of these type of games kids play every day.
What did you think of the speech by W. LaPierre?
bamaphd - Dec 22, 2012 2:10 PM
Are you statically balanced or dynamically balanced?
"LaPeirre asked the media how his NRA staff knew of so many violent games but the media did not. "
Quite possible because the NRA staff play these games all the time while the media is out doing what the media does, reports on things. Really we have no idea what goes on inside the NRA and what sorts of violent video games they play or violent movies they watch.
I'm 99.9% sure the NRA does not play this game:
http://www.barney.com/ca/index.asp
What an inane question.
Mr Balanced - Dec 22, 2012 3:04 PM
Mrphd,
One would gather from your post that you in no way listened to Mr. LaPeirre’s speech. The point of what LaPeirre was trying to say was these violent games, like the one how to kill kindergarteners, has been sold to kids and adults for too long. The media and many in Washington point (no pun intended) at guns as the cause. As we listen, read, and watch more about the beginnings to this sad and violent massacre, we find videos that come from our entertainment industry may be more of why some commit these type of crimes. I have to question, and not agree entirely with the NRA, about why the media and many politicians don’t wish to bring up this very critical links to all this. Why is that banaphd? Are you in support with these violent movies and videos?
Are those violent videos in the hands of children, many given as gifts from adults, not a part of this change in our culture? The real cause in the Conn. tragedy is not lax gun laws; it’s our culture and how we let it collapse by the few who are mentally misguided with our countries values. I am an old man phd. I recall when guns were the norm in our society and everywhere in our culture. We had a gun leaning next to the back door in our northern WI home. So did the neighbors and the other farmers.
Mr Balanced - Dec 22, 2012 3:05 PM
Many states allowed guns in vehicle gun racks. I recall no such violence then as I do today. The only change from back then to today that is palpable to those my age is not less guns, but less family values, an ever increasing culture of violence by the entertainment industry only for huge profits (I thought you are against profits like that Bama?), a large political party that is in need of this type of culture, and the constant assault on God in our schools and public areas. Can’t Hollywood make movies and videos without such violence? Maybe time for them to change or moveon.
Gun control will never be a panacea for murders like these. Controlling these maniacs is the only answer we have. How? I don’t know. But if we continue to not indulge in the facts with both sides, we may never see a decrease in this type of culture that is not only growing, but is dependent, and vice versa, on many in Washington
bamaphd - Dec 22, 2012 3:46 PM
I don't play video games.
I do watch movies.
Lets discuss two:
Clockwork Orange and Shoot'em up.
One is a commentary on violent behavior the other is gratuitous violence that worships a gun based violence.
Clockwork Orange is by far the more violent of the two because it shows violence at levels most would never think about. but it makes you think.
Shoot'em up is a farcical plot wrap in a bout a million rounds of ammo that has no redeeming qualities.
Which is worse?
Mr Balanced - Dec 22, 2012 4:37 PM
I was trying to make reference to an issue that has come forward which the NRA has also known. But why are so many politicians and most in the media ignoring what is profoundly all too obvious?
I don't know which movie is worse or why you ask. Mr. LaPierre's point is one in which many are starting to agree and see: the NRA, guns and or our 2nd amendment are not the reasons for these shootings. They are also not the fix. None of these issues, like the violent films and video games from Hollywood that is ingrained in the minds of our young and now a major theme within our culture, were as prevalent when guns were openly carried many years ago. And with much less gun regulations.
Those in Washington refuse to admit or address this rising and prevalent danger to our society. I asked why you think that is. Politics maybe pdh? I have to believe most law abiding citizens know taking away our right to own guns is not and will never be the answer. Maniacs will find a way. Evil is part of life. The more we allow it in, the more we have to only look in the mirror to understand why.
bamaphd - Dec 22, 2012 5:22 PM
"I have to believe most law abiding citizens know taking away our right to own guns is not and will never be the answer."
the majority of law abiding citizens most likely don't own guns. The NRA is what about 4.5 million members? that's less than 2% of the population of the USA.
Your guns will not be taken away. You will still be able to hunt or kill vermin in your farm. No one will ever take that away.
Maniacs will find a way, but wouldn't it be nice to restrict the kind of weapon they have access to to one that makes it more difficult to kill a large number people in a very short time?
You can target shoot just as well with a single shot rifle or hand gun as you can with a semi-auto or full auto weapon. There is no Olympic class for automatic weapons. Most NRA members would fail miserably at the winter biathlon.
Blasting the crap out of something on semi auto while it may be "fun" and possibly a stress relief does not make you a better shot. It also does not help in a hostage situation or to keep you head under fire. Police and security forces train far differently than the NRA.
Remember, the second amendment came into being at the time of sing shot ball muskets.
WFB resident - Dec 22, 2012 7:37 PM
None of my close friends belong to the NRA ! Yet they all own guns !! Yes the
amendment came in to being when we had the same guns as the millitary ! I am
fine with us allowing Americans to have millitary grad myself !
bamaphd - Dec 22, 2012 8:53 PM
None of my close friends belong to the NRA ! Yet they all own guns !! "
Now there's a nightmare before Christmas.
WFB resident - Dec 22, 2012 8:56 PM
jman99 - Dec 23, 2012 7:16 AM
http://www.techyville.com/2012/12/social-media/bet-you-didnt-know-nra-leaders-son-fired-at-another-motorist-during-a-road-rage-incident/
Mr Balanced - Dec 23, 2012 8:20 AM
So much of what you say or bring into the debate is pointless or just wrong. Your NRA stat has zero to do with what law abiding citizens say or if they own guns. I own a few yet I’m not an NRA member (not yet. I have five other family members who own guns. Handguns included. All passed hunters safety and all but one owns a permit to carry and conceal. None are NRA members). You also follow the talking points of those who have to support Hollywood and the entertainment industry by mentioning we need to have stricter rules that allow maniacs to own guns like Adam Lanza. You can continue to follow that lead, but you can’t change or manipulate the truth. Thus why your thinking is flawed in many ways. First, Mr. Lanza did not own a single gun, ever. Second, you attack the 2nd amendment and use old muskets as your source. Yet you hypocritically post here as if the Constitution is a moving contract only as long as it fits your needs and beliefs. This is why America is in deep trouble (maybe too much for you to comprehend today so I will save it for a later date.). Third, like our President and many others in Washington and those in the press, you refuse to address the culture change taking place with the mass production of “assault weapon” videos and movies that teach children how to score big points by mass murdering people.
Mr Balanced - Dec 23, 2012 8:21 AM
You want to help and see how America can come together over this? Stand against those who want to take away our Constitutional right to own guns, so we can defend ourselves and our families, and then do the unthinkable that was once a mainstay in our country: let God back in public places and our schools. Then go after one of your party’s top donors and start a new policy that bans these type of videos and movies. Or at least start by making them much harder to purchase or buy online. After all this, work on our countries family values. Values not found because many of our nation’s leaders encourage those on welfare that food stamps or fatherless families are good for the children or the well-being of our nation. You seem too young to accept or understand that what I said has worked long before you were born.
jman99 - Dec 23, 2012 8:31 AM
While protecting your second amendment rights, you seem to want to trample on the first amendment rights of movie makers and video game creators.
If you think a movie is violent, don't watch it. If you think a video game is violent, don't buy it. in fact governments have gone to lengths far more stringent than those you claim threatening the second amendment to reign in the first.
So why not treat the second amendment the same way the first is treated?
jman99 - Dec 23, 2012 8:41 AM
So why not make it harder to buy guns and ammo on line. if it is good for on, then it must be good for the other as well.
bamaphd - Dec 23, 2012 8:54 AM
Charlton Heston and Clint Eastwood
Tom Clancy the author of may book with violence in their plots is also a consutant to many video game producers ( in fact some of his plots have been made into violent video games from which he gains royalties ) is also an NRA member.
Perhaps you should start by trying to cleaning up your own back yard first ......
bamaphd - Dec 23, 2012 9:44 AM
up to say about the 1970, if you were an NRA member you were just as likely to be a Democrat as a Republican and the only competition you had was in the shooting grounds.
I would say that the bulk of the NRA is made up of conservative Republicans and the TP with a very small following from Democrats.
This most likely started with the support of Reagan over Carter and then the campaign againts the speaker of the house under Clinton. When this happened, the NRA lost its neutral American soul and became just another lobby group.
Mr Balanced - Dec 23, 2012 10:08 AM
I would like to sit down with you and play some Texas-Holdem. We could live a more comfortable retirement. You're going down a very slippery slope Phd. Sorry, I should not have put you there.
If I’m “trampling” on our First Amendment rights, then what are you? Using only your logic, that I was hoping you would move to, President Obama and many democrats are trying to “trample” on our Second Rights. That is why I pointed out yours and many politicians hypocrisy with regards to our Constitution. My concern is President Obama and many Democrats and Republicans alike are politicizing this for their own ideologies and those who support them. A balanced approach would be to try and fix this growing concern by looking at all aspects and all the data. All we have seen from the press and the President is gun control (Second Amendment). If so, then look at Hollywood (First Amendment). Why is that not fair? Mr. LaPierre made sure the press was informed about theirs and Obama's mistakes with the investigations as to why
jman99 - Dec 23, 2012 10:36 AM
Lol.
A fist full of dollars.
The good, the bad and the ugly ( a subjective treatise if there ever was one)
A few dollars more.
bamaphd - Dec 23, 2012 11:47 AM
" All we have seen from the press and the President is gun control (Second Amendment). If so, then look at Hollywood (First Amendment). Why is that not fair?"
Well, all we need to do is to look at the previous VP, who being a gun advocate , and NRA member and of sound mind (questioned by some) and in the company of the secret service, managed to shoot an innocent person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident
Here is a person, a heart beat away from controlling the largest arsenal on earth, yet unable to handle a gun safely.
In an odd twist, if the shooting had been the other way around, the Secret service would have been all over Cheney's victim if he had been the shooter, but in this case, the secret service did not protect the victim at all.
As far as I know, President Obama has yet to fell anyone with a stray golf ball.
jman99 - Dec 23, 2012 1:44 PM
The secret service, even armed as they were with military grade weapons, could not stop Cheney shooting and innocent civilian.
Can you imagine the carnage if he'd had an assault rifle?
bamaphd - Dec 23, 2012 10:14 PM
https://d27fcql9yjk2c0.cloudfront.net/assets/6074789/lightbox/deerarmour.jpg?1344808028
Keep on the look out for these, as they may be attacking hunters in your area.
WFB resident - Dec 23, 2012 10:45 PM
you do hunt with others hunters around ! If you have the abillity to remember things
. You would know that Cheneys shot was an accident . You know like when a person
runs into something/one with a car ? lol... except cars kill more people than those
dasturdly guns ! lol...
Mr Balanced - Dec 29, 2012 2:12 PM
Submitted by John C on Sat, 12/29/2012 - 15:12
in
Daily Paul Liberty Forumhttp://www.dailypaul.com/267875/the-san-antonio-theater-shooting
On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened...
Mr Balanced - Dec 29, 2012 2:17 PM
Nearly 500 murders in Chicago this year. 62 where school aged kids. All from the most liberal and most strict gun laws in the nation. Any ideas, anyone, why the press didn't mention this?
Mr Balanced - Dec 29, 2012 2:40 PM
I stand to be corrected. The 446 were not murders, but school children shot in Chicago! 62 were killed by nutjobs like Lanza.
The Daily pointed out in a Friday (June 2012) column that more Chicago residents -- 228 -- have been killed so far this year in the city than the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan - 144 -- over the same period. Chicago’s murder rate is also currently quadruple that of New York and double Los Angeles' rate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
jman99 - Dec 29, 2012 4:28 PM
up you need that national guard everywhere to protect Americans from other Americans.
WFB resident - Dec 30, 2012 9:05 AM
Bernie Ziebart - Dec 31, 2012 8:46 AM
1. guns, like moonshine is not too difficult to produce. With moonshine you need a still and to make a gun you need a machine shop.
2. Prohibition gave rise to tremendous underground markets with crime syndicates. Likewise, since Mexico enacted extremely restrictive gun control legislation, cartels took a dominant position in society with little ability of the average citizen to defend themselves against the cartels.
3. Prohibition caused numerous deaths through poisoned moonshine. Some made wood alcohol instead of grain alcohol. With people making their own guns and bullets, I don't believe that it will be safe to use, store or transport these weapons.
4. A tremendous increase in the numer of police and agents will be needed to monitor the gun traffic just as the number of police expanded during prohibition.
A gun is only tool, but a very effective tool. But we have a society that has gone crazy. We no longer have the ability to think straight and think through an action with resulting consequences. Emotional and mental instability is on the rise and I don't know how to keep weapons out of the hands of emotionally damaged people. I fear that there will be more Newtown incidents.
WFB resident - Dec 31, 2012 8:55 AM
jman99 - Dec 31, 2012 11:33 AM
http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm
jman99 - Dec 31, 2012 1:25 PM
Sort of makes the whole thing self regulating in a Darwinian kind of way. It would not be the same because you could make a batch of booze that was distributed to many. Gunsmithing is not like that.
jman99 - Dec 31, 2012 1:30 PM
Stills are easy to make.
Machine shops are much tougher to set up if you want to smith a gun. for stills, you have a multitude of feed stocks, for gun barrels, not so much. A still will cost you about $300.00 to set up. A good lathe and mill will set you back into the thousands.
WFB resident - Dec 31, 2012 2:29 PM
this ? Like many other things , Dumocrats assume being smart in all . To build a gun
correctly it takes a machine shop ! But it does not need a shop for just a gun !!! Did
you ever hear of zip guns ?
Bernie Ziebart - Dec 31, 2012 8:29 PM
You are correct. It is much easier to make a still in comparison to a machine shop, but it will be done. It will just cost much more to get guns.
The NRA has been distributing this video of Sen Feinstein talking in a 1995 interview that she wants to ban all gun ownership. They claim that Democrats have wanted to repeal the second amendment all along, but are looking for the right opportunity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo&feature=player_embedded
It is a bit disturbing to hear a Senator speak openly of a repeal of the second amendment back in 1995, before the wave of violence.
jman99 - Dec 31, 2012 9:58 PM
no point telling NRA members the truth, because it won't get them riled up.
It is totally irresponsible to foist this misconception on the American people.
Bernie Ziebart - Jan 01, 2013 8:02 PM
Please read the resolution that was presented: H.J.RES.438 -- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.438:
Unfortunately, it is you who is woefully uninformed of what your party is planning. The resolution to repeal the second amendment failed, but not because a lack of effort. The lesson learned in this failure is that a complete repeal is not possible in one big step, it will require small steps.
Nelson T. Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc.: “We’re going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the political realities – going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time. The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal” (The New Yorker, July 1976).
Bernie Ziebart - Jan 02, 2013 3:27 PM
I think that this was a trial balloon specifically floated to determine the level of support or opposition. This sort of thing does not happen in a vacuum without party support. No one is as independent as you think they are.
My view is that about 30% of Democratic politicians only want modest changes to existing gun laws, 40% are pushing for extensive gun control and 30% are looking for a repeal. Of course, most will not publish their agenda in fear of being targeted by the NRA.
WFB resident - Jan 02, 2013 7:00 PM
you do not hear well !!!!