Thursday 25th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

gunning for the new judge...

bullets of blood

N.R.A. Says It Opposes Kagan

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association said on Thursday that it would oppose the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, and would publicize how senators vote on her nomination. The move could drive down support for her among senators from states where gun rights are at issue.

“Unfortunately, Ms. Kagan’s record on the Second Amendment gives us no confidence that if confirmed to the court, she will faithfully defend the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans,” the association’s leadership wrote on Thursday in a letter to the chairman and the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The so-called N.R.A. score — the group’s evaluation of candidates, often cited in political campaigns — rates politicians on their friendliness to the group’s agenda, and became an issue in the Supreme Court confirmation last year of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She was confirmed on a largely party-line vote of 68 to 31.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who voted against Justice Sotomayor and who typically votes in line with the rifle association’s positions, said in an interview Wednesday that if the association decided to track votes on Ms. Kagan, it would not influence his vote.

Asked if the group’s opposition would hurt Ms. Kagan more generally with Republicans, though, Mr. Hatch said, “It wouldn’t help.”

Ms. Kagan’s confirmation hearings began Monday, the day the Supreme Court handed down an important gun-rights decision in McDonald v. Chicago. In a 5-to-4 vote, the court found that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms applied to states and local governments as well as to the federal government. The ruling built on an earlier 5-to-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found that the amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, not just a collective right.

In deciding to oppose Ms. Kagan, the rifle association cited her work as a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration, when she was deeply involved in the debate over banning assault weapons, a move the association opposed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/us/02kagan.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

-------------------------

Gus: many of my friends in Switzerland had massive assault weapons in their cellars issued by the Swiss army although my friends were not in active service anymore (and not allowed to use these weapons unless the Swiss were at war)... Some of these weapons were so big, they would take a couple of blokes to move them around, not counting the ammos in huge boxes. But assault weapons in a home is not a solution to a civilised society... I am led to believe that the NRA prefers to have 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshots per year in the US, rather than restrict this freedom that could see the number decrease quite dramatically... Ah I see... It's "DIE, you scumbag"... and anyone who opposes the NRA is a scumbag... I will wear this badge with pride.

The interpretation of the Second Amendment by the NRA is loony, as a) times have changed from when this thingster was written and b) the terms militia means "state army" in the context of a federation — not "law-abiding citizens" who at most times use duplicity to manipulate the law and a non-caring heart to justify their existence. 

 

trigger happy...

from wikipedia

Homicide rates in the United States are two to four times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates are found in developing countries and those with political instability.[21][25][26]

Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in urban areas of the United States. Inmetropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties.[27] In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000.[28] Rates of gun-related homicides are greatest in southern and western states.[29]

Homicide rates among 18- to 24-year-olds have declined since 1993, but remain higher than they were prior to the 1980s.[17] In 2005, the 17 through 24 age group remains significantly overrepresented in violent crime statistics, particularly homicides involving firearms.[30] In 2005, 17- through 19-year olds were 4.3% of the overall population of the United States.[31] This same age group accounted for 11.2% of those killed by firearm homicides.[32] This age group also accounted for 10.6% of all homicide offenses.[33] The 20- through 24-year-old age group accounted for 7.1% of the population,[31] while accounting for 22.5% of those killed by firearm homicides.[32] The 20 through 24 age group also accounted for 17.7% of all homicide offenses.[33] Those under age 17 are not overrepresented in homicide statistics. In 2005, 13- through 16-year-olds accounted for 6% of the overall population of the United States, but only accounted for 3.6% of firearm homicide victims,[32] and 2.7% of overall homicide offenses.[33]

People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims.[11] 

So ye live by the sword, so ye die by the sword.

IMHO the attitude of all law abiding citizens of any civilized nation in the world is that "to arms to arms" is only necessary when being attacked preemptively.  Otherwise, if the ancient policy of saying to a nation "we declare war on you" is as old-fashioned and frowned upon, as "come outside and we will settle this"? Or as forgotten as the Australian attitude of "one out" and no demand for a group.

Unnecessary wars have blinded our attitude of dignity and honor.  While there is no honor due to the Zionists of occupied Palestine there is less to the Foreign policies of the US.

The League of Nations and their successor, the United Nations was, in my opinion, created to remove the need to prevent the "Goliaths from trying to suppress the Davids of this world".  I wish it was that simple.

It appears to me that in the big picture, the ancient nations of the civilized world are, as convicted war criminal Rumsfeld has stated, "old Europe" and the "live or let live" attitude of thousands of years are with one stupid statement, destroyed?

So can we understand why Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon and Syria and Jordan, all ancient civilizations are consistently attacked or threatened by the Zionists of occupied Palestine?  Are the Hebrew/Canaanite Semites trying to rewrite their history by becoming the forever badly treated as the one pound Pommy immigrants to Australia?

Unless the financial power of the Zionists is able to squash or distort the facts of history then there are still avenues of information which, by their opposition to the Zionists, are still debating the history of the Jewish race.

And WHY Netanyahu?  My attitude to the Jewish people I know has not changed (aren’t I gracious) nor have I altered my belief in the existence of Solomon and David and the morals that they gave to society. If only all of humanity was to accept the principle of peace under one God.

Nevertheless, the Zionists of occupied Palestine are a disgrace to the history of the Jewish people and it is having the same effect as it has over thousands of years of history.

Without reservation, I believe that the UN should alter its formulas of a "Superior race of six rich nations" in the Security Council, and be subject to the opinions of some 190 nations - who are we kidding?

The General Assembly should decide the fate of any genuine resolution without being vetoed by the dictatorship of a selected few of "wealthy nations".

And who sells us these policies of absolute control?  The media.

God Bless Australia and all who live in her.  NE OUBLIE.