Kavips on NRA and the Public Housing Ban.
The NRA must think that the oh so cleverly named and downright deceptive HB 357 will not pass as written, given the righteous reaction of Governor Markell, and the exposed lies of John Atkins and Joe Booth. You see, Atkins and Booth were selling the legislation as a simple Second Amendment issue allowing those living in public housing in the state their right to own and possess a gun in their own homes. The truth is that the NRA-written legislation would actually overturn all gun control regulations in the State of Delaware.
So now the NRA, the sickening bully that it is, is threatening the four public housing authorities of Delaware with lawsuits if they do not rescind their bans on guns. You see, the NRA was caught in their deception, and now cannot abide by the normal legislative process, so now they resort to beating up on a financially strapped public agency. It is typical.
Kavips reacts angrily. While I cannot endorse Kavips’ plan on taking the fight to the three registered lobbyists for the NRA in the State of Delaware by forcing the three to live in the same conditions as those in some of our more violent public housing projects, i.e. by having them be the victims of the same gun violence that occurs in our public housing projects, he does offer a very good constitutional argument against overturning gun control regulations.
If the case goes to court… here is how it plays out. Their side pulls out the second amendment. The defense pulls out the Declaration of Independence: “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
These three rights are the only ones endowed by man’s Creator. The rest come from men.. If men choose to protect their lives and liberties over those of owning a gun, it is their choice. They are free to do so. It is perfectly within every American’s God given right to ban the use of guns on his property if he so desires.. That.. is what America is all about…
The Housing Authorities have every right to maintain the safety of their confines in anyway they see fit. If enforcing a gun ban protects citizen’s lives, then they have every right to do just that… Every innkeeper is allowed to make rules for his tenants. After all, it is his property.
Every householder or property owner is allowed to make rules and regulations pertaining to the use of his property. ”Follow these rules or get out”… Hell, every parent of teenagers has had to use that line once in a while to keep the peace. That is the American way. To sit in some cubicle far, far away talking smack, and having tons of tax payers money being spent on a frivalous lawsuit, is not the American way. For one, it is too cowardly to be considered American. For two, it goes against the doctrine that a man’s home is his castle… For three, removing the only protection those tenants of these domiciles have against gun violence from getting out of control, should be downright criminal.
I would like to see this argument in court. I have not seen it used before. Gun control advocates typically focus on the Second Amendment itself and the use of the term “regulate” within the clause itself, in that the Framers intended the right to bear arms to be regulated by the state.
As for Kavips taking the fight to the bully that is the NRA, I think he is getting as overheated as I did when I declared that all Rethugs should be round up and shot. But the normal reaction to a bully is to fight back, that is, unless you are Congressional Democrats.
the “clever” name of HB 357:
Long Title: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 29 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO LIMITING THE AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC BODIES TO REGULATE ARMS.
Synopsis: This new chapter is intended to address the banning of possession of firearms by certain governmental agencies and entities of the State. Currently, several housing agencies in this state have adopted policies of evicting or threatening to evict law abiding tenants from their homes merely for the otherwise lawful possession of firearms for self-defense. This practice constitutes discrimination based on economic circumstances leaving these residents at the mercy of criminals.
FWI
HB 356 is about school bus driver training
HB 358 is about requiring front and rear plates on autos
HB 69 – Protection of certain sexual acts
HB 419 – Increases penalties for Internet-based scams
HB 420 – Legalization of marijuana
HB 666 – Prohibits taxpayer funding of intolerant religious groups
NRA will win in the end. They have won every suit like this across the country, get used to it liberal gun haters.
Can I call you a Nazi Gun Lover?
Why, yes. Yes I can.
Nazis took the guns. They were gun haters too.
Unsurprisingly, you miss my point, which of course speaks to your lack of intelligence.
I am not a liberal gun hater. I could care less if hunters want to hunt with guns. I could care less if your average law abiding sane citizen wants to own a gun for whatever reason.
You would know that if you grew up and actually read my posts instead of childish name calling. But since you engage in name calling without any truth, two can play that game.
Nanny Nanny Boo Boo.
HB 358 is about requiring front and rear plates on autos
They can have my front plate when they pry it off my cold dead car.
Hahaha! Yes, where will my Philadelphia Eagles plate go?
The front plate thing is all about automatic scanning. There is now technology to record the number and location of every passing car; these scanners can be mounted on police cars or fixed points, and the data from multiple scanning points merged into a central database. I guess location tracking with EZpass and cell phone wasn’t enough.
Thanks for the paranoid nutbag take.
Paranoid, lol
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2005/06/67864
http://www.digitalsignagetoday.com/article.php?id=23033
Interesting, isn’t it, that kavips advocated teh murder of NRA officials and their families and even gave the home address of at least one of them.
What would you say if the Tea party folks did anything remotely similar?
Indeed, what have you said when the more extreme element of the pro-life movement did that with abortionists?
They have done exactly that and more you dummy. Jeez you are stupid.
Anyway, Kavips is clearly not “advocated teh murder of NRA officials” but imagining the range of possible outcomes of NRA actions. Outcomes, that the NRA itself would allow, are perfectly legitimate.
Hiring hitmen is an outcome the NRA calls legitimate? Murdering children of political enemies is an outcome that the NRA calls legitimate? Kidnapping is an outcome the NRA calls legitimate? Care to document such charges, Jason?
And Jason, yes he did clearly auggest the murder of NRA officials and their children because the NRA uses the courts of the United States to defend the lawful possession and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
But what if… hmmm… what if…. ahhhh… there was some way to cost the NRA something each time they “threatened to file a lawsuit” …. Maybe something that was beyond the law…. hmmm…
Let’s say a European was contracted to “ice” some of their high ranking officers, or even better, hit ‘em where it hurts… their families.. I wonder what would happen if we woke up tomorrow and saw this “just out of random” headline, Christopher Cox, 11250 Waples Mill Road , Fairfax, Virginia, was killed by unknown gunman… Walking out to get his mail, he never returned. Family found him dead by bullet to back of head”. If you are resourceful enough, you can guess exactly where the gunmen hid while waiting for his arrival….
Or how about this headline…. Funeral services for the child of John Hohenwarter were held privately in a closed session; the public was not invited nor allowed to attend….
Or how about seeing this in the news… Andrew Jennison is still listed as a missing person… Anyone with knowledge of or a recent siting, is urged to call their local authorities with any information… He was last seen leaving his house for work at his usual time, but never showed up at his employers. He was first reported missing last Monday…
Now each of these persons was licensed to carry a concealed weapon… (They also were all licensed to do something else)…. But in each of these cases, their faith in their right to carry a gun, was just that. faith. Effective? That I think would be up for debate.
That is how you take the fight to the NRA. Make them live in with the same stresses and fears that those living in public housing face everyday. Make them look over their shoulders every minute of their existence. Make them fear for their lives, because somewhere out there there’s a crazy…. someone who wants to kill them, who has a gun and you know, thanks to the NRA, there is nothing anyone can do about it…
Kavips post was very Hal Turner-like. Maybe Kavips is now an FBI informant being paid to bring out the crazies like Turner was.
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/fbi-paid-racist-shock-jock-hal-turner-in-excess-100000/
I think we read that bill wrong. It is my understanding the bill is to correct the unconstitutionality by Housing “Authorities” who have for decades banned guns in public housing. Regardless of where a US citizen lives “you have a consitutional right to bear arms”. So it appears this bill is about correcting the anti consitutional housing authorities. I am shocked that Jack Markell would support an anti consitutional piece of legislation, but then he is an avid gun control advocate.
I’m really not wanting to get into this–but I gotta say from the outset, it always sat in the back of my mind, that guns aren’t allowed in dorms, and I’m real grateful for that. I would suppose, not so much in Delaware, but in other states–state schools w/ dorms are essentially a form of public housing—where to from here?
The people housed by the housing authority don’t have enough personal responsibility to provide shelter for themselves or their families. How can they possibly be responsible enough to own a firearm?
Comment by h. on 8 March 2010 at 11:48 am:
The people housed by the housing authority don’t have enough personal responsibility to provide shelter for themselves or their families. How can they possibly be responsible enough to own a firearm?
Or decide whether or where to go to church without government intervention. Which other civil liberties of theirs would you restrict?
I think that it is indefensible to say that people in public housing cannot have guns. Those are their homes. At a dorm, it is not really a permanent residence, so perhaps there is some wiggle room there.
However, the idea of removing the restrictions from schools, daycares, etc. are a step too far.
I like wiggle room. People keep guns in their hotel rooms though, and that’s not permanent. And what about shelters–some are govt. run?
I suspect that you could forbid people from carrying weapons in a hotel room. Shelters would likely be the same way. Dunno, that may need to be fleshed out a little.
It’s so simple. Guns kill.
Comment by carl on 8 March 2010 at 5:00 pm:
It’s so simple. Guns kill.
So do cars, hot dogs, and banana peels. Let’s ban them all!
And then we’ll follow it up with an abortion ban, since not only do the babies get killed, but so do some of the women getting them.
Rhymey …. that one went right over your head.
h. “people in housing authortities don’t have…blah blah! Who the hell died and made you boss? People are out of work, no jobs some have lost their homes (foreclosures are rampant)! Are you saying because of no fault of your own, you find yourself in public housing, but “must leave your gun behind”? What idiocy! Ever been in a public housing project? Ever talked to the people who live there? These people arent just ‘bums’down on their luck, some are in wheel chairs because of a physical impairment. You telling me that I in a wheelchair, and in my right mind, can’t have a gun to protect myself? Maybe the real problem here is just racism. Maybe you don’t want poor blacks, whites and hispanics not to have a gun? But YOU, you have a right? The Consitution is not selective, it does not state who can or who can carry firearms. WE ALL have the right to bear arms if we choose.
Sometimes the Left wrap their brains around some utopian ideal. We live in one of the most violent, corrupt nations in the world. I want my gun in case I need it. Sorry, I don’t want ONLY the extreme right wing zealots to own guns…what stupidity.
My father used to say, “the only reason some nut who has become President hasnt come after the citizens is because they don’t know how many guns we have”. When he said that, Nixon was presidunce.
Joanne: Sorry, wherever I sleep whether my private home, a hotel or a tent….I have the right to have a gun if I choose. Some of you libs need to re-read the Constitution and decide whether you stand on the Constitution or do you want to make up the law as you go along.
JK–OK–but we’re still discussing this I think….dorms, shelters,group homes….like geek said—-just fleshing it out–no need to go all cowboy yet. This is far reaching impact—and bullets reach further.
And JK, if you come to spend the night at my house, you leave the gun in your trunk or you find other accommodations. My house, my rules. In this case the home is owned by “the people” so your rights should stay intact.
JK gets to keep his gun while he is in the hospital recovering from shooting himself. He gets to keep his gun while on board airplanes (provided he takes a nap). The Constitution sez so. Look it up.
So wait–this must mean, we can have guns in jail, because not all inmates are felons right?