Posted on 12/14/2012 7:58:34 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
There is NO Guilt by Association on the part of gun owners. Punish killers not law abiding citizens. If you still insist upon associated guilt you socialists and Marxists are the most blood thirsty and murderous people that have ever existed on the planet. So...lets take your guns away then we will have peace in the world. That will really save lives. Right? Idiots
I’m waiting for the companion story about Steve Cook giving up his guns to set an example for everyone else.
Only a union goon or politician (or those who blindly vote for and follow them) could equate disarming someone against violence for protecting them from violence.
Mark
When was the last time that muslim or arab terrorists massacred children at an Israeli school? Oh yes, that was BEFORE the teachers were armed!
How many armed good guys were at the school in Beslan before the attack? ZERO!
Mark
Michigan does have the terrible Bath bombings in its history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
One psycho, three bombs, more than 58 injured and 38 dead, most of them between 7-11 years old. Far worse than Columbine.
NO guns were involved.
Michigan does have the terrible Bath bombings in its history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
One psycho, three bombs, more than 58 injured and 38 dead, most of them between 7-11 years old. Far worse than Columbine.
NO guns were involved.
No one talks about people on psychotropic drugs for emotional and behavioral problems. That is the common denominator of these shooter/suicides. These shooters have emotional problems and were suppose to control it with meds. Problem is the meds did not work and social stress sets these killers off. Solution is if you have a history of emotional problems that require meds to prevent violent behavior, then you should be institutionalized and not left wandering the streets or living amongst us. This act alone will eliminate most of the random violence, homicides and suicides that headline our news everyday. The NYC subway pusher several weeks ago was a loon, the guy who shot two people at a mall before he shot himself was a loon, and this school shooter I will bet is also a loon.
"The kids today weren't murdered because someone had a gun. They were murdered because the guy with the gun knew he could kill them with impunity."
"If the first responder is not a hall or a room away, but minutes away, after more minutes have elapsed, while people get enough presence of mind to call ... and even more minutes go by trying to determine just where the shooter is ... then the shooter will believe he will have all the time he needs to do a lot of damage."
After Sept. 11, 2001, I tried to get a friend who has a lot of clout in local politics, to bring to the attention of the local gov't and school administrators, that retired or semi-retired former military and police officers as well as well-trained volunteers, ought to be posted at all 4 corners of every school, in whatever shift changes could be arranged, if only such a presence occurred sporadically, it would at least increase the odds of defending the kids.
Occasionally, since then, I broach the topic.
Nobody is interested. They refuse to get their minds around the problem; they refuse to study the problem; the problem of self defense.
They are *obsessed* with *not* thinking about, what to do about self defense within their lives. They *DO NOT* want the responsibility.
For you or I to accept our duty, stand up and in between the innocent and some perp/threat coming down a hallway, exposes those people who refuse to stand up.
They resent you and your performance when the chips are down, in the line of fire, in situations that call upon your duty as a citizen.
They resent you because they are most often focused upon how they are perceived, how they might appear in their social circles, right on up to, and thru, and after, your thoughts are not about you, but are prepared to do your duty, and then doing your duty, and after, should you survive to endure the aftermath.
There is no badge that makes a person safe from a weapon.
There is no yellow paint stripe that makes a person safe from the oncoming cars.
You know, that you must stand up, because if you do not, the animalism in people trending bad-ly ... will sense vulnerability and attack.
*You* get that, vulnerability.
Yet vulnerability has been outlawed by the leftist, nationalizing socialists.
Because, if there *is* vulnerability, then you have a right to protect against it.
To erase your right to protect your family and home and community, your vulnerability to animalism must first be erased.
*That* is what liberal dogma does; it diminishes your sovereignty by which you have the right to act ... *and* ... that absolves the weak and timid liberal mind from having any duty to stand up.
In a nut shell, for them to not feel inferior and even guilty about failing to stand up, they must have control over you, in order to prevent you from standing up.
Is every labor union official lacking common sense? (rhet)
If potential shooters of people in schools or churches KNOW that there will likely be people in those places who are carrying, they would most likely change their plans to shoot the places up... unless they were like this Adam Lanza who planned on dieing in advance.
I don’t know much about this, but is autism generally considered a violent condition?
Autism can be a violent disorder. Remember, autistic adults are not retarded. They have development problem due to their brain deprived of proper sensory. They still have needs and frailties of human beings. Male autistic children can grow up and become violent because they have needs and it cannot be met. Example, they may develop attraction to a good looking girl, but the girl rebuffs his advances, it can end up with violence because he never had a chance to develop skills on romance and rejection. Approximately 10 percent of elderly parents are beaten by grown autistic children under their care. Some are even beaten to death. Autistic adults are not like the movie “Rain Man” who is eccentric and funny at times. Grown autistic kids especially males can be aggressive and violent. Usually the behavior is contained by medication. It is a growing problem as more and more children are born autistic in the US. Eventually they will grow up and over power their elderly parents.
“Male autistic children can grow up and become violent because they have needs and it cannot be met.”
I was wondering if he somehow blamed the little kids at the school from “taking his mom away from him for hours at a time”. Would fit in with mom not being able to meet his needs (regardless of her job, etc.).
The 20-year old was familiar with that school because his mother worked there,
I'm so very pissed off. Just damn.
The first thing the communists do after seizing power is to disarm the populace.
We need a ban on communists in the Federal Government.
The degenerate communist union bosses are pissed that their membership has been freed from compulsory withholding of union dues , thats what this is about and nothing else.
That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.
As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.
We are getting ready to hit the CPUSA and the American communist movement so hard that they wont have time to crawl back under the rocks they came out from.
No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments, and the unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national level.
If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.
There’s nothing patently illegal about the next GOP POTU issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision
Its stupid to allow the Communists to use the same mechanism (witholding) the Federal apparatus uses to fund itself.
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) 381 U.S. 437
UNITED STATES v. BROWN. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 399. Argued March 29, 1965. Decided June 7, 1965.
Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.
(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.
(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.
(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.
(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.
(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, “shorthand” expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.
(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 ,which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.
(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.
334 F.2d 488, affirmed.
Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.
Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a union’s access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union’s officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]
Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with “knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504.” It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .
Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pro-union-activist-michigan-governor-well-be-your-daughters-soccer-game_666554.html
"The union president offered the condolences of the Michigan Education Association’s members and said, “I am a gun owner and avid outdoorsman, but something must be done to protect our children from such acts of violence.”
Brilliant. One union member expresses condolences for the children at the school shooting, and another union member threatens the Governors child. Effing retards.
Hey, Teacher’s Union
Leave My Guns Alone! (little Pink Floyd to start the convo)
Dear Teacher’s Union of my state:
Don’t blame the guns and the whackos completely. While you have been getting raises and more days off, our classrooms go without emergency exits. Our schools are not secured (I can just walk into any one of my grandkids schools, no one checks me out). Our kids and their teachers go without active shooter training and drills. So you just shut the hell up! Oh, and dude? You’ll probably be hearing about that crazy old grandma who paid visits to some schools in Michigan and DEMANDED to know what the schools plan to do in case of an active shooter. You’ll hear that she did a walk-thru of the school, pointing out the different ways a shooter can not only get around, but take advantage of the “lock-down” method. You’ll be hearing from a lot of us. Get ready, it’s gonna get hot in your seat!
did the mother belong to the teacher’s union?
No idea. She did not work at that school. Union has nothing to do with this, and should shut the hell up about it, unless the union starts saying proactive things, like “we’re going to teach defense, we’re going to press for more security, etc.” This guy just thought “oh, great, another opportunity to stick it to the gun owners”, right when our state is considering making our gun-free zones exempt for CPL holders.
Yes Einstein, as a teacher, and the first line of defense "for the children" You need to shoot the bad guys.
The teachers aren't helpless victims. If they are, they have no business being responsible for the lives of our children. Same goes for bus drivers.
Obviously your stupid liberal words on a piece of paper don't stop killers from practicing their craft.
“One suspects there have been more shooting in schools than in say, police precincts.”
Yes, if guns don’t prevent gun violence, why aren’t shooters going into police stations?
Talking logic to a liberal is like trying to persuade a pretzel to undo itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.