Skip to comments.Rally For Gun Background Checks Quickly Becomes Pro-Gun Event (Mayors Against Illegal Guns)
Posted on 08/31/2013 11:38:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
COLUMBUS, Ohio - It was a rally organized by gun-control supporters, but by the end, it looked more like an NRA rally.
"As a gun owner, I'm a responsible person and I think it's responsible to ask to have all gun owners have a background check," said Blanche Luczyk. "It's just common sense. Any responsible person who is willing to take the ownership of a gun should be willing to have that background check."
Luczyk was one of a half dozen members of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns who hosted the rally in the Arena District on Friday.
But when Luczyk started her speech by telling the crowd that former President Ronald Reagan supported background checks, she was drowned out by shouts of "Germany 1933" and "Hitler."
About 50 guns-rights supporters were on hand, some with rifles over their shoulders and others with handguns in hip holsters.
Charlie Roberts said he was there to make sure that gun rights advocates had their voices heard.
"I want to show my support for the NRA, gun rights and the 2nd Amendment," said Roberts. "We need to go after the criminals who commit crimes with guns and not the honest law abiding citizens. We dont need any new laws, just enforce the ones on the books."(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at 10tv.com ...
Cool. We ought to own those events.
I have said it before and I’ll say it again, Ohio is strongly pro-second amendment and politicians ignore that reality at their own peril.
“I want to show my support for the NRA, gun rights and the 2nd Amendment,” said Roberts. “We need to go after the criminals who commit crimes with guns and not the honest law abiding citizens. We dont need any new laws, just enforce the ones on the books.”
Be very careful what you wish for. Enforcing bad law is just what governments are in love with. Bad law is every unconstitutional law that turns the second amendment on it’s head in direct violation of “shall not be infringed”. The NRA is not my friend when it comes to gun law.
But when Luczyk started her speech by telling the crowd that former President Ronald Reagan supported background checks, she was drowned out by shouts of "Germany 1933" and "Hitler."I hope none of those 2nd amendment chest pounding dimwits are never confronted by dimmer wits that SHOULD have had a background check.
Obama ignores that reality and Ohio went for not only in 2008, but again in 2012. What gives????!!!!
went for him....
No, Obama reassured everyone for 5 straight years that he wasn’t interested in their guns and then he showed his true colors once he was safely into his second term as we all knew he would. 2008 was largely a referndum on the Iraq war and the economic crash which Republicans were succesfully blamed for. We did fire our Democratic Governor and replaced him with Republican John Kasich however. All that being said, Ohio is not a single issue state and our elections typically boil down to urban versus rural voters. If the Republican candidate doesn’t motivate rural voters and the democratic candidate doesn’t scare them enough, the Democrat will win. I think rural Ohio voters are sufficiently scared of the democratic party at this point, We just need a Republican that can motivate them now.
Because not being vocal in the face (literally and figutatively) of rights-grabbing politicians has worked out so well for California? What, exactly, are you criticizing here?
You realize what these pols are calling for is de facto registration, right?
There are two ways you can get ‘free’ cheese. One if from the Government; the other is from a mousetrap. Same difference.
Our natural right to bear arms is affirmed by the US Constitution. We do not need government’s approval of or conditions thereto ownership. Our government long ago ceased being protector of our rights. These mayors are proof positive of that.
I was just coming here to post this. Love it!
One sign said “Bloomberg Swallows”
He certainly does suck!
AlaskaErik wrote “What gives????!!!!”
AE, this is what gives, in OH. The vote across the state is very highly controlled by the vote in four key areas; Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and (to a lesser extent) Dayton. If you look at a voting results map of OH, 2012, you will very clearly see the demarcation. Those metros ALL voted heavily for Zero. In some precincts, more votes were cast for the 0bamunists than there were registered voters.
Look at the rest of the state, though, and you see the conservative voices.
Those of us in the ‘non-metro’ areas (some might even say ‘rural’) still vote on principle, stand up for freedom, and very clearly support and defend the Constitution as written and intended by the Founders.
We are out here. And, we are ready. Many of us, however, are unable to attend rallies and such through the week so that we can continue to subsidize the lazy gasbags who would have us all kowtow to Washington.
Same story here in PA. MOST of the state is red, with the obvious exception being Philly and Pittsburgh and the suburbs surrounding them. One additional downside for us though is that we get the NY/NJ commuters who live here and commute. That sucks for us.
My friends in Cuba used to say the same things about Fidel.
This is the main reason they don’t publicize their events far in advance.
It’s all in secret, through last minute email....because, you know, that is how the world works/s
Post from the comments section:
If there were background checks at the time of the founding of this nation, the Founding Founders would have been rounded up and executed with that information.
Agree. No free man should be restricted or registered. Any man too dangerous to own a gun is a man too dangerous to walk the street.
I would suggest that some of whom you speak might even seek out jobs related to arms, such as police, military, government alphabet bureaucracies, National Guard, Drug gangs, Street gangs, “the mob”, and since it is just about impossible to know just who is “too dangerous” God created the second amendment.
We the people are the ultimate protector of human rights enumerated in that God Blessed document and Government is the fox in the hen house attempting to strip us of the means of protection, while acting as something other than the furry long nosed critter with four legs and a very bushy tail that will see to it that no chickens survive.
Amen and Amen.
he he he he he he he he he he he he.........................
shall not be infringed means just that.
I don’t believe most of us have a problem with background checks, what we have a problem with is having our name on a list in Government hands that underlines our names and says this man has a gun.
We have watched and we are not stupid. We know that the end game with these gun grabbers is confiscation. Getting a background check is almost the same as registering a weapon. They know you have it because they have your name. From the background check.
Only honest people apply for a background check, those criminals who use guns get them from theft, or off the street from other criminals. When a background check shows that you are a veteran, smoked marijuana, got a traffic ticket or spit on a sidewalk and then you are refused a gun, that is why we oppose background checks. That and the fact that check is recorded and tell the Government where gun owners are—setting you up for confiscation.
You are the dimmest wit of all. I hope you never learn the hard way of what it would be like to be confronted by a known, illegally armed adversary that wished you harm as your application for a legal firearm languished in a forgotten file.
If one must get government permission to buy a gun, a Right becomes a government granted privilege. Get it?
Constitutionally ignorant gunphobes should be required to get government permission prior to posting their opinions.
There should be zero gun laws. Commit a crime with a gun, and get a minimum of 50 years.
If people cannot be trusted to own a gun, then why are they walking the streets?
“I dont believe most of us have a problem with background checks, what we have a problem with is having our name on a list in Government hands that underlines our names and says this man has a gun.”
I you were to say, someone who is so unstable as to be a danger to society needs to be on a funny farm then we might have common ground.
To have just a background check for a constitutionally protected right and allow defective humans to drive a car or operate heavy machinery, or provide us with editorial comments in our news papers or other media OR TO BE POLITICIANS then it is not common sense.
The people who can do the most damage are not gun owners but POLITICIANS and lawyers and they need yearly background checks up the wazoo.
When law abiding gun owners start killing more people than our government I will support your position. Until then NO!
Because not being vocal in the face (literally and figutatively) of rights-grabbing politicians has worked out so well for California?You have no idea what you're talking about. Nor do you have a clue why Ca. politics is the way it is.
This website and it's founder are IN California
You gave us Jimmy Carter we gave you Ronald Reagan.
Criminals will be able to find guns even if the law abiding are stupid enough to submit to the government being able to determine who actually gets to have the rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendmentWhy stop there? Why not end the requirement for federally licensed gun dealers?
shall not be infringed means just that.Some of you people aren't too bright if you think federally licensed gun dealers are only here for you to buy guns.
There's an obsolete form (they added "White Hispanic" to the race question (I kid you not)) HERE.
I’m an Army brat, that was before my time in GA. It’s a ridiculous deflection in any case.
We have excellent firearms laws in GA, relative to the rest of the nation.
And you didn’t answer my question - you realize what these pols are calling for is de facto registration, right?
Constitutionally ignorant gunphobesWoo another paranoid constitutional scholar posting their ignorance on who is or isn't a gun owner.
You are the dimmest wit of all. I hope you never learn the hard way of what it would be like to be confronted by a known, illegally armed adversary that wished you harm as your application for a legal firearm languished in a forgotten file.By "illegally armed" do you mean "illegal" because they acquired a gun without government approval?
I don't know if that's called contradictory or hypocrisy.
Im an Army brat, that was before my time in GA. Its a ridiculous deflection in any case.Not any more than your pathetic attempt at 'look at me, I hate California too' comment.
I have no problem with background checks. What I object to is tagging the firearm to the background check data. If I am allowed to own a firearm there is no reason for anyone other than the manufacturer to know the serial number. And that’s only so they can uphold their guarantee with the original owner.
I agree, why not indeed. Our nation was much safer when we could order machineguns through the mail. The NFA is blatantly unconstitutional as are virtually all arms control laws.
Then let’s go back to the beginning.
You are advocating knuckling under to a rotten new firearms law. Fact.
You may or may not understand fully understand the “why” on this. Fact.
You certainly haven’t answered my question about this. Fact.
Before you knuckle under to new rights-limiting legislation, you should at least fully understand what you are giving up. I do not get the impression that you do, at all.
I’m not the only one here who feels similarly about this, based on some of the other posts in the thread.
"As a gun owner, I'm a responsible person and I think it's responsible to ask to have all gun owners have a background check," said Blanche Luczyk. "It's just common sense. Any responsible person who is willing to take the ownership of a gun should be willing to have that background check."Oh, no -- because if you're forced to have a background check, and are a foreign-born jihadist, that's just racial profiling so they'll get a waiver.
You're right - it would be the paid professionals and astroturf bunch against conservative free citizens. We would win every time...
Yes, and it’s what has been sadly lacking IMO.
We simply don’t organize good enough.
You beat me to the punch.
You are correct. There are a lot of bad gun laws where, Constitutionally, there should be none.
Asking the police to enforce current laws is a can of worms we should not open, especially since
the qualification standards have been lowered into the basement for LEOs.
Leftist legislators have ignored Amendment the Second for far too long, as if they don’t understand
the plain English words, “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Thank you for the ping, Whenifhow.
Amen. The Won used massive, country-wide, big-city voter fraud to “win” both presidential elections, but he had
practice from his campaign in Chicago to “win” his senate seat with a lot of mud-slinging and outright lies thrown in
about his opponent.
He’s a mannikin, an empty suit, and he definitely has handlers and bosses, all of whom hate us and our country.
This plum, America, got ripe, and they’re in the business of plucking it and making a pie for themselves to consume.
And our Conservative champions have been dropping like flies ever since President Reagan passed away.
Actually, quite a lot of us have a problem with any kind of background check. The Travons of the world don't have to ask the government for permission to own a gun. Why should I?
Indeed. Why not? We could abolish the BATFags while we were at it. This country would be a better place without both.