There's Something About Mary: Unmasking a Gun Lobby Mole
NEWS: Mary McFate was a prominent gun control activist. Mary Lou Sapone was a freelance spy with an NRA connection. They are the same person. A Mother Jones investigation.
July 30, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
This is the story of two Marys. Both are in their early 60s, heavyset, with curly reddish hair. But for years they have worked on opposite ends of the same issues. Mary McFate is an advocate of environmental causes and a prominent activist within the gun control movement. For more than a decade, she volunteered for various gun violence prevention organizations, serving on the boards of anti-gun outfits, helping state groups coordinate their activities, lobbying in Washington for gun control legislation, and regularly attending strategy and organizing meetings.
Mary Lou Sapone, by contrast, is a self-described "research consultant," who for decades has covertly infiltrated citizens groups for private security firms hired by corporations that are targeted by activist campaigns. For some time, Sapone also worked for the National Rifle Association.
But these two Marys share a lot in common—a Mother Jones investigation has found that McFate and Sapone are, in fact, the same person. And this discovery has caused the leaders of gun violence prevention organizations to conclude that for years they have been penetrated—at the highest levels—by the NRA or other pro-gun parties. "It raises the question," says Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "of what did she find out and what did they want her to find out."
Using her maiden name, McFate, Sapone began posing as a gun control activist in the mid-1990s. Bryan Miller, the executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey, a grassroots gun control group, recalls first meeting her in the summer of 1998. The NRA was holding its annual convention in downtown Philadelphia, and the event drew the usual bevy of protesters. Among them was a middle-aged woman then living in Pennsylvania who made a point of introducing herself to Miller. In the following years, Miller would remember this encounter well, as he watched McFate rise from a street protester to a figure known nationally within his movement. She became a leader of Pennsylvanians Against Handgun Violence and later a board member of Ceasefire Pennsylvania. According to staffers at several gun violence prevention groups, she worked on the Million Mom March in 2000, when hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in Washington, DC, to demand stricter gun laws. She joined the board of Freedom States Alliance, a network of nine state-based gun control organizations. At States United to Prevent Gun Violence, a nationwide coalition of anti-gun groups, she was the director of federal legislation, an unpaid position that placed her in charge of the outfit's lobbying efforts in Washington. In that role, she collaborated with national organizations including the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center.
In 2005, McFate ran for a board position at the Brady Campaign, which would have placed her in the inner sanctum of the nation's most prominent gun control group. On her ballot statement, she described herself as a "community activist and motivational speaker," "a former presidential scholar," and a recipient of the "Public Service Council's Community Champion Award in 1999." And she pitched her credentials for the position: "I believe my volunteerism over 30 years to nonprofit organizations with disparate program goals has given me practical insights on what strategies are most effective…My experience with broad coalitions working together for societal change has proven to me that our organization is on the right track to make our neighborhoods safer and to give our children their full life potential."
McFate lost the election, but she did not give up. Several months ago, she told Paul Helmke that she was interested in an appointed board position for the Brady Campaign. (Helmke recalls that he was concerned about placing her on his board because she was already deeply connected to other groups. "I didn't push the idea," he says.) In 2007, she attended a summit convened by the International Association of Chiefs of Police that aimed to develop a strategy for reducing gun violence. As an advocate working with both state and national groups, she was privy to the gun control movement's community's internal deliberations and in a position to know what was happening throughout the movement. "She's been active in everything and involved in every single major gun violence prevention organization," says Barbara Hohlt, executive director of States United to Prevent Gun Violence.
Despite her supposed commitment to the cause, her friends and colleagues in the gun control community considered McFate something of a curiosity. Among other things, she had a tendency to drop in and out of contact, explaining away her absences by saying she had been vacationing aboard luxury cruise liners. When the Brady Campaign's communications director, Paul Hamm, occasionally asked her to talk to the media about gun issues, she adamantly refused. "I would say, 'Please, Mary.' She would say, 'No, no, no, I don't want to.'"
Looking back, gun control advocates who worked with McFate can now see what might have been faint warning signs. A few weeks ago, Hohlt says, she had what she considered an odd encounter with McFate when the pair was making preparations to take part in a conference call with other gun control advocates. Rather than face a long-distance charge for the call, McFate, who lives in Florida but was in New York City at the time, insisted on dropping by the offices of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence to participate in the discussion. Given that McFate appeared to be well off financially—she was always offering to travel to meetings and conferences, including NRA conferences, with no concern for cost—Hohlt couldn't understand why she was demanding to come to this office for the call just to save a few bucks. Nor could she fathom why McFate often pushed to share a hotel room with other gun control advocates at conferences and events when she seemed able to afford accommodations of her own. Hohlt also thought it unusual that McFate served on the boards of several organizations simultaneously, since there was, as Hohlt puts it, "a certain amount of competition between all the groups." But she never doubted McFate's devotion to gun control.
Next page: "She had access to all the legislative strategy for every major issue for years."
Photo from Mary McFate's blog.

They already had been, long before Mary came along to rub their easily duped noses in it.
That's why they believe what they believe in the first place, and nothing like Facts will ever make a dent in "The Faith".
Our Constitution is hanging by a thread under the Bush/Cheney regime. This is certainly no time to be blathering about gun control! Wake-up!!!
Just as the Bruce Falconer "Semi-Automatic For the People" aka: "Bush to Cops - Drop Dead" article proves the same about the gun control lobby.
At least Mary wasn't passing off misinformation, hyperbole and downright lies to the public, calling it "Journalism".
Did she do anything (demonstrably) illegal? Can these gun control groups file criminal or civil charges?
When was the last time civilians with guns won their "freedom" from a tyranical government?
Happened in the USA as recently as 1946.
Read and learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Why does Mary Lou hate America so much? Snark, snark
I just really fail to understand how business can consider themselves ethical and/or good for this nation and its people if they do thes type of things just to protect their bottom line. It would seem to me that the issue really lies in the power with which groups and business who hire the likes of Mary Lou feel they need to use operatives to gather information which keeps them in business. IF Americans want change and we ask our businesses and communites/governments to change then what does it mean to the public to find out that all of our efforts were for not because some intelligence gathering and back room meetings decided the future that we will have ot live with.
Allow people to buy all the guns they want. Make ammunition illegal.
Sure.
It's bound to work at least as well as making heroin & marijuana illegal.
Work well at making millionaires out of criminals willing to deal in an illegal article, that is.
Prohibition ALWAYS works.
Just not the way the proponents BELIEVE it's going to work.
If you can illustrate that the seven shootings (or even ONE of them) were committed with guns legally bought and held in DC AFTER the S.C. ruling, I'll eat my pistol grips.
What I'm trying to imply is that the Nazi death camps and Pol Pot's reign of terror do NOT happen to generally well armed populations.
I AM impressed!
If you see her, go ahead and try it.
I'm bettin' she's packin'.
And I'm bettin' you're a big-mouthed panzy hiding safely behind his keyboard and monitor.
What gun do you have to stand up to the US military? That is a complete joke.
Only 992 years till Y3K!
"Firearms are a necessary check-and-balance against tyrannical governments.
Our Constitution is hanging by a thread under the Bush/Cheney regime. This is certainly no time to be blathering about gun control! Wake-up!!! "
The people who hire them must be stopped. These are the people who make more money than God, and nothing is beyond their ability to pay for anything they want. Ethics is for suckers.
All the pro gun comments here are idiotic, Its Perfectly Obvious et al are just proto Jim D. Adkissons, looking for some gay unitarians to beat up on.
And the guy threatening violence needs to be banned.
PS they cant confiscate your guns, the supreme court ruled on it, so stf about hitler.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.
So they used National Guard weapons and ammunition. How does this bolster your argument?
I'd refer you to that cause celebre of the left known as the Spanish Civil War. Sure, Franco won in the end - but it took him a while. It would have been a lot quicker with sticks and stones though.
Me, protecting my family and home is paramount, as I know in civil insurrection (riot), the government will not be there for me. Any one who believes otherwise is a fool, who didn't see what happened in the Watts riots.
And yes a few handguns will do that job nicely.
"Shocked to learn that McFate was a spy, gun control advocates have pondered the obvious questions:...To whom in the gun lobby did she report? The NRA? The firearms manufacturing industry?"
Do you recall what the original question was?
"When was the last time civilians with guns won their "freedom" from a tyranical government?"
It didn't stipulate that all the guns used had to be owned by those who used them against tyrants.
They were "short of" guns, not "without" guns. So they went and got more and did what needed doing.
Our Revolution against England found us short of guns, too. So we took a lot of them from the Brits.
It's still citizens with guns, overthrowing tyrannical government, any way you slice it.
I think this supports the difference between the right and left. The left tends to be honest and work within the system while the right tends to use extremes, deceipt and violence.
Uh yeah, the populace needs guns to keep check on the government. Are you kidding? Do you have any idea what the US military and the US police forces have at their disposal? Have you seen the latest developements in crowd control? We wouldn't stand a chance if the military was used against the populace. The Zulu's had it better against British (or was it the Boers? don't remember). The point is the best weapons we could come up with wouldn't stand a chance against our current armed forces.
I believe in the right to bear arms. But the reason of standing against a corrupt or tyrannical government just doesn't work anymore.
You can't stop people like this. No matter how much violence you promise them!
The people who hire them must be stopped. These are the people who make more money than God, and nothing is beyond their ability to pay for anything they want. Ethics is for suckers.
-Pheed Yirhed,
You would not be talking about the small / marginally profitable businesses that manufacture firearms, Would you?
Our Constitution is hanging by a thread under the Bush/Cheney regime. This is certainly no time to be blathering about gun control! Wake-up!!!
Posted by:Truth"
Yes, because your glock and a few rifles are going to do anything against a FREAKING TANK and BOMBERS. Idiot.
The reason why they can infiltrate OUR ranks is that we need volunteers and have open meetings, and because they have tons of money to throw at these things.
On the other hand, The People do not have extra time and money laying around to throw at covert operations....AND you cannot get into their world. There is no volunteering, no open meetings. There is only Assassin's Pay for the unconnected. For the connected there is the patronage system and nepotism.
Posted by Jason
Right. Like the men and women in the US Airforce are willingly going to bomb Omaha.
As if the US Army's tank divisions are going to flatten their parents homes in Cleveland.
Moron.
Seventh in a Series: The Rise of the Counterinsurgents
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/women-prominent-in
Gun control is an idiotic notion. Whatever laws get passed serve only to control and limit those of us who purchase firearms through the proper legal channels. It accomplishes nothing for those who seek to obtain weapons illegally.
It's just more short-sighted political posturing that does nothing but waste time and money.
We have far bigger problems facing our nation than gun control. Please get off this soapbox and focus on something relevant!
According to Bill Clinton's Justice Department, 108,000 times each year, armed citizens protect themselves from crimes. (though they admit that other studies yielded considerably higher estimates)
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Their statistics:
108,000 times per year.
296 times per day.
12 times per hour.
Once every 5 minutes.
But I guess that isn't important.
The conservatives in this thread are defending a criminal. Typical. Easily duped by George Bush all these years and they still refuse to see the light.
Are the Gun Banning groups afraid they might get caught doing something illegal?
A little sunshine is good for them.
This spy, as you call her, has done nothing illegal. She joined some group and reported what she found. There is nothing against the law in that.
How many McCain volunteers are really Obama spies?
Probably lots of them.
This is a non-story, except it is fun to read about these groups trying to get a leg up on the other. I'm sure Sarah Brady reads the NRA's monthly magazine and goes to their website regularly. If she doesn't, she's a fool.
On second thought, maybe she doesn't read their magazine.
Peacebuilding: A Global Imperative
It is essential that the United States, working with the international community, play an active part in preventing, managing, and resolving conflicts. Fragile states, ethnic and religious strife, extremism, competition for scarce resources and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction all pose significant challenges to peace. The resulting suffering and destabilization of societies make effective forms of managing conflict imperative. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) is dedicated to meeting this imperative in new and innovative ways.
Montgomery McFate
http://www.usip.org/specialists/bios/archives/mcfate.html
Nationbuilding, the way the US Gov't thinks your nation ought to be.
Bill Clinton ought to love it.
Note that we will find you even if you are wearing your aluminum foil beanies.
That is all.
I love it when whiners show up to pizz & moan about how the 4 million members of the NRA consistently outvote the other 142 Million voters in America.
Or that the 4 million members wield such enormous influence in government that the other 142 Million American voters can't overcome it.
Give that crap a rest. It just exposes you for the fools you are.
If it's worth doing, then it's worth doing right.
["Most most killings are of someone the gun owner knows."]
Gee... Wilbur, I wonder if most people murdered with knives aren't murdered by someone they know???
Or: I wonder if most people who are murdered aren't done in by someone they know???
All of Which proves All of What?
All our tanks, APCs and aircraft do little to defeat a lightly armed enemy in Iraq. Relatively small groups have routinely prevented our armed forces from asserting control over villages and cities, forcing our withdrawl.
In 1994 Rwanda was a "gun free zone". Did that help to protect the Tutsis?
It's 1960 and you're a poor African-American family in the South. Would you trust the local sheriff to protect you?
It's 1935 and you're a Jewish family in Poland... would it be it a good idea to leave your family's defense to the armed forces of your country?
Don't say it can't happen again. It can't happen here. We're safe now. Our freedome is complete and permanent. Liberty requires vigilance, because the forces that would crush it are always hungry.
1. I'm less worried that the NRA worked with this woman and more worried that corporations are hiring spies. Corporations are fast becoming more powerful than the government, something Abraham Lincoln and other national leaders of the past warned us against, and it seems like the right-wingers don't even care. Except they do, if you read their literature, as long as corporate attention is not focused on *them.*
2. Count me as another gun rights supporter and a... liberal? progressive? left-winger? I'm not sure what I am anymore, the libs are embarrassing me more and more. But here's the thing. A little consistency please. You think drug prohibition is a bad idea but you're for gun prohibition. You're for safer sex but you're not for teaching gun safety. I come from a rural family that taught its kids from an early age how to deal safely with guns. Look at the reports of gun violence between kids or just the accidents and you'll find a staggering majority of them happen among suburban and city kids. HM.
3. As for you gun nuts out there from the right wing: Want to know why I don't side with you? Because you use sexist slurs to describe people who want to ban guns. Excuse me, I'm a woman and pro-gun. You just alienated me. Great job there, troglodytes. This is why liberal men get laid and you don't. Try a little respect next time. Respect doesn't kill people. Irate armed feminist women kill people. But not as often as crazy armed men do.
The second amendment says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the preservation of the Free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The states have a responsibility to regulate gun ownership. Everyone in the U.S. should be born with the right to own a gun, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they get to keep that right. Gun ownership is a right AND a privilege. If you demonstrate irresponsibility, you should be stripped of that right.
Ex.: A child accidentally kills someone or themselves with their parents' gun. The parents demonstrated a lack of responsibility, so the state they live in has the right to take away their guns. Fair is fair.
"Corporations are fast becoming more powerful than the government, something Abraham Lincoln and other national leaders of the past warned us against, and it seems like the right-wingers don't even care. Except they do, if you read their literature, as long as corporate attention is not focused on *them.*"
That last sentence should read, "Except they do, if you read their literature, if corporate attention is focused negatively on *them.*"
Because the right-wingers could use a little logical and ethical consistency themselves, y'know? Right or left, we're all Americans here, and none of us benefit when corporations control our lives.
Start with checking some of the top dogs in the Democratic Party in Florida and you will find a Republican posing as a Democrat.
It's all really kind of wierd, because nobody seriously wants to disarm the American people. Their are plenty of Dems, like myself who own guns and support a reasonable interprtation of the 2nd Amendment. But yuou can't talk to any of these one issue folks. The irony is that if any American government tries to take away our liberty all indications point to it being a rightwing administration such as Nixon or Bush.
The problem with the Democratic leadership is they are too fainthearted to stand up to Republican bullies such as Bush and Cheney. Look for another stolen election.
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. (to be clear, the offender was armed)
Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005. (that's around 420,000 incidents)
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
According to the CDC:
In 2005, 30,694 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18–20), accounting for 17.7 percent of all injury deaths in 2005.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
Also that 108,000 number cited earlier, beside being a decade old, was cherry-picked out of the study. Researchers said the use of guns as protection is generally over-stated in surveys because of false-positives. Please read the study.
"Gun Nuts" know American history, and they know that is exactly how we came to BE America, and not the western edge of the British empire.
By standing up to the most powerful military machine the world had ever seen, with guns, and sending the surviving tyrants back to England.
I've read the study. Maybe you should.
Their comment about the 108,000 number was that DGU's (defensive gun uses) were "rare indeed", at 108,000 per year.
Their claim was that OTHER studies overstated the DGU's. But NOT Theirs!
If you've got more recent figures from the Justice department or FBI on Defensive Gun Uses anually, feel free to present them.
Thanks for playing!
**
Josh Sugarmann, the head of the Violence Policy Center's FFL number:
1-54-000-01-8C-00725
Mother Jones should call ATF and verify if they don't believe it.
His FFL is current, recently renewed- if the VPC/Brady group is so worried about dishonesty, then why do THEY have a federal firearms dealer's license?
Have they disclosed this information to their members? I just got done looking through their website and have found nothing mentioning this at all.
Also, one of the requirements of having an FFL is that you MUST conduct business with it- you can't simply get one then sit on it or use it for personal firearms.
This means that Josh Sugarmann must, by law, be engaged in the business of trafficking firearms. He is the leader of a non-profit, tax exempt organization, yet is legally bound to traffic weapons for a profit.
Mother Jones, how about some REALLY fearless journalism- check into the VPC's dealer license. Why are they, whose leader holds a gun dealer's license and is legally bound to engage in business with such license (call the ATF and ask them if you don't believe it, or check their web page on type 01 FFL's) trying to restrict citizens from owning weapons? Why do they have an FFL, and why do they hide this fact on their website?
Those who support this article and the VPC- how's that for hypocrisy? If he does NOT have the FFL for purposes of business, he is in violation of the laws governing federal firearms licensees, which falls under illegal gun trafficking. If he IS a practicing gun dealer, hiding that fact and leading the VPC/Brady group, then...how is that not deceptive on a very, very high level?
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a79/dritchie/SugarmannFFL.png
Yeah, your hunting rifle or magnum 44 can defeat all that!
Go to a local pawn shop and have them run the FFL number I posted above through the FFL EZ-Check system and see what pops up.
The VPC holding an FFL and hiding that fact while trying to "crack down" on guns sounds like a helluva lot better story than the one we're commenting on. Dunno about y'all.
Thats right, lets bring the conversation down to Hitler because not allowing people to have fully automatic weapons is so fascist. Having a waiting period to buy a handgun is so fascist. Doing background checks on gun buyers to make sure they're not fellons is so fascist.
Blocking such laws though is all about Freedom..... to kill
Plug this FFL number (Sugarmann's, head of the Violence Policy Center, cited in both this and Bruce Falconer's article)
1-54-000-01-8C-00725
Into this:
https://www.atfonline.gov/fflezcheck/
And viola! Hypocrisy (and possibly legal issues, since his holding an FFL for business purposes may put the VPC's tax free status at risk) stares you in the face.
With all that power, you better hope your government is benevolent towards its subjects! The well intentioned Socialist road to hell, we are now traveling, will lead to government that is tyrannical. There is no other outcome. You bet I will try to overthrow a government that pushes away my liberty to this extreme. You are right, I will probably die in such a fight, but I will have nothing but the burden of government to give to my children by then.
However, there must be regulations to keep handguns away from the mentally ill, criminals and excons (and repubs because they are are bat sh_it insane anyway). Get off your self righteous myopic high horses, you just look like complete idiots.
Support your rights and civil liberties, vote OBAMA in November.
How does it get anymore self righteous than the leading anti-gun group, one cited frequently by MoJo in articles, holding a license to deal in firearms as a business while hiding this information from its supporters AND trying to keep other Americans from getting such an FFL?
Check my posts above for proof.
Sorry, if someone tells me that owning a gun or being able to use one in self defense is a bad idea or that no one needs to be a gun dealer, then..well...why the heck would they hold a license to deal guns WHILE operating as a tax free non profit? Keep in mind that having a type 01 FFL (the type their head has) legally binds you to conduct business with that ffl. You must have business hours, must not conduct transactions solely for personal benefit and a slew of other things that make the VPC's "non proft" status questionable at best.
Who is being two faced and self righteous, given that information?
I think modern economics and weaponry have made the basic purpose of the 2nd amendment a bit less feasible, but, heck, you could say the same of the 4th and 5th in the face of modern surveillance equipment, and that doesn't implicitly repeal 'em.
The more relevant question would be "When will be the next time?" How ironic that the nut jobs with the same mind-set as the NRA are the ones who brought to power the dirt bags we now have to worry about defending ourselves against. Oh, BTW, why do these people believe that we Liberals don't own guns and don't know how to shoot?
But the idea that civilians owning weapons is going to stop the government from becoming totalitarian is downright absurd. That's because totalitarian regimes ARE ALWAYS POPULIST! What keeps us from falling into the same nightmares ourselves is our commitment to freedom AND open public discourse. Regimes become evil when they establish themselves based on deceit and fear, rather than open conversation; not when they out-gun the public.
Way to use new material. Double post for the win.
With due respect to The Lord Dark Helmet
This in a place where the lawful possession of operable firearms is limited to the Police.
So tell me how effective disarming law abiding citizens is in preventing these crimes.......
Posted by:Fed Up"]
So you're a participant in criminal violence then?
One more reason for LAW ABIDING citizens to have the means to defend themselves against criminals.
Sen. Diane Feinststein, a very anti-gun person, has or had a CCW and owned guns, plus has armed guards. Ditto for Sen. E. M. Kennedy (and some of his hired guards were busted in NY for illegal possession of fully automatic weapons). I believe Sen. Schumer has a CCW, and armed guards.
If guns are so evil, then why does just about everyone high in the anti-gun (really, anti-civil rights) industry have guns or thugs with guns? Seems like they should be setting an example by publicly renouncing their right and pledging that they will no longer have guns anywhere around them.
As far as the mole, why is it that leftist moles who infiltrate companies or conservative organizations are praised, but those from conservative groups who infiltrate socialist groups are condemned?
"Seven shootings in Washington on Monday night -- three dead. Possible connection with Supreme Court ruling?"
Makes a lot of sense...to an idiot.
Posted by:It's not important"]
I suggest you campaign against paddling pools, swimming pools & buckets, as "accidental" deaths of children involving these items are many times higher & usually from the same cause: plack of parental supervision.
Or how about deaths caused by motor vehicles?
Now THERE'S a preventable cause of many children's deaths that is many times higher than those caused by firearms.
NRA = Not Really America
NRA = Not Really America"]
Ah; a conspiracy theorist!
The reason the NRA is the most powerful non industry, lobbying organisation in the US is because so many citizens SUPPORT its actions.
That's called Democracy, or don't you believe in the principle?
This retired First Sergeant Paratrooper recalls kicking in doors in beautiful sunny Haiti and confiscating arsenals from the thugs living on the hills overlooking the lovely putrid city of Port-au-Prince. Remember this after the most ethical administration decided to enact a totally unconstitutional law banning "military style assault weapons." After the confiscated arsenals were turned over to the MPs, we NCO's and Officers asked, "Is this a dry run for operations against Americans?" We all to a man and woman sworn to up-hold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic stated, "That would be an illegal order and we could refuse to carry it out." AIRBORNE!
However, there must be regulations to keep handguns away from the mentally ill, criminals and excons (and repubs because they are are bat sh_it insane anyway). Get off your self righteous myopic high horses, you just look like complete idiots.
Posted by:nra sucks ballz
So you advocate the restrictions of citizens' Rights according to their political allegiance?
How very National Socialist of you....
I suggest you explore some of the 20,000+ laws regulating firearms in the US: There are more than enough aimed at preventing felons & the insane from having firearms.
Support your rights and civil liberties, vote OBAMA in November.
Posted by:nra sucks my ballz"]
I suggest you read some of the hyperbole & overstated rhetoric used by the VPC & other anti 2nd Amendment groups if you believe they don't want to disarm EVERYONE.
How about doyen of the VPC, Carolyn McCarthy's "Mr & Mrs America, turn them all in" statement on firearms.
Dear boy: PLEASE do some research before pontificating upon a subject on which you patently have little, if any knowledge.
Thank you NRA for sticking up for our Civil Rights!
While you're at it, why not read the Bill of Rights. We'd all be up in arms (pun intended) if our posts were covered with "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(TEXT CENSORED BY U.S. GOVT.)" yet to deny a fellow citizens natural right to self defense is somehow alright?
Think about it.
Posted by:John"]
I'm well qualified to reply to this, as I'm English & live in the UK.
We have DOUBLE the violent crime rate of the US & FOUR TIMES the number of "hot" home invasions on a pro rata basis.
IF banning the lawful possession of handguns is a such a good idea, then why do we see so many shootings using them in the UK?
I throw down a challenge to all the liberals here:
Show me what YOUR policies have done to reduce violence amongst those who support you - the dispossessed, the indigent, those living in inner city ghettoes, drug addicts, illegal immigrants & all the other proponents of the welfare state.
OK; don't bother, because you've done a big fat zero.
Posted by:Bert"]
I guess you don't know what a NICS check is, or a Form 4473.
One thing firearms owners DON'T want is violent criminals & mentally unstable citizens having access to guns.
In the US, Battle of Athens TN, 1946. Google it.
Local officals took control of the county government. The NYT went nuts back then.
And if you count Cuba and the South American governments, and Darfur, quite recently :)
Emotion in Reading:
The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional "gun" issue. Let's re-state the 2nd in another context:
A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.
There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
Moreover, gun control doesn't work. If it did Washington DC wouldn't be one of the most violent cities in the country.
Why are gun-grabbers so sexist?
From the third episode of the PBS series "The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow", which chronicles the years from 1917 to 1940: "The NAACP played a major role in civil rights during this time. While Du Bois urged Blacks to fight for their rights, NAACP Executive Secretary Walter White posed as a white man to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan, and Charles Hamilton Houston, the NAACP's first chief counsel, fought battles in the courts to lay the foundation for the historic Brown v. Board of Education case."
I think the analogy of the NRA to the NAACP is clear. Both organizations were fighting extremist groups attempting to suppress the civil rights of their members.
Racists in America no doubt felt that what Walter White did was unfair to the Klan.
And do they think they just sent in ONE?
BWHAHAHAHAHA
That's right! They all took place in "Gun Free Zones." Or more accurately, "Victim disarmament zones",
or "Anti-self defense zones."
So, next time you visit a school, or a mall, leave your concealed handgun at home but be sure to bring your cell phone so you can call 911 if some shooting starts.
then wait...........
My god, what a fine American family. Time for another breakdown I guess.