Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Gun Control Rally: What happens when you throw a political rally, but nobody shows up except your opposition?”

Posted by on Sep. 2, 2013 at 9:12 AM
  • 19 Replies
3 moms liked this


    

Rally For Gun Background Checks Quickly Becomes Pro-Gun Event


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 don’t need any new laws, just enforce the ones on the books."

Roberts says with today’s political divide, it’s almost impossible to have a civil discussion on the gun issue.

“Our country is so split down the middle, I think it’s tough to get a rational discussion on almost any social subject,” said Roberts.

Luczyk says she's particularly disappointed in Republican Sen. Rob Portman for voting against background checks earlier this year.

"I'm surprised at our Congress every day that they're not doing anything," said Luczyk.

But the majority of people at the rally ended up chanting "We love Portman."

The counter-rally was another demonstration of the organizational power of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation and the NRA, which quickly took control of the rally and the message.

"There's no reason for Mayors Against Illegal Guns to be in Ohio," said Linda Walker of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation.  "Ohioans stand up for our constitutional rights and that's the way it's going to be."

After Luczyk addressed the crowd to some jeers and boos, Walker, with the crowd on her side, replaced her as a speaker.

“People are fired up, people are concerned,” said Walker.  “It’s overwhelming this many people show up on a Friday afternoon because our constitutional rights are that important.”

Watch 10TV News and refresh 10TV.com for more information. 

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/08/30/columbus-gun-background-check-rally-quikly-turns-into-pro-gun-event.html

by on Sep. 2, 2013 at 9:12 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
4kidz916
by Gold Member on Sep. 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM
1 mom liked this

"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 don’t need any new laws, just enforce the ones on the books."

I agree with this but I also don't have a problem with background checks.  In NC you already have to get one before purchasing a gun. 

Billiejeens
by on Sep. 2, 2013 at 12:14 PM
2 moms liked this

 


Quoting 4kidz916:

"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 don’t need any new laws, just enforce the ones on the books."

I agree with this but I also don't have a problem with background checks.  In NC you already have to get one before purchasing a gun. 

Yep,

And it was pretty easy and painless.

But that was before we started on the path to being a third world country, now I am less sure.

 

blues_pagan
by on Sep. 2, 2013 at 3:02 PM

I am 100% for gun rights.  I see no issue with background checks.  I think responsible gun owners shouldn't be punished for what criminals do.

Ednarooni160
by Eds on Sep. 2, 2013 at 4:46 PM
2 moms liked this
 

Don’t be fooled. Gun confiscation has already begun in NY

posted at 11:31 am on April 13, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

We’ve heard it over and over again, particularly on shows like Morning Joe. Anyone who thinks that the government is “coming to take your guns” is a paranoid loon, watching for black helicopters and guarding their sheep from soldiers. Unfortunately for those formerly right leaning, Second Amendment minded folks who bought into this story, reality has come screaming up from behind well ahead of schedule.

Following the passage of “The SAFE Act” in New York State, Big Brother got busy pretty quickly grabbing up the guns. Of course nobody was reporting on it very much until they managed to collect them from the wrong guy and a judge made them give them back.

BUFFALO, N.Y. — Thursday, a state Supreme Court Judge ruled guns seized from David Lewis, 35, must be returned to him after he was incorrectly identified as violating the mental health provision of the SAFE Act.

“We know that from the health care agency to the State Police, there was some kind of breach,” said Lewis’ attorney, Jim Tresmond.

I don’t know how much more chilling that lede could be, really. This isn’t some worry about the government possibly confiscating guns. These are guns that were already confiscated by the government. But if you think that’s as bad as it gets, guess again. Here’s why his guns were taken.

Tresmond says his client was ordered to turn in his weapons last week because he was once on anti-anxiety medication, which is a violation of the SAFE Act. Wednesday, State Police informed the Erie County Clerk’s Office that it made a mistake when it said Lewis was in violation of the state’s new gun law.

For all of our more liberal leaning readers who continue to ask “what’s so bad” about universal background checks before we’ve even seen the specifics, this is your answer. In New York, you can be placed on a “list”of people with no Second Amendment rights on the say so of any doctor who has questions. And it already happened to David Lewis. Thankfully, he’s getting his guns back… for now. But what is the larger effect of this if we put it on a national scale?

The NY SAFE Act requires “mental health professionals, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, to report if an individual they are treating is likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to him- or herself or others.”

If such a determination is made, “the Division of Criminal Justice Services will determine whether the person possesses a firearms license and, if so, will notify the appropriate local licensing official, who must suspend the license. The person’s firearms will then be removed.”

The law has come under fire from gun-rights advocates as well as mental health professionals, who fear the new law discourages people from seeking professional help for mental health issues.

Okay, I can see your point about the adverse effect on those seeking help for mental disorders. If you know that you’ll have your constitutional rights curtailed if you tell a doctor you are depressed or filled with anxiety, you might not go seek help. But that also sort of buries the lede here…

They’re Already Taking Away Guns From People For Having ONCE Been Prescribed ANTI-ANXIETY MEDICINE.

Doug Mataconis gives the legal beagle perspective on catching up people seeking medical help in a legal net. (Read the whole thing.)

The SAFE Act in particular seems to me to be overly broad in defining what qualifies as a reportable condition. It’s one thing for a person who is delusional on the level of a Seung-Hui Choi or Jared Loughner to be caught up in the net, it is quite another for someone who was apparently merely on an anti-anxiety drug to have their Constitutional rights limited. If taking that kind of medication is enough to get you on a list, then what about the millions upon millions of Americans who are on some form of anti-depressant or who take medication that alters their mood in any manner? Are they going to get put on a government list too, and what, exactly, is the government going to do with that list? History is replete with examples of psychiatry being abused by the state, and the danger of abuse becomes even higher when the law broadens the number of conditions that are reportable to the state.

We have thus far been unable to get anyone from New York to own up to how many people have had their guns taken away this year under the new SAFE Act. Neither has the YNN news team. But the facts in evidence are not in dispute. The law is still so new that the “new law smell” hasn’t worn off it yet but they are already going around and confiscating guns.

This new universal background check bill is the hot ticket in DC right now. You can read the full text of it here, which thus far contains nothing about expanding how one qualifies as “mentally ill” but there are multiple amendments to come, so we don’t even know what will be in the final version. A repeating theme is that it will have to “do something” about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But how is that to be accomplished? Will it only affect those who have been adjudicated in court to be proven, dangerous, unstable individuals and who have had the opportunity to object to their classification? Or will it be something that slides closer to what we now have in New York?

And yet… we’re all paranoid. Right, Joe Scarborough? I could insert one clip after another of the insulting, uninformed comments in the mainstream media made toward those who expressed concerns over this type of unbridled nanny state activity. But you’ve seen them all before. and there’s no use boring you with them here again now. As for me, I’ll stay in my basement, eating my Cheetos, cleaning my Glock and guarding the sheep. You never know.

UPDATE: (Jazz) From the comments. An excellent question.

Number one question for those who favor “universal background checks” – how do you enforce them?
In other words, how will authorities know if an individual who possesses a firearm submitted to a background check?
If they can answer this question without needing to resort to a database, or a registry, then I am all ears.

dugan on April 13, 2013 at 12:14 PM

kcangel63
by Amanda on Sep. 2, 2013 at 4:59 PM
2 moms liked this
I have no issue with background checks. I would pass with flying colors, as I've never even had a ticket. However, I generally just bypass that process. I buy through private sellers. Not because of the background check process, but because the guns are cheaper. LOL!
JanuaryBaby06
by Gold Member on Sep. 2, 2013 at 5:23 PM
1 mom liked this

“Our country is so split down the middle, I think it’s tough to get a rational discussion on almost any social subject,” said Roberts.

I agree & it's awful!

Billiejeens
by on Sep. 2, 2013 at 6:38 PM
1 mom liked this
Quoting JanuaryBaby06:

“Our country is so split down the middle, I think it’s tough to get a rational discussion on almost any social subject,” said Roberts.


I agree & it's awful!




100% agree

If Liberals would all just try being reasonable once, we could all get on the same page.

29again
by Gold Member on Sep. 2, 2013 at 10:40 PM
4 moms liked this


Luczyk says she's particularly disappointed in Republican Sen. Rob Portman for voting against background checks earlier this year.


And I myself am frequently disappointed in Democratic Sen Sherrod Brown, just for being a senator in my State!  Are we even, now?


All joking aside, what do they not understand about the fact that we already get those lovely background checks?  However, criminals do not.  So, how in the world does making ME, Ms. Law-Abiding Citizen, jump through more and more hoops keep the criminals from committing crimes?  If they are really against illegal guns, then go after the illegal guns, and leave those of us who get our guns quite legally alone.

blues_pagan
by on Sep. 3, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Do you know what the word cooperation means?  It usually entails both sides working together.

Quoting Billiejeens:

Quoting JanuaryBaby06:

“Our country is so split down the middle, I think it’s tough to get a rational discussion on almost any social subject,” said Roberts.


I agree & it's awful!




100% agree

If Liberals would all just try being reasonable once, we could all get on the same page.


Billiejeens
by on Sep. 3, 2013 at 8:59 AM

 

Each side should work together to cooperate on a reasonable conservative agenda.

(we have tried every other thing, lets try that)

Quoting blues_pagan:

Do you know what the word cooperation means?  It usually entails both sides working together.

Quoting Billiejeens:

Quoting JanuaryBaby06:

“Our country is so split down the middle, I think it’s tough to get a rational discussion on almost any social subject,” said Roberts.


I agree & it's awful!




100% agree

If Liberals would all just try being reasonable once, we could all get on the same page.



 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)