Russ Feingold- Supporter of the Second Amendment!

[funkyflathead]

From a gun board I surf:

Dear XXXX,

Thank you for contacting me regarding a ban on assault weapons. I appreciate hearing from you.

I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, including for self-defense, hunting, and sport. I oppose measures that seek to limit this right, including gun licensing requirements and a handgun ban. As a State Senator, I co-sponsored a state constitutional amendment to establish the right to bear arms in the Wisconsin Constitution. I also oppose raising the age for firearms possession. I feel that the Second Amendment provides a core constitutional right and should be protected.

As you may know, the original ban on assault weapons expires in September 2004. S. 1034, a renewal of the ban, has been introduced in Senate and reffered to the Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over all gun control legislation.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I will examine the new assault weapons ban carefully, before making any decision. I will not supoort any gun control measure unless it effectively targets criminals, rather than law-abiding gun owners who keep firearms for hunting, sport, or for self-defense. I believe we must carefully tailor all gun-related legislation to protect Second Amendment rights and the legitimate interests of sportspeople and other gun owners.

It is important to me to hear from people like you who have an interest in this issue and I intend to keep an open mind on S. 1034 until it comes before the Judiciary Committee for a vote. Thank you for contacting me. I hope you will feel free to contact me again on this or any other issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator

_____________________________

[MrBenchley]

1. What a shame that gunscum are lying about him anyway

Goes to show that the whole gun rights movement is a dishonest right wing pantload.

http://www.gunowners.org/a031901.htm

"Gun-grabber Senator Russ Feingold (D) will have a respectable challenge from Rep. Mark Neumann (R). His recent anti-administration stands would indicate that he is taking Neumann’s challenge — fueled additionally by Feingold’s anti-gun votes — very seriously."

http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/gt-report/gt-report_037.html

"The anti-gun bill, S. 27, works to silence the voice of outside
groups, like GOA, that help educate voters before an election. At
the same time, the bill enhances the ability of the politicians in
the Republican and Democrat parties to raise and spend money to get their candidates elected.
The bill, sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ
Feingold (D-WI), passed the Senate by a 59-41 vote. Eleven
Republicans, other than McCain, broke ranks with their leadership."

http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/goa/alert_2001-04-03.html

"anti-gun bills that will be presented by the likes of Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Daniel Moynihan, Herb Kohl, Russ Feingold and others."

webpages.charter.net/rkbaviews/nv_0512.pdf

"Senator John "McEvil" McCain has proposed a bill that will require groups that have opposed him in elections to open their membership lists to the government, for the purpose of eventually banning such groups. Proposed under the name of "campaign finance reform", the bill, SB 27, will give McCain and his co- sponsor, Russ Feingold, access to the membership lists of Gun Owners of America, a pro-gun group which has heartily denied the anti-gun Senator. "

http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=152

"MADISON, Wis. - State Sen. Bob Welch has snagged the coveted endorsement of the National Rifle Association in the three-way Republican primary for the U.S. Senate, his campaign said Monday.
Welch, R-Redgranite, released a letter to The Associated Press in which the NRA's political arm pledges to urge its members to work for his election to the U.S. Senate.
The letter from NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris Cox also praises Welch's record in the state Legislature, including support of a bill lawmakers approved this year that would have allowed those who receive training and pass a background check to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
The governor vetoed the legislation, which would have overturned Wisconsin's 130-year-old ban on concealed weapons.
Welch is running against Milwaukee-area car dealer Russ Darrow and Dodge County construction executive Tim Michels for the GOP nomination to face U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., in next fall's election."

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/politics/7552101.htm

"Despite the fact that 82% of the voters, this spring, affirmed the rights of hunters and gun owners our U.S. Senator, Russ Feingold, again sided with the leftists in this country against gun owner rights."

http://www.widigest.com/dohnal5.12.html

[BayCityProgressive]

2. Russ Feingold, John Kerry, and Senator McCain

Are some of our Senates most honorable members. Although I do not agree with McCain on many key issues I do believe his heart is in the right place and he has not sold himself to the big corporate interests in the way 99% of the GOP has. Just my opinion. I hope Kerry gains the nomination for President and I hope Feingold is able to retain his senate seat.

[MrBenchley]

3. It's telling that they are on the gun nut "hit list" isn't it?

Goes to show that "gun rights" is an utterly phony issue from stem to stern...

[alwynsw]

5. I guess this means that Feingold is gun scum too?

From his website:

"Fighting for hunters and outdoor enthusiasts has always been a priority for me. That is why as a Wisconsin State Senator, I co-sponsored an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution to protect gun-owner's rights and have always fought vigorously to protect Wisconsin wilderness areas."

http://www.russfeingold.org/sportspeople.php

It pays to research a bit before posting opinions.

[MrBenchley]

16. Guess that means all those people calling him "anti-gun"

ARE lying scum.

[alwynsw]

21. Not scum. Just misinformed.

unless they've read his positions and are still spouting that he's anti-gun. Then they'd qualify as dishonest.

[MrBenchley]

22. Hahahahahahaha...

Gee, you mean that they're all just spouting off because they don't know anything? Too TOO funny.

And, ignorant is one of the choicer adjectives for Larry Pratt.

[alwynsw]

31. Did you bother to follow the link I posted?

The one to Feingold's re-election campaigh site?

[MrBenchley]

35. Gee, I already found gun scum lying about him

But it's touching that you think that anything Feingold says makes a diffference to those dishonest pieces of shit.

[alwynsw]

43. And the rogue planet continues to spin off into the cosmos

[slackmaster]

32. Actually, not knowing WTF they are talking about is a common reason

For people spouting off.

We see it here in J/PS about 50 times a day.

[alwynsw]

34. Sadly, I must agree

It's the heart ruling the head. Didja ever hear the joke about what one must be to be the boss? It's appropriate.

[Dolomite]

4. Russ was quoted just a few weeks ago

at a town hall meeting up in Green Bay saying that he realized that there was a lot of disninformation out there regarding guns labled as assault weapons.

While he voted for the original "AWB" back in '94 - I am quite satisfied, based on his own words, that he's not going to vote for any extension of the ban (given the remote possibility that anything like it even makes it to the floor).


Time until Standard Capacity Glock Magazines Come Down to $20 per:
236 days and counting baby!

[alwynsw]

6. YEEHAW!

Same for my Rugers!

[Township75]

7. Another Democratic Senator Realizes The Anti-Gunners...

arguements rely on deception, skewed statistics, and blatant lies. Welcome aboard Russ! It is great to have an ally such as you in the effort to let the AWB expire.

[TyroneStryker]

8. HE'S A SELLOUT

He's been coopted by the racists at the NRA.

[Township75]

9. Yeah, racists like Malone, right...BWAHAHAHAHAH!

!

[TyroneStryker]

10. NO! Racists like this guy!

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/bios00/fernandez.html

[iverglas]

11. actually, like this guy

Roy Innes, NRA board member and subject of an earlier post here. Sell-out, that is. Racism may be in the eye of the beholder.

http://www.africana.com/research/encarta/core.asp

Finally, in 1968, Roy Innis replaced Farmer as the national director, and Innis soon denied whites active membership in CORE and advocated black separatism.

Under Innis's leadership CORE took a conservative turn, lending its support to black capitalism and nationalism. In the 1970s Innis joined Southern whites in promoting separate schools rather than desegregation. Farmer cut his ties to CORE in 1976, returning in the 1980s in a bid to remake CORE into a multiracial organization. Innis, however, remained firmly in leadership. In the 1990s CORE chapters engaged in little direct organization, but Innis remained one of the most prominent black conservatives in the United States.

Conservative ... sell-out ... whatever; large overlap between those sets, in any event, and I don't know which we might agree was worse.

Perhaps just a little more:

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=174

CORE is an African American group that played a leading role in the American civil rights movement. CORE was among the pioneers of the use of nonviolent direct action as a means of challenging segregation, including sit-ins, jail-ins, and freedom rides. However, during the 1970s CORE all but collapsed and the remnant was taken over by Roy Innis who moved the organisation to the Republican right.

... <His son> Niger Innis <CORE'S "National Spokesman"> also serves as an Advisory Committee member for Project 21 an initiative of the National Center for Public Policy Research - a conservative/free market foundation with a strongly anti-environmental agenda.

Black American journalists Glen Ford and Peter Gamble describe Project 21 as a 'Black front group' and 'a network and nursery for aspiring rightwing operatives'. They are equally scathing about CORE - 'a tin cup outstretched to every Hard Right political campaign or cause that finds it convenient - or a sick joke - to hire Black cheerleaders'. They report how James Farmer, the former head of the original Congress of Racial Equality confronted Roy Innis on TV for turning 'the organization into what Farmer called a "shakedown" gang.'

Niger Innis is no stranger to 'counter protest'. The Competitive Enterprise Institute noted the involvement of Innis in reporting a counter protest outside an ExxonMobil shareholder meeting in Dallas: '...faced with the unexpected numbers of free market demonstrators the anti-corporate protestors finally left. "I think we rattled them. They're packing up their bags and they're leaving," said Niger Innis of the Congress on Racial Equality, one of the groups conducting a counter-demonstration. "Victory is sweet."'

Whew. I wonder whether former CORE leader Farmer would think that calling these folks "sell-outs" was going just a tad too far.

I do think that calling them Democrats might be.

Where do you guys come up with these guys?? And, more to the point, WHY?

.

[MrBenchley]

17. Amazing isn't it?

The gun rights movement glitters like scum on a pond's surface.

But the second you look closer....

Excetly like our "fighter pilot/succcessful businessman pResident"....

[iverglas]

62. more fun with Roy Innis & CORE

Some facts, and of course some opinion. The opinion of "Black Commentary co-publishers Glen Ford and Peter Gamble".

http://www.blackcommentator.com/20_commentary_1_pr.html

America's Black Forum is hosted by Juan Williams, a favorite Black political conjure-artist of Republican-managed FOX News, and alternate host James Brown, a FOX sportscaster with no background in news whatsoever. FOX News has had a special relationship with ABF since the 1996 ascension of chairman Roger Ailes, best described as a "pit-bull Republican media strategist turned television tycoon." Ailes has made a career of creating an electronic environment amenable to racism of the rawest kind, to accommodate the policies of his clients. His influence is tangible on the set of ABF.

The show's most compelling on-air presence is Armstrong Williams, possibly the most noxious Black personality in broadcasting. He lovingly embraces arch-racist Senator Strom Thurmond, who decades ago gave the servile yet ambitious young Armstrong an internship, as both "friend" and "mentor." Williams has served the interests of apartheid South Africa, wallowed in the largess of every Hard Right foundation and think tank in the land, and reveled in long weekends with white supremacists. Williams' broadcast deals entangle him with the Christian Right's unholiest electronic pulpits. He is the premiere Black political whore in America, and the central fixture on America's Black Forum.

Armstrong Williams' protégé is Niger Innis, rising son of gangster "civil rights" caricature Roy Innis, head of the family business criminally referred to as the Congress of Racial Equality. CORE is a tin cup outstretched to every Hard Right political campaign or cause that finds it convenient - or a sick joke - to hire Black cheerleaders for their cross burning events. As the bearer of such lineage, Niger Innis is a prince among Black political scavengers - he even fancies himself an interpreter of what he believes to be Hip Hop culture's conservative characteristics. Niger Innis advertises his political "consultant" wares on America's Black Forum, in the shadow of Strom Thurmond's protégé, Armstrong Williams.

... (Farmer made another appearance on the program later in the year, when he confronted Roy Innis, the man who had hijacked CORE a decade before and turned the organization into what Farmer called a "shakedown" gang. Innis brought to Washington his thuggish Brooklyn entourage and attempted to feed hotel shrimp to the whole party at our expense, which we refused. No doubt the rich, Hard Right is more accommodating to Roy and his son, in their current capacities.)

... Niger is national spokesman for CORE. He helped his father prove CORE's value to white conservatives by running the elder Innis' Democratic primary campaign against Black incumbent New York Mayor David Dinkins, in 1993. The exercise earned the Innises $100,000 in contributions from the usual Right suspects, and the favor of Republican Rudolph Guiliani, who beat Dinkins in the general election.

In the old days, polite Republicans eschewed Roy's goon-like attacks against Black leadership. He was an embarrassment to suburban, Connecticut bankers. White goons run the Party, now, and the Innisses fit in just fine.

... On any given day, <Niger> Innis <CORE "National Spokesman, remember> can be found speaking or "consulting" within the matrix of the rich Right, his paymasters. Every other week, he is presented to African American TV audiences as an independent voice, doing valiant battle against a menacing Black "establishment" on America's Black Forum.

Black Rightists are a tight-knit, near-incestuous group. Juan Williams quotes William Buckley's National Review to challenge Al Sharpton on the set of ABF. Niger Innis writes occasionally for the National Review and, in November 2001, used space in NR to denounce "Sharpton and other professionally angry arsonists" for creating political chaos in New York. Innis called the National Action Network leader a "monster" and "Frankenstein."

I'm really afraid that I can't think of anyone whose photo would better accompany a definition of "sell-out" than either Innis Sr. or Jr.

In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Roy Innis gave no more of a shit about gun owners' "rights" than he obviously did about the fortunes of the Democratic Party. They give him what he wants, he gives them what they want. And he sells out the African-American community ... and the NRA sells out Ted Nugent. Ha.

.

[iverglas]

12. yes indeed

From that link:

Manny lived in Cuba under the communist dictatorship <sic> of Castro ... .

I'll bet HE's a loyal Democrat.

But no, no, I won't rely on stereotypes and assumptions. Not moi.

But I do have to express my appreciation of the typo in the line that follows, first:

He has demonstrafed his commitment to the uncompromising defense of the Bill of Rights.

DemonstraFed. Heehee.


http://www.vpc.org/studies/nrafamst.htm

Board member Manny Fernandez pleaded guilty in 1983 to criminal possession of a machine gun. ... Fernandez is also a founder of Californians Against Corruption (CAC). In 1994 CAC lobbied for a recall vote of California State Senator David Roberti, a longtime gun control advocate. The vote failed, but still cost taxpayers half a million dollars. Fernandez was ousted from CAC when he declared publicly that the recall effort had been the gun lobby's revenge for Roberti's sponsorship of a 1989 California law restricting assault weapons. The California Fair Political Practices Commission later found CAC guilty of 404 violations of campaign laws, including concealing contributions from the NRA and other gun groups and failing to file proper records. The commission fined CAC a record $808,000.

Forgive the source, and feel free to disprove the facts.

Damn, I thought nobody here (I mean the serious "RKBA"ers, since I don't ever take the uninformed/insane/inarticulate as representative of all who fall into any class) thought that machine guns oughta be in general public circulation?

And lemme guess ... might Roberti have been a Democrat?


Well, Manny seems to have kept a low enough profile on the party-politics stage that I can't put a proper label on him. But damn, I just have my doubts that he has ever voted Democrat in his life. Call me a cynic.

.

[iverglas]

13. and the crowd goes wild

The emperors are shown to be in the altogether

... that's a literary metaphor for the NRA's cultural-diversity poster children being outed as anti-democratic, unDemocratic, right-wing crapauds (actually that just means "toad", but it sounds worse in French - you can say "crap-oh")

... and the silence is deafening.

Do we find it interesting that no one responds?

Some of us undoubtedly do. Perhaps for wildly different reasons.

.

[beevul]

14. I just posted his name...

and said he wasn't a racist. I couldn't find anything else on him. Yes, I did look.


So he was a separatist? That hardly makes him a racist.(I know you didn't say it did)


Since I couldn't find much of anything about him, all I had to go on was stuff like this on the core page:

"In essence, CORE's aim is to bring about equality for all people regardless of race, creed, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion or ethnic background. In pursuing its aim, CORE seeks to identify and expose acts of discrimination in the public and private sectors of society. When such an act is uncovered, CORE, with its many multi-service departments, goes into action."

http://www.core-online.org/features/what%20is%20core%20frame.htm

And :

In 1977, under Innis’ leadership, CORE rescued a South Bronx Catholic school that was about to be closed. Working closely with teachers and parents, he established the CORE Community School with more than 200 students.

http://www.core-online.org/staff/roy_innis.htm



It seems odd that an organization like CORE would have as thier national chairman someone "anti-democratic, unDemocratic", yet have goals like the above. Its all I could find, and if its mistaken, then I can live with that. I never said he was a perfect human being, or even a Democrat.

[MrBenchley]

18. Gee....

""I just posted his name..."
Posted by beevul
and said he wasn't a racist. I couldn't find anything else on him. Yes, I did look."

Must not have looked very hard.

Tell us, if you don't know a fucking thing about him, how the hell do you know he isn't a racist? Because he's black?

[beevul]

27. Um ok.

"Must not have looked very hard."

"Tell us, if you don't know a fucking thing about him, how the hell do you know he isn't a racist? Because he's black?"

Hey,if you don't know a fucking thing about him,, please practice what you preach, and stop calling him a racist. On the other hand, if you do indeed know alot about him, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Me, I guess I give folks the benefit of the doubt, even if they be anti-gun.


"Must not have looked very hard."

http://www.metacrawler.com/info.metac/search/web/%2522roy%2Binnis%2522

Whatever.

[MrBenchley]

28. Too too funny....

"Hey,if you don't know a fucking thing about him,, please practice what you preach"
You're the one claiming ignorance of the guy, not me. But at the same time you're claiming you didn't look him up, you're posting the metacrawler link, and what do we see on it?

"3. Roy Innis, a Refreshing Dose of Common Sense and Decency at UN ...
Roy Innis, a Refreshing Dose of Common Sense and Decency at UN Conference Lawrence Auster Saturday, July 14, 2001. In the midst of ...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/13/214744.sh..."

And that isn't any sort of tip-off....ho-kay.

[alwynsw]

39. Only a selcet few links and searches count, beev

Geez! Don't you know anything?

[beevul]

41. Yeah, I should have known,

What was I thinking.:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

42. You were either thinking nobody knows what a cesspool

Newsmax is....or else you were hoping nobody would actually click on your link.

Can't imagine you were actually expecting us to take right wing horseshit seriously.

[alwynsw]

52. I guess the metacrawler search link is right-wing horseshit, too?

[MrBenchley]

56. Too frigging funny, alwyns...

The metacrawler link is just a search engine...but it's telling that all it can come up with are a bunch of libertarian ravings and that the third link down is crap from NewsMax.

Doesn't sound like anyone not a white far right wing scumbag has much to do with Innis or his group anymore.

[iverglas]

66. and what did newsmax have to say?

Lookee.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/26/143542

Civil Rights Chief Warns White
House of Al-Qaeda-U.S. Muslim
Threat

The head of one of the nation's most
prominent civil rights organizations has
warned the White House that the rise of
radical Islam within America's black
community could provide a breeding ground
for the perpetrators of the next wave of
terror attacks against the U.S.

In a letter sent to the Bush administration
on Friday, Congress of Racial Equality
Chairman Roy Innis requested a meeting with
Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge, Attorney
General John Ashcroft and National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice to discuss what he
sees as the "clear and present danger" posed
to U.S. race relations by the rising tide of
"non-spiritual" Muslim conversions.

Innis fears that the trend has left too many
sympathetic to al-Qaeda and its
anti-American agenda, providing a waiting
pool of potential terrorist recruits.


... The civil rights leader said the first item
he'd like to discuss with Attorney General
Ashcroft is the potential national security
threat posed by al-Qaeda sympathizers who
will one day be released from prison.


Damn, and they just might not want to join CORE.

I'll look for something about where Innis has opposed the war on drugs that put those young black men in prison in the first place (like we all do, eh?) and called for an end to the racist policy of denying people with criminal records the vote. Strikes me that those might be good ways of preventing all those "jailhouse conversions" he's so het up about.

But then, they might not impress the rich white guys too much.

SELL-OUT.

.

[MrBenchley]

70. You'll notice

there's no indication that Ridge and AshKKKroft did anything but laugh their asses off and toss the letter out...

[beevul]

74. Except that ...

Your link is NOT the one another poster attributed to me after posting it himself.

I had never seen the contents of it until you posted it.


Heres the one that was falsely attributed to me, copied and pasted right off the post it happened in.(post 37)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/13/214744.sh..."


And to think, I thought all this time newsmax was reguarded as unreliable down here. I therefore didn't even bother checking it.

What was I thinking.

[MrBenchley]

77. Gee, beev...are you trying to pretend

you didn't post the metacrawler thread that dredged up this crap from Newsmax?

"And to think, I thought all this time newsmax was reguarded as unreliable down here."
Gee, beev, you mean you think that idiotic bit of dittomonkey bigotry was being quoted because Iverglas agreed with it? Better read her post again.

[iverglas]

78. nope, and I didn't say it was

I just thought it was mighty interesting. That would be why I didn't say anything about anyone having posted it.

My initial point was that you reproduced a glowing description of CORE written by CORE, which strikes me as either gullible or disingenuous.

And that whatever search came up with nothing better than that puff piece you reproduced, if that was the case and you didn't carefully select it (as you have assured us you didn't), wasn't really much of an attempt to come up with facts. A Google search for "roy innis" had exactly the same newsmax article on the first page of results, btw, but I hadn't just asked Google for "roy innis" the first time. That's some evidence that a search for "roy innis" might not have been one's best bet at finding accurate info.

I do have to agree, I'm an absolute whiz with a Google. I think that if one seriously wants to present fact and argument in support of one's position, one may need to be.

.

[alwynsw]

87. Duh! Metacrawler is just a search engine. Whoda thunk it?

The idea of a search result link is so that you can pick and choose the items youwish - or you can be fair and read them all before forming an opinion or possibly alter an opinion you already hold.

Patronization doesn't work.

[Romulus]

*OT thread hijack*

I remember seeing Roy Innis for the first time back in 1988 or so, when he appeared on the Morton Downey Jr. Show, broadcast on WWOR TV9 in NYC.

He was on show as a foil to the neo-Nazi Metzger clan, which was led by Metzger the Younger and a couple of his brownshirts.

At some point during the show, Innis leaped up with a PCP-head-like grimace and proceeded to choke out Metzger. :evilgrin: All hell broke loose after that.

The MDJ show predated the Geraldo Rivera skinhead brawl by about five or six years.

[iverglas]

59. Excuse me all to hell

Hey,if you don't know a fucking thing about him,, please practice what you preach, and stop calling him a racist.

Exactly whom are you accusing of calling Roy Innis a racist?

(How could anyone possibly STOP calling him a racist, per your instruction, if s/he had never called him a racist?)

I think it's time for YOU to "put up or shut up" in this instance. I don't think that accusing someone of calling someone a racist, when no one has ever done that, is quite good form.


On the other hand, if you do indeed know alot about him, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Goodness, it strikes me that this is exactly what I did do.

Did you have any particular questions that needed answering? What exactly might not have been "put up" that you're requiring be put up -- in order to demonstrate that this individual is a right-wing cretin?

Not all right-wing cretins are racists, and no one ever said that they were.

The fact that some "RKBA"er or other chooses to post info about NRA board members and facetiously refer to them as "racist" DOES NOT MEAN that ANYONE ELSE has ever, or would ever, characterize them as racists.

But it was the "RKBA"er who chose to put the individual in question forward -- for what reason? Who knows? To prove that he isn't racist? NO ONE SAID HE WAS.

This discussion is a carry-over from the one in which CO Liberal said that a particular member of the NRA board was perhaps a SELL-OUT, for which HE was subjected to a very blatant accusation of racism, which have never ever been substantiated or retracted.

There is also on-going discussion of the FACT that certain members of the anti-firearms control movement, including the NRA board, ARE racists.

Nobody gets to patch those two things together into a statement that anyone has ever called any OTHER member of the NRA board a racist.

But if anybody wants to dredge up some member of the NRA board and claim that he is not a racist, s/he can bloody well expect that it might be pointed out that the individual whom s/he has put into issue is not exactly a Democrat, or liberal, or supporter of progressive causes in general. Or recognized by those within his community who ARE such things as anything but a FRIEND OF RACISTS -- a sell-out.

Like it or lump it, is my advice.

But a wise and decent person will not respond to it with false accusations against someone else.


Me, I guess I give folks the benefit of the doubt, even if they be anti-gun.

Well you go right ahead. Me, I don't have any doubt, when it comes to the individual in question.

And I might just suggest that if you practised even that particular bit of preaching consistently, you wouldn't be accusing anyone of having called the individual in question a racist.

.

[MrBenchley]

61. In fact, nobody BUT the RKBA crowd ever claimed

that Innis himself was a racist...

And we've yet to see any evidence pro or con that Innis is or isn't...but if one looks, there's evidence he sure isn't troubled by their company...

"Roy Innis is a completely different and bizarre story. The fact that his name was the first one off Lott's lips in his some-of-my-favorite-friends-are routine should have resulted in one loud ''Huh?''
While Lott was driven off the stage for his romanticism of segregation, Innis long ago called for separation of the races and launched vicious attacks on civil rights groups. In 1970 he advocated resegregating black and white school districts in the South on the claim that integration had failed. Innis was quoted that year as saying: ''We are no longer in the integration bag. We have restructured our approach. White folks don't want integration ... and black folks don't want it either.''
The next year, Innis followed up that statement by saying, ''There must be two contracts negotiated between the black people of America and white America - one for the nationalists and another for the integrationists. Integrationists have an entirely different goal. It is well known. It is recognized. It may be right for them, but it should not be foisted upon us. Both groups must be permitted to pursue their own programs and must be accorded the dignity of equal recognition.''
Innis said, ''In America today, there are two kinds of black people - the field hand blacks and the `house niggers.' We of CORE, the nationalists - are the field hand blacks. The integrationists are house niggers.''
So this is whom Lott has been listening to, providing the unspoken background when fellow Republican senators looked to Lott for leadership on civil rights issues, almost all of which Lott and many other conservative Republicans voted against. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1227-03.htm

"Efforts to close the gap between Republicans and the acknowledged civil rights leaders are not likely to be helped by the GOP’s habit of bypassing traditional civil rights leaders and members of Congress and courting so-called leaders created by Right-wing think tanks or those with no significant following among African Ameri-cans.
When Trent Lott first got into trouble, for example, he announced at his press conference that he would rely on the help of Roy Innis, the head of the Congress of Racial Equality. However, CORE has not been a player in the civil rights arena since the 1960s."

http://www.kccall.com/News/2003/0103/Community/044.html

[beevul]

68. In my haste...

I typed "calling" where I meant to type "inferring". I can admit the mistake. Consider a correction made.

Yes, I feel like someone DID infer he was a racist.

You can feel otherwise all you like.

"But a wise and decent person will not respond to it with false accusations against someone else."

Please explain that to a certain someone who claims a newsmax link is mine when I never did post it EXCEPT to refute the accusation that I did after the fact. I mean, that "wise and decent" phrase applies to anti-gunners too, right?

[MrBenchley]

80. So beev

You posted the metacrawler link without looking to see what was on it AT ALL?

Why was that? Were you afraid of what you might find out?

It certainly seems neither "wise" nor "decent" to post a bit of evidence and then cry "foul! unfair!" when someone examines any of that evidence...

[beevul]

81. Um no.

I posted the metacrawler link to show how I searched.

"It certainly seems neither "wise" nor "decent" to post a bit of evidence and then cry "foul! unfair!" when someone examines any of that evidence..."

Thats true, except in the case of me ignoring what is normally referred to as right wing bullshit.

Oh the irony. I bet I am the only person on DU who ever got chastised for not reading what newsmax had to say.


On edit:

It must be nice for some folks to both trash people for reading newsmax, AND to trash them for not reading it.

[MrBenchley]

82. Hahahahahahahaha

So you searched for information to bolster your argument but you slapped it here without even glancing at what you found....ho-kay. I guess that's more RKBA "logic" or whatever.

"It must be nice for some folks to both trash people for reading newsmax, AND to trash them for not reading it."
Not nearly as much fun as it is watching people post a link to crap from newsmax and then run away squealing that they NEVER did any such thing...

[beevul]

83. I never did...

post anything from newsmax UNTIL you accused me of doing so and only then to show it was YOU that posted a newsmax link.

I guess metacrawler must be part of the VRWC, for it to have come up with a newsmax hit.

I must be a repuke for ignoring newsmax too.

Go figure.

[RoeBear]

69. I can't believe my eyes!

Are you inferring that a black man is a racist?

[iverglas]

76. are you IMPLYING that someone said he is?

Are you inferring that a black man is a racist?

Some dictionaries may suggest that "infer" means "imply" -- but actually all they're doing is recognizing that some people say "infer" when they mean "imply". If we all did that, how would we ever know whether someone meant that someone else was inferring, or implying?

So, if we can assume that you meant to say "are you implying that a black man is a racist?", let's just ask you that old question:

WHY DO YOU ASK?

Why do YOU imply that you think someone was implying any such thing, by asking him whether he was?

"Do you vote Republican?"

Oh dear -- I'd get in trouble for asking that, wouldn't I? Note that I didn't; I just quoted someone else who asked yet someone else the question.

Here's what Benchley said:

Tell us, if you don't know a fucking thing about him, how the hell do you know he isn't a racist? Because he's black?

Do I see anything there that IMPLIES that the individual IS a racist -- or from which anyone could INFER that it was being claimed that he was a racist?

No sirree bob. Can you tell me where you might see it?

But dear me, here's what Benchley was responding to:

I just posted his name... and said he wasn't a racist.

Won't you be needing to know why someone who knew nothing about someone else SAID -- no implying there -- that he WAS NOT a racist?? Of course you will, eh?

Amazingly, that's what Benchley was wanting to know too.

.

[iverglas]

25. what I find odd

It seems odd that an organization like CORE would have as thier national chairman someone "anti-democratic, unDemocratic", yet have goals like the above. Its all I could find, and if its mistaken, then I can live with that.

... is that someone would take at face value any organization's statement about itself. Does the KKK have a website? We might want to check it out. Any "RKBA"er hereabouts want to take, oh, the VPC's statements about itself at face value and not go behind them?

All one could find about an organization, equipped with its name and Google? Funny how I found so much more.

It would seem odd that an organization like CORE would have someone like Innis at its head ... if CORE were actually an organization like the CORE of yesteryear, or the CORE that today's CORE would have us believe it is.


I never said he was a perfect human being, or even a Democrat.

Nope -- and no one ever said that Karl Malone was a racist, if I recall correctly. Oh, oops -- no advocate of firearms control ever said he was a racist.

It's not nice to be a racist. But there are certainly many other ways of being not nice, and being someone that *I* at least would not want to be associated with. Ron Innis and son, and Manny Fernandez, seem to have come up with rather a lot of them.

In fact, the epithet that so much exception was taken to was "sell-out".

And if you don't think that Ron Innis is a sell-out -- i.e. has betrayed the interests of members of a group he belongs to (and in this case specifically CLAIMS to represent and to seek to advance in his capacity as leader of CORE), in favour of personal gain -- then I just don't know who would be.

.

[MrBenchley]

29. In fact...

As we have seen, the KKK claims to be in favor of "all Americans" having popguns and peddles this bogus "gun rights" crap at the top of its lungs.

Guess we have to take that at face value, too.....based on RKBA "logic" or whatever it is.

[beevul]

30. Odd indeed.

"All one could find about an organization, equipped with its name and Google? Funny how I found so much more."

Except I wasn't looking for the name of an organization. I was looking for the name "roy innis".


Heres what I got:

http://www.metacrawler.com/info.metac/search/web/%2522roy%2Binnis%2522

I guess your search skills and knowledge are superior to mine.

Again, I can live with that. I never claimed to be a web wiz.

I'll run circles around you on a wire EDM though. P

[MrBenchley]

37. Too TOO funny.......

"3. Roy Innis, a Refreshing Dose of Common Sense and Decency at UN ...
Roy Innis, a Refreshing Dose of Common Sense and Decency at UN Conference Lawrence Auster Saturday, July 14, 2001. In the midst of ...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/13/214744.sh..."

Yeah, that's not a tip-off of any sort..

[beevul]

40. So anyone whos...

name comes up in on newsmax is a racist?

And since were web policing as of late,

how about trying your own link.

It turns into this:

http://search.lycos.com/default.asp?src=clear&loc=top50&query=news+max

when I click on it.

[MrBenchley]

48. NewsMax is a right wing cesspool

so you tell me what that says about somebody Newsmax approves of...

And it's YOUR link, beev. I just copied and pasted the hilarious part.

[iverglas]

49. I guess they are

I tend to refine my searches to find what I'm looking for, if I have a hunch. I think that on this occasion I asked Google for "roy innis" conservative. Yup, right on page one, there's that thing I found: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=174

And then I tried "congress of racial equality" conservative, and right up top just above that first one, there was the second one: http://www.africana.com/research/encarta/core.asp

It does help to know what one is looking for, I guess.

.

[MrSandman]

15. More facts than provided--triuth in the middle?

"Damn, I thought nobody here (I mean the serious "RKBA"ers, since I don't ever take the uninformed/insane/inarticulate as representative of all who fall into any class) thought that machine guns oughta be in general public circulation?"



He pled guilty to illegal possession. There was no assertion that he applied for "relief." There appeared to be an attempt to have one make that inference. The federal courts have ruled that applications for relief cannot be appealed without a negative decision. Without funding, there are no decisions, no appeals, no relief...as it should be.


If it was a machine gun, general public circulation is strictly controlled by the (Federal) National Firearms Act of 1934 and Firearms Protection Act of 1986 regulating the sale and possession of automatic weapons. By 1989, there were no machine guns legally entering public circulation.
***
The former--$200 tax stamp, approval by Treasury Department, Registration of MG at Federal level*

The latter--Prohibition of automatic weapons manufactured after 5/19/86.
*Some federal Courts have interpreted the FOPA as nullifying the registration requirements.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=130
--
While CAC was indeed fined a record amount, some context may be missing. I was unable to find much about it, but these themes did appear several times:

"Howard and Cicero learned just how expensive political participation can get. California's Fair Political Practices Commission hit both men with the largest fine it has ever levied: $808,000, for a campaign that spent only $103,091. This seems on its face a grotesque violation of the Eighth Amendment's admonition against "excessive fines," especially when you consider that CAC later made available to the FPPC copies of all the checks they received.

Certainly, the fine is absurdly out of balance with any possible harm CAC's sloppy, late, or incomplete paperwork filings could be thought to have caused. For some perspective, consider that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), in her unsuccessful 1990 gubernatorial bid, failed to disclose expenditures of $3.5 million and contributions of $815,000. She was fined only $190,000."
http://reason.com/hod/bd043001.shtml

Once again feel free to disprove the facts while forgiving the source.

[MrBenchley]

19. Or instead

We could just point out that a member the RKBA crowd is once again...

--engaging in a gratuitous bit of Democrat-bashing AND
--peddling fringe right wing crap as fact

and move on, snickering.

[iverglas]

26. facts?

You'll notice that this is precisely all I quoted about Manny Fernandez's criminal machine gun possesion episode:

Board member Manny Fernandez pleaded guilty in 1983
to criminal possession of a machine gun.

I inserted an ellipsis -- "..." -- where that stuff about "relief" was, because frankly, I had no idea what it was talking about and didn't see how it was relevant to the point I was making, which was that he had been convicted of criminal possession of a machine gun, on his own plea of guilty.

If whether or not Fernandez applied for relief, or was denied it, or appealed it, or anything else to do with it, is relevant to the point I was making -- that he had been convicted of criminal possession of a machine gun -- I'm sure you'll tell me, and once I understand it, I'll acknowledge that it has some bearing on the point I was making, which was that he had been convicted of criminal possession of a machine gun. Or not.




Once again feel free to disprove the facts while forgiving the source.

What I see in that passage from the "reason" site is a lot of opinion that I might decide to agree or disagree with, if I felt like bothering to know enough to have an opinion.

My opinion of Manny Fernandez blatantly anti-democratic activities within the electoral system really does not depend on how much his organization was fined, or even whether it was found guilty. I convict him, in the court of my considered opinion, on the basis of his own acts and statements, described in the passage I quoted:

Fernandez is also a founder of Californians Against Corruption (CAC). In 1994 CAC lobbied for a recall vote of California State Senator David Roberti, a longtime gun control advocate. The vote failed, but still cost taxpayers half a million dollars. Fernandez was ousted from CAC when he declared publicly that the recall effort had been the gun lobby's revenge for Roberti's sponsorship of a 1989 California law restricting assault weapons.

Them's facts enough for me.

.

[MrBenchley]

38. The "relief" part

has to do with a NRA scheme to allow felons to own weapons...which Congress shot down some time ago and the scumbags at the NRA have been pushing to reinstate.

[slackmaster]

47. It's existing law and Congress didn't shoot it down - They un-funded it

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/925.html

This is from the Gun Control Act of 1968. Section 925, Subsection (c) reads as follows:

A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Secretary for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms, and the Secretary may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector conducting operations under this chapter, who makes application for relief from the disabilities incurred under this chapter, shall not be barred by such disability from further operations under his license pending final action on an application for relief filed pursuant to this section. Whenever the Secretary grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefor.

Any claim that the NRA or anyone else is pushing for a change in this law is pure horseshit.

[iverglas]

53. well, like I said

If any of that is somehow germane to the discussion at hand -- into which I brought the fact that Manny Fernandez has been convicted of the criminal possession of a machine gun -- I guess someone will tell me how.

Was Fernandez under some disability that prevented him from lawfully possessing a machine gun? If so, and if he had failed to apply for relief from such disability, did this mean that it was somehow just okay for him to go ahead and possess one?

I'm sure I'm confused about something here. But I'm not getting the point.

.

[MrBenchley]

54. Actually

it's part of the disgrace that is the National Rifle Association that their board actually includes a number of convicted felons...and tres embarrassing for the group to have their board members barred from possessing the very fetish objects they lie, cheat and bribe for every day.

Hence the struggle to "relieve" Machine Gun Manny from the horrible "disability" of actual responsibility for his actions. Ain't right wing thought wonderful (snicker)?

http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

[slackmaster]

67. If you actually read the law you might understand it better

Relief is at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. If you have an issue with someone who has been granted relief perhaps you should be working for a regime change in Washington, DC rather than working to make sure that 80 million gun owners will think twice before voting for a Democrat.

[slackmaster]

65. Yes, you are completely confused all right

Try reading US Code sections 922 through 925 and maybe you'll get it.

[iverglas]

71. well, lemme see

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

Sec. 922. - Unlawful acts

(o) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

I'd guess that that's what he did (and that he wasn't covered by the exceptions that follow that).

Sec. 923 doesn't really seem to come into it.

Then we have:

Sec. 924. - Penalties

(a) (2) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Seems straightforward so far, but who know, I may have gone astray.

You folks seem to be talking about:

Sec. 925. - Exceptions: Relief from disabilities

(c) A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Secretary for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms, and the Secretary may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector conducting operations under this chapter, who makes application for relief from the disabilities incurred under this chapter, shall not be barred by such disability from further operations under his license pending final action on an application for relief filed pursuant to this section. Whenever the Secretary grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefor.

And so I'll ask you again:

Was Manny Fernandez, at the time he was found to have been in criminal possession of a machinegun, under a disability that prevented him from possessing that machinegun, from which he could have applied for relief -- or was he simply subject to the same prohibition as any other member of the US public against possessing a machinegun?

It may not be me who is confused.

I'm not saying anything about Fernandez being an NRA board member and being prohibited from owning firearms.

I'm talking about Fernandez being an NRA board member and having been in criminal possession of a machinegun.

I couldn't care less whether he is currently prohibited from possessing firearms or not. I'm talking about his record for violating firearms law.

*I* have never been convicted of being in criminal possession of a machinegun. Have you?

And *I* think that people who have might just not be the kind of people I'd want representing my interests to the public.

That was MY point. I still don't know what yours might be. But you can keep trying to explain it to me if you like ... or maybe just explain it for once.

.

[slackmaster]

72. You question appears to be rhetorical so I won't bother answering it

But the fact that you raise it at all brings to my mind the question of whether or not you have any idea what this thread is about. I don't see any evidence that you do. The whole issue of "relief" appears to be MrBenchley's red herring contribution.

[iverglas]

79. excUUse me

The whole issue of "relief" appears to be MrBenchley's red herring contribution.

The issue was raised in response to my post by MrSandman, who said:

He pled guilty to illegal possession. There was no assertion that he applied for "relief." There appeared to be an attempt to have one make that inference. The federal courts have ruled that applications for relief cannot be appealed without a negative decision. Without funding, there are no decisions, no appeals, no relief...as it should be.

Perhaps the similarity between the names was confusing?

I had excised this bit (the underlined part) from the passage I reproduced:

Board member Manny Fernandez pleaded guilty in 1983 to criminal possession of a machine gun. The NRA's 1986 flagship bill, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, benefited many gun criminals by making them eligible for the federal "relief from disability" program.

... because it was not relevant to the point I was making: that Fernandez had been convicted of criminal possession of a machine gun. It is not at all uncommon to quote a source and excise the part of what the source has said that has nothing to do with what one is talking about, where the omission does not change the meaning of what is being quoted. Nothing that I omitted in any way affected the meaning of the part that I quoted, or the point I was making.

I have not the slightest idea why MrSandman would raise the issue of "relief".

And that is the entire point of this little sub-discussion -- WHY did MrSandman raise the issue in the first place??

Nobody has yet provided me with a clue.


You question appears to be rhetorical so I won't bother answering it
But the fact that you raise it at all brings to my mind the question of whether or not you have any idea what this thread is about.

Now, you wanna try that again, and maybe address it to the person who apparently didn't understand my contribution to the discussion -- the criminal history, and the nature of that history, of the individual who, for some unknown reason, had been offered up for discussion -- to MrSandman?

Maybe he'll answer *you*.

.

[MrSandman]

86. The seeming implication was that

the NRA supported the relief due to their Board member being convicted.

The mention of the relief was due to the context of the entire article. I failed to understand how Fernandez's conviction, since I was blissfully unaware of it, had any relevance to my opinion about civilian ownership of machine guns. Now that I am aware, I am unsure if it should be relevant.

I only meant to point out that selective reporting could lead to a conclusion desired by the author.

[iverglas]

88. keep trying

I failed to understand how Fernandez's conviction, since I was blissfully unaware of it, had any relevance to my opinion about civilian ownership of machine guns. Now that I am aware, I am unsure if it should be relevant.

I am unsure why you would suggest that anyone suggested that it was or "should be" relevant.

It may have escaped your notice, but the discussion into which the fact in question -- Fernandez' conviction for criminal possession of a machinegun -- was brought was not about "civilian ownership of machine guns". (I can only guess how surprised you might be to hear this ... but I'd just love to see anything you can bring forward that might have suggested otherwise to you.)

(edited to fix syntactical incoherency created by pre-posting editing ...)

.

[MrSandman]

90. I didn't bring up MG ownership...

"Damn, I thought nobody here (I mean the serious "RKBA"ers, since I don't ever take the uninformed/insane/inarticulate as representative of all who fall into any class) thought that machine guns oughta be in general public circulation?"

[iverglas]

91. oh, gawd ... follow the bleeding dots

Or at least don't pretend they weren't there.

My post # 12 referred to the NRA web page about Fernandez.

That page said, and I quoted:

He has demonstrafed <sic> his commitment to the uncompromising defense of the Bill of Rights.

I then immediately reproduced the info about his conviction for criminal possesion of a machine gun.

I THEN said what you quote:

Damn, I thought nobody here (I mean the serious "RKBA"ers, since I don't ever take the uninformed/insane/inarticulate as representative of all who fall into any class) thought that machine guns oughta be in general public circulation?"

Getting it, at all? Juxtaposition of two facts being represented as inconsistent?

Someone who is committed to the uncompromising defence of the Bill of Rights "demonstrafes" it by criminally possessing a machinegun? Apart from the hilarity of the typo, is this actually what one does to demonstrate that commitment?

This could only be true if one believed that the Bill of Rights protected the right to possess machineguns -- which I'd understood most here would not say.

Me, I just found the NRA statement about Fernandez to be, to say the least, incomplete ... and perhaps just a tad, um, not quite accurate.

.

[MrSandman]

84. I did not challenge the facts you presented.

Immediately preceding the paragraph quoted:


"The organization's anti-crime enthusiasm seems to wane, however, when it comes to its own board. Moreover, one of the NRA's legislative priorities in 1995 was attempting to reinstate a program at the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that had granted "relief" to convicted, often violent felons suffering from the "disability" of not being able to possess a firearm. The program was defunded by Congressional Democrats beginning in Fiscal Year 1993. The NRA's seemingly mystifying devotion to resuscitating ATF's $4.3-million-a-year "relief from disability" program may be explained in part by personal experience."

He is is probably ineligible due to the machine gun possession conviction.
Did he apply for relief? That was left for us to infer.

"The commission fined CAC a record $808,000."

Are we to infer a great deal of money was "hidden?"



http://www.vpc.org/studies/nrafamst.htm

The article I posted from was not about guns, but about citizen participation.
http://reason.com/hod/bd043001.shtml

The fact that it contrasted CAC with Feinstein's campaign was coincidental. It only demonstrated that there are more facts than the VPC presented. Do I think recall politics are good? No, it encourages a mob rule, but it is the law in CA, along with initiatives and referendums. Also not ideal IMO.

Yes, Fernandez was convicted of possessing an illegal machine gun.

Does it follow someone here wants machine guns in general public circulation? No.

Did he oppose an AW ban in CA? Yes.
Did that affect MG's? I don't know, but they are heavily regulated at federal level. None have been legally placed in circulation since before 1989.

Was the fine levied a record high? Yes.
Was the violation the most egregious? No.

Apparently CA does not view recalls as blatantly undemocratic.
The law can be changed<sarcasm on>Proposition #____<sarcasm off>

[iverglas]

85. who the fuck cares?

Did he apply for relief? That was left for us to infer.

Infer anything you want.

I DID NOT raise the issue of relief, and the issue of relief is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the point I made.

The man was CONVICTED of criminal possession of a machinegun. I don't give a flying fuck whether he ever applied for relief.

What on earth is your point?

The part of the VPC news release that was IRRELEVANT to my point was that he *might* have been eligible for relief. So what?? Does that mean he wasn't convicted of criminal possession of a machinegun?


"The commission fined CAC a record $808,000."
Are we to infer a great deal of money was "hidden?"

You asking me? I don't know, and I don't care.

Fernandez was one of the people who orchestrated an anti-democratic recall campaign of an elected legislator, and stated that he did so purely as revenge for the legislator's opposition to his own and his group's demands. (And I don't care whether California views recalls as undemocratic or not -- THIS ONE was ANTI-democratic. It was not conducted in the public interest, it was pursued at great public expense as part of a private vendetta. It was an abuse of a process, whether the process was democratic or not.) The fact that they violated electoral laws in so doing is just gravy, and a little more illustration of this guy's character, or lack thereof.

That's what I care about. You got any more answer to that than you seem to have to the fact that he was convicted of the criminal possession of a machinegun?


Yes, Fernandez was convicted of possessing an illegal machine gun.
Does it follow someone here wants machine guns in general public circulation? No.

Who the hell ever suggested that he did?

I suggested that he is a CRIMINAL, which HE IS.


What you're talking about, and why you're talking about it in a discussion about an individual and who might want him representing their interests, I still don't have a clue.

.

[MrBenchley]

20. Amazing!

Maybe you ought to change your nickname to "Kreskin." Who else could have known that the NRA was attacking a Democrat?

"The supporters of the National Rifle Association launched a recall against Senator David Roberti, president pro tempore of the California senate, because of his leadership in enacting a semiautomatic assault weapons ban. Roberti, a Democrat who was being forced out of the senate due to term limits, and was running for state treasurer, triumphed by a wide margin. "

http://hnn.us/articles/1702.html

Boy the RKBA crowd really knows how to dredge peculiar specimens up, don't they?

[TyroneStryker]

23. Do you not comprehend that they attack anti-gun people?

For example, they hate McCain. Unfortunately, more Democrats are anti-gun than Republicans. Do you fail to understand that simple reality? Here in Kentucky, they pretty much stay out of the races because almost every candidate is either pro-gun or neutral. They do, however have a policy of endorsing incumbents who have a pro-gun view.

[MrBenchley]

24. Do I recognize that they're lying scum?

Sure....that's a given..

"For example, they hate McCain."
On the other hand, look at the hate-filled pieces of shit they happily snuggle up too.

[alwynsw]

33. How in the world do you get

Do I recognize that they're lying scum?
out of
Do you not comprehend that they attack anti-gun people?

There seems to be a failure to communicate here on the part of the reader. I thought NJ public schools taught better reading comprehension skills. Or am I blaming the wrong factor in the equation?

[MrBenchley]

36. Hahahahahahaha.....

If you want to pretend they're not lying, that's hilarious. But I';ve already demonstrated it...in spades..

And it's telling to see the sort of ugly thugs the gun rights crowd does snuggle up to with wild enthusiasm.

[alwynsw]

44. Let's play pretend.

You pretend to answer my question and I'll pretend to listen.

[MrBenchley]

51. What else does the RKBA crowd EVER do?

They sure as hell don't have anything resembling a FACT.

[alwynsw]

55. I'm still waiting for that answer.

inquiring minds want to know.

[MrBenchley]

58. Well, when the RKBA crowd finds a fact

we'll ALL be surprised. Until thenn I guess we'll have to put up with right wing crap from NewsMax and flat-out deception, as usual.

[alwynsw]

89. You still haven't answered my question.

i thought this is a discussion board, not a cussin' board.

[TyroneStryker]

46. Are you going to dodge the question?

Do you not comprehend that they attack anti-gun people? In my opinion, they don't care what party the anti-gun scum is from.

[MrBenchley]

50. Too FUCKING funny....

"In my opinion, they don't care what party"
Yeah, we can tell by the ranting they do about "anti-gun" Feingold.

Of course,, look at the right wing scum they DO snuggle up to.

[TyroneStryker]

57. They and I despise Feingold for the

BCRA, the worst legislation in the last 100 years. It prevented groups like the UAW and NRA from airing issue ads that even obliquely refer to a candidate. Worst law ever, I can't believe that the SCOTUS upheld it.

[MrBenchley]

60. Gee, then don't come crying to me

"It prevented groups like the UAW and NRA from airing issue ads that even obliquely refer to a candidate."
Not even close to true...what it did was prevent the NRA from airing ads while pretending to be somebody they weren't. See for some reason, people think of that raving bunch of dangerous right wing loonies as a raving bunch of dangerous right wing loonies. Go figure.

[TyroneStryker]

63. 30 Days before a primary and 60 before a general election

No ads allowed from corporations. Even the ACLU thinks this is awful. The UAW is incorporated, the NRA is incorporated, the ACLU is, AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club, GreenPeace, etc. It hurts Democracy, even in New Jersey.

[MrBenchley]

73. Not even close to true

but thanks for the hysteria...

"The statute defines a new category of "electioneering communications" -- basically, television and radio ads that mention a federal candidate during the run-up to a primary or general election.
It then requires such communications to be paid for only with money raised and spent in accordance with federal disclosure rules and limitations on individual donations.
No soft money could be used to pay for the ads. Instead, corporations, unions or interest groups would have to set up federally regulated political action committees and pay for the ads through those. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A54525-2003Dec10¬Found=true

In other words, the NRA can't hide that it IS the NRA.

[TyroneStryker]

64. So,

I guess you don't support the 1st Amendment unless it applies only to those you like? Is that true? If not, please enlighten me as to your true position.

[MrBenchley]

75. Too frigging funny

Tell me next that it's unconstitutional..oh that's right, IT'S NOT.

[MrBenchley]

45. By the way.....

You'll notice the gun rights groups didn't give Russ a dime in 1998....

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00000036&cycle=1998&expand=W

[davidinalameda]

92. locking

do I really have to give a reason?