On Oct 10, 2014, landmark wrote:
And how would they propose to enforce that? Do they support background checks of private and gun show sales?

On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Ok. Sorry, you are correct Bob- it's not fair to state ALL liberals, just some Liberals and no Conservatives want to take the right to own a gun away. No Conservatives that I know of anyway.


Oh, I'm pretty certain you could find Conservatives who would want to take guns away. It depends on who owns the guns. I wonder what the general consensus of the Black Panthers arming themselves would be among Conservatives.

I'm pretty sure it would be that the ones who haven't been convicted of violent crimes or felonies should be allowed to own guns.

On Oct 10, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:

Quote:

On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Ok. Sorry, you are correct Bob- it's not fair to state ALL liberals, just some Liberals and no Conservatives want to take the right to own a gun away. No Conservatives that I know of anyway.


Oh, I'm pretty certain you could find Conservatives who would want to take guns away. It depends on who owns the guns. I wonder what the general consensus of the Black Panthers arming themselves would be among Conservatives.

I'm pretty sure it would be that the ones who haven't been convicted of violent crimes or felonies should be allowed to own guns.

I'm not arguing that, I'm pretty certain most vocal Conservatives (I'm looking at you, Rush) would take to the airwaves ranting about "extremist groups" owning guns.

...The organization actively lobbied in favor of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned gun sales by mail, and enacted a system of licensing those people and companies who bought and sold firearms. Franklin Orth, then the executive vice president of the NRA, said that although certain aspects of the law “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

During that time, the NRA and conservative politicians such as California Governor Ronald Reagan supported gun control as a means of restoring social order, and getting weapons out of the hands of radical, left-leaning and revolutionary groups, particularly the Black Panther Party.

Responding to the perceived failures of the nonviolent civil rights movement, the Black Panthers took a more militant and uncompromising approach of the fallen leader Malcolm X. Led by figures including Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, the Panthers’ “by any means necessary” approach included a most aggressive gun ownership policy to protect their communities from police abuse.

Beginning in 1966, the Panthers carried out police patrols, in which they rushed to the scene of an arrest with their loaded weapons publicly displayed, and notified those being arrested of their constitutional rights. California state legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the state law allowing citizens to carry loaded guns in public if they were openly displayed. Mulford had the Panthers in mind with this legislation.

On May 2, 1967, a group of Black Panthers protested the bill by walking into the California State Capitol Building fully armed. In response, the legislature passed the Mulford Act. And Gov. Reagan, who was a major proponent of disarming the Panthers, signed the bill into law, effectively neutralizing the Panther Police Patrols.

Yet, in the 1970s the NRA began to shift their direction rightward and actively lobby for gun rights. Their chief lobbyist, Harlon Carter, was a former border control agent and staunch supporter of gun rights. In 1977, Carter and his faction staged a coup within the NRA, against an establishment that wanted to shift away from gun control and crime in favor of conservation and sportsmen’s issues.

With the Black Panther Party and other left wing gun control foes out of the picture, the new hardline NRA feared the government would similarly take away their guns. Further, these predominantly white and conservative gun rights advocates in the NRA shared the Panthers’ distrust of the police.

Ironically, Ronald Reagan—who had signed the Mulford Act to disarm the Black Panther Party—changed his stance and advocated for guns as a defense against state power.

“So isn’t it better for the people to own arms than to risk enslavement by power-hungry men or nations? The founding fathers thought so,” Reagan said in a radio commentary in 1975.

In 1980, the NRA endorsed Reagan for president, the first such endorsement by the group. On March 30, 1981, President Reagan and three others were shot and injured by John Hinckley, Jr., 25, outside the Washington Hilton Hotel.

Fox News, in its original Oct. 8, 2014, online news report on Hunter’s declaration, quoted the Department of Homeland Security disputing his account.

Homeland Security told PolitiFact Texas that no such apprehensions have occurred. An agency spokeswoman, Marsha Catron, emailed: "The suggestion that individuals who have ties to ISIL have been apprehended at the Southwest border is categorically false, and not supported by any credible intelligence or the facts on the ground. DHS continues to have no credible intelligence to suggest terrorist organizations are actively plotting to cross the southwest border."

And after Hunter spoke, the Texas Department of Public Safety wrote state legislators, saying in an Oct. 8, 2014, email it "does not have any information to confirm" statements about Islamic terrorists or ISIS fighters entering the country. A DPS spokesman, Tom Vinger, confirmed the message’s authenticity.

In the message, a DPS deputy director, Robert Bodisch, mentioned the Hunter interview and an Oct. 8, 2014, news report by Judicial Watch, a conservative news website, stating Islamic terrorists had entered the country from Mexico. According to unidentified Homeland Security sources, Judicial Watch said four terrorists had been apprehended in the previous 36 hours by federal authorities and the DPS in McAllen and Pharr.

In the message to legislators, Bodisch further wrote: "An unsecure border is certainly a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds, and it would be naïve to rule out the possibility that any criminal organization would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our international border. That said, DPS does not have any information to confirm the specific statements recently reported in the press."

On Oct 10, 2014, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Folks want to confuse south americans seeking economic ( and political ) benefits by entering into our country as illegals with islamic terrorists?

is there really that much support for islam in south america that such would be feasible?