- Messages
- 1,631
- Reactions
- 1,753
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Minister of Propaganda - M. Kelly
- Thread Starter simon99
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,432
- Reactions
- 1,287
The whole thing is very reminiscent of what occurred in 1930's Germany and it was the apathy of the general public that let is occur.
- Messages
- 1,546
- Reactions
- 1,044
If it weren't for that damn gun lobby....
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 2,432
- Reactions
- 1,287
I like being a thorn in the side of the Anti's!!
don't forget that it isn't merely "emotion," but also hypothetical "what-ifs." recall kelly's rebuttal when he was told that gabby's shooter had passed a background check. he said something along the lines of "if arizona law were different" and "if the shooter were adjudicated as mentally ill then he would've failed the background check." i mean, what a load of garbage. for kelly, MAIG, and obama it isn't even about reality and protection; it is about "ideology." it is an ideology that seeks to supplant and eliminate the values of "modernity" and the "enlightenment" by destroying agency, political self-determination, and historical consciousness; it is the "left fascism" of bataille and sorel.
Left-wing fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Left-wing fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reactions
- 1,577
So another admission that we are trying to fix something not broken, and ignoring something broken that no one wants to fix. Mr Kelly, then why was everyone in a room talking about enacting a bill that is in no way targeting the problem?
it is even worse than the bill not targeting the problem. kelly's claim that the shooter should've been adjudicated before he attempted to purchase a firearm (and background check) is even more alarming. in essence, kelly is saying that people who "might" be mentally ill should be brought before a judge to be assessed before any establishment of probable cause. in other words, "bring forth" all those who might be crazy enough to harm the public without probable cause. another way of looking at it is "pre-crime," wherein probable cause is no longer about violation, crime, and established (provable) intention, but rather "what-ifs" and "maybes." it is an attack against the very notion of "due process" and the legal system; it is a fascistic "predictability" scheme: round up all the "potential" problems and deal with them accordingly.
- Messages
- 3,390
- Reactions
- 3,094
Kelly again uses bad examples to push gun control
Former astronaut Mark Kelly's testimony yesterday before an Oregon State Senate panel to support so-called "universal background check" legislation in the Beaver State once again relied on examples of crimes that would not have been prevented if the measure had been in place when the shootings occurred.
<broken link removed>
Former astronaut Mark Kelly's testimony yesterday before an Oregon State Senate panel to support so-called "universal background check" legislation in the Beaver State once again relied on examples of crimes that would not have been prevented if the measure had been in place when the shootings occurred.
<broken link removed>
FEBRUARY 7, 2014
We had an interesting end to the first week of this Session, as the snow forced cancellation of late afternoon committees yesterday and all activities for today. Because the heaviest of the snow is south of Salem I am not sure at this point is I will be able to go home this weekend, but I will sort that out as the day progresses.
The one significant event of yesterday was the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on SB 1551, the background check bill. To be perfectly clear, I will say at the beginning I will vote no in committee and on the floor and I will explain my reasons in a little bit.
Here is how the hearing went. First we were given some numbers by the state police, but not really anything that was helpful. Second there was a panel that included Governor Kitzhaber and Mark Kelly (the husband of Gabby Gifford from Arizona) arguing in favor of the bill. Next we had a panel of people from gun groups arguing against the bill. The committee was allowed to ask questions of both of these groups, and I will get into to that later. This was followed by a succession of three person panels alternating between pro and con. Each person was allowed two minutes to speak and committee members were prohibited from making any comments or asking any questions, which is clearly not the way committee hearings are supposed to go unless one already has a predetermined outcome.
I do want to say I have the utmost sympathy for those who have been impacted by gun violence and I am willing to look at anything that might reduce the numbers. This bill will not. Take a look at the high profile cases used as examples. In the cases of Aurora, Arizona, Fort Hood, the Navy Yard, and Virginia Tech the shooters had all passed background checks. In the cases of Sandy Hook and the Clackamas Town Center the guns were stolen. In the Thurston School case it was his mother's gun. So clearly expanded background checks would not have stopped any of them.
This takes me to the testimony of Mr. Kelly. When I pointed out to him the fact his wife's shooter had passed a background check he suggested the checks need to be enhanced. He pointed out that the shooter might have had mental health issues and a good background check could have discovered that. The current system will discover any arrests and convictions including anyone who has been adjudicated on mental health grounds. To go to the point Mr. Kelly suggests would be to give the police and the FBI complete access to all of your medical records. I don't think this is a place we want to go, although it does fit in with all of the data the government is trying to collect on people through other means like Cover Oregon.
The bill itself is confusing as it exempts certain sales between relatives and actually creates a new definition of relative. For example I think I could sell a gun to my step son without a background check but I am not sure he could sell one to me. We have asked and received from our Legislative Council a legal opinion on some of these issues. The question I asked in committee was "if I loaned a gun to my girlfriend without a background check would I be breaking the law?" The committee administrator read part of the opinion and concluded I would not. At that point I interrupted and read the rest of the opinion which clearly indicated I would. This bill is confusing enough without receiving false information.
During the 2013 Session I made a proposal to do an IT upgrade to the current system. This would have allowed for quicker response times and more accurate results. If the intent is to keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys this would have helped immediately. The proposal was rejected. This and many other things that have happened over the course of time make me wonder what the real objective is.
The capper of the whole hearing was the testimony from a woman from Portland advocating for more background checks. Her example was guns being sold out of the trunks of cars in Portland. How would a background check impact this type of activity? The bad guys clearly don't care about the law. Adding new provisions will not solve the targeted problem and potentially making it harder for people who obey the law is clearly not the answer.
This bill is scheduled for a work session in committee on Wednesday. Senator Prozanski has told some he has the votes, and he does not. This is being done purely for political reasons. I wish we were spending this time looking for real solutions.
Sincerely,
Senator Jeff Kruse
We had an interesting end to the first week of this Session, as the snow forced cancellation of late afternoon committees yesterday and all activities for today. Because the heaviest of the snow is south of Salem I am not sure at this point is I will be able to go home this weekend, but I will sort that out as the day progresses.
The one significant event of yesterday was the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on SB 1551, the background check bill. To be perfectly clear, I will say at the beginning I will vote no in committee and on the floor and I will explain my reasons in a little bit.
Here is how the hearing went. First we were given some numbers by the state police, but not really anything that was helpful. Second there was a panel that included Governor Kitzhaber and Mark Kelly (the husband of Gabby Gifford from Arizona) arguing in favor of the bill. Next we had a panel of people from gun groups arguing against the bill. The committee was allowed to ask questions of both of these groups, and I will get into to that later. This was followed by a succession of three person panels alternating between pro and con. Each person was allowed two minutes to speak and committee members were prohibited from making any comments or asking any questions, which is clearly not the way committee hearings are supposed to go unless one already has a predetermined outcome.
I do want to say I have the utmost sympathy for those who have been impacted by gun violence and I am willing to look at anything that might reduce the numbers. This bill will not. Take a look at the high profile cases used as examples. In the cases of Aurora, Arizona, Fort Hood, the Navy Yard, and Virginia Tech the shooters had all passed background checks. In the cases of Sandy Hook and the Clackamas Town Center the guns were stolen. In the Thurston School case it was his mother's gun. So clearly expanded background checks would not have stopped any of them.
This takes me to the testimony of Mr. Kelly. When I pointed out to him the fact his wife's shooter had passed a background check he suggested the checks need to be enhanced. He pointed out that the shooter might have had mental health issues and a good background check could have discovered that. The current system will discover any arrests and convictions including anyone who has been adjudicated on mental health grounds. To go to the point Mr. Kelly suggests would be to give the police and the FBI complete access to all of your medical records. I don't think this is a place we want to go, although it does fit in with all of the data the government is trying to collect on people through other means like Cover Oregon.
The bill itself is confusing as it exempts certain sales between relatives and actually creates a new definition of relative. For example I think I could sell a gun to my step son without a background check but I am not sure he could sell one to me. We have asked and received from our Legislative Council a legal opinion on some of these issues. The question I asked in committee was "if I loaned a gun to my girlfriend without a background check would I be breaking the law?" The committee administrator read part of the opinion and concluded I would not. At that point I interrupted and read the rest of the opinion which clearly indicated I would. This bill is confusing enough without receiving false information.
During the 2013 Session I made a proposal to do an IT upgrade to the current system. This would have allowed for quicker response times and more accurate results. If the intent is to keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys this would have helped immediately. The proposal was rejected. This and many other things that have happened over the course of time make me wonder what the real objective is.
The capper of the whole hearing was the testimony from a woman from Portland advocating for more background checks. Her example was guns being sold out of the trunks of cars in Portland. How would a background check impact this type of activity? The bad guys clearly don't care about the law. Adding new provisions will not solve the targeted problem and potentially making it harder for people who obey the law is clearly not the answer.
This bill is scheduled for a work session in committee on Wednesday. Senator Prozanski has told some he has the votes, and he does not. This is being done purely for political reasons. I wish we were spending this time looking for real solutions.
Sincerely,
Senator Jeff Kruse
but lets call him a Nazi, very nice
If it's Nazi like to use emotion over logic, this forum is going to need ten gross of swastikas and 5 gallons of stick-em.
- Messages
- 206
- Reactions
- 182
The NAZI analogy is apropos. He is using hyperbole, sensationalism and guilt to frighten the masses so that he can remove our civil rights. NAZIs did use those same techniques. NAZIs were leftist/socialists. He is out pushing agitprop for socialists. If the shoe fits...
I will take it a step further and label anyone on the far left as equivalent today to the NAZIs. Stay tuned for the analogy.
- Messages
- 206
- Reactions
- 182
The problem is that they never have wanted to address that problem in the first place. If they had wanted to address that they would have done so. They know exactly what they are doing.
It serves their ends to push this agitprop.
They have alligned themselves with statists.
They have no use for the truth.
It serves their ends to push this agitprop.
They have alligned themselves with statists.
They have no use for the truth.
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reactions
- 1,753
- Thread Starter
- #13
Take a history class then come back to reality, we'll be waiting....
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reactions
- 1,753
- Thread Starter
- #16
I make no apologies about comparing Kelly to Goebbels....both used lies, emotion, propaganda and misdirection to promote their sick agenda and twisted ideology for personal gain with the result of millions of peoples lives being snuffed out. Gun Control has killed millions of innocent people, people that would have had a fighting chance otherwise.
Well we definitly know your opinion of the forum now, but what we dont know is why to are here. You obviously dont like real constitutional gunowners that are on the front lines of this fight in non concession.
Par for you as posting goes.
As for space mans testimony, it aids and abets the enemy with false testimony. I would call him a traitor to the country ! He's making $$$ of this to boot.
Actually, no, it is similar to tactics used in Nazi Germany to disarm the people, so you hit it pretty much straight on.
I equate him with a profiteering traitor at America's expense.
He is a Bloomberg tool.
Similar threads
