Rebane's Ruminations
October 2015
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Predictably Barack Hussein Obama voiced his conclusions and exhortations for gun control before the Roseburg bodies had cooled, the wounded were out of surgery, and any relevant information about the shooter and the shootings had been released by the police – anything to take people’s minds off his debacles in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  Our national demagogue again addressed the gruberized in an attempt to make them believe that these rare shootings are a national problem that far outweighs those that happen in gun controlled cities day in and day out.  Nowhere did he rise to address the 50 Chicago shootings two weekends in a row – to that sumbich black lives don’t matter, but Agenda21 does.

According to the Rebane Doctrine all gun control laws in legislative debate should address their impact on the Founders’ intent for including the Second Amendment in our Constitution.  Will the new law make it more difficult for citizens to successfully oppose a future rogue government as anticipated by the Founders and echoed by patriot Americans over the last two centuries?  The progressives promoting world socialism always want to divert us from the hundreds of millions of their own citizens that collectivist tyrants have murdered during the last century.  And they do it with the ever popular, ‘It can’t happen in America.’  In the mid-1930s ‘It can’t happen in Germany’ was used to keep the very educated and cultured masses quiet and compliant, even while Stalin was slaughtering kulaks by the tens of millions a few hundred miles away.

Anyone want to make book on what part religion, specifically Islam, played in the mind of the Roseburg shooter?  And all that as Team Obama does its best to disarm law abiding America.  (For those interested, I’m prepared to go through some probabilistic calcs on the number of such people still loose in our population who will not be affected one whit by the Left’s proposed new gun laws.  As long as the perp knows he’s the only one with a gun, these killings will continue.  There are just too many of us, and enough of them.)

[2oct15 update]  Well, the comment stream below has grown enough to attract and include the obligatory leftwing arguments for functionally, if not absolutely, disarming America.  From those commenters we hear nothing about our president rushing to be the first to call for new gun laws, and the first to politicize the event.  The Left, of course, with Alinsky-style retorts, flips that event and accuses those reporting and countering the president’s remarks as instead being the first to politicize this tragedy.

What is important to note is that the Left again 1) says nothing about the non-enforcement of existing gun control laws, continuing their litany of ‘forget enforcement, just pass more restrictive laws’; 2) spells out no specific laws that could have had any effect on the latest shootings; and 3) totally ignores the horrendous history of state killings of citizens in countries that denied them guns (the Second Amendment’s raison d’etre).  As we see from the comment stream, the Left’s educated elites practice cynicism of the highest order in arguing that our ongoing social breakdown is due to factors such as legal gun ownership, western religiosity, capitalistic greed, market-based income inequality (anti-unionism), intrinsic distrust of government, … .  To them society should be organized around an all-encompassing government guided by collectivist elites under whom work legions of altruistic technocrats striving to implement a comprehensively-regulated social order, all for the “greater good”, that is uniquely visible in their lights.

Again, I invite the attentive reader, in these first decades of the last great century of Man, to identify any common ground between our polarized and gruberized body politic that would just support functional communication, let alone that may contain a path to reunion as a citizenry of a sustainable sovereign nation-state.

[6oct15 update]  Rumor has it that President Obama will take his gun control politicizing to Roseburg.  Folks up there don't cotton to Obama, and most certainly his use of this tragic event to grandstand his 2nd Amendment agenda.  The man does not have a sense of decorum or knows that not everyone is a progressive eager to hear the pap he spews.  That, of course, may come as a surprise to some of our locals who think that only a remote group of knuckle dragging old farts in these hills don't take kindly to his politics.  For those progressives, here's an illuminating video of an O'Reilly segment. 

Posted in , , , ,

281 responses to “Obama shoots from the lip on Roseburg (updated 6oct15)”

  1. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 03 October 2015 at 09:52 PM
    “The shooter in Oregon broke no laws in obtaining the weapons he used.”
    Scott, I think it is too early to make that determination. What I have heard so far reported in the media is that all of the guns used in the shooting or found in his home were legally purchased.
    But my understanding is that as of August 2015 private transfers of firearms are illegal in Oregon and all sales (including gifts) must go through a background check. If the shooter took possession of any the 13 guns after August it would be an illegal sale.
    Thus I think until we have more information the jury is still out.

    Like

  2. fish Avatar
    fish

    Well Greg and Steve have been going at it for most of the day and I’m no closer to knowing if it would have been legal for a mere citizen to render assistance during this tragedy or not. I’m going to award the argument to Steve not because he’s convinced me but a man who so relishes the minutia of administrative language and who will spend an entire day arguing the finest of bureaucratic points is probably correct……technically.
    So Steve I award you the point.
    For being technically correct…..the best kind of correct.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
    I’m sure it would have been helpful to the handful of concealed carry permit holders if the law had been less shrouded in jurisdictional and legal arcana.
    But hey….eggs and omelettes…eh Steve?

    Like

  3. George Rebane Avatar

    SteveF 932pm – There you go again, I never “objected” to the proper use of prosecutorial discretion. Read the second paragraph of my 459pm.

    Like

  4. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Posted by: John | 03 October 2015 at 10:08 PM
    Well of course John the question of whether or not that constitutes an infringement of the 2nd amendment would be up to the courts. But the short answer is than give them the resources to do the background checks.
    If the law requires background checks and the law enforcement agencies don’t have the resources to do the background checks then people should not get guns. No background check no gun.

    Like

  5. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    “But over the years PD, as many legal analysts have written, has become a major tool in the corruption of our legal system. ”
    I am sorry George, who determines what the ‘proper use”is?
    The question stands, should a Sheriff be able to determine that they will not enforce a legally passed law? If the do should they still be a Sheriff?
    Seems to me that if I were ordered to enforce a law I disagreed with yet the duties of my office required that I do so, I would have to resign.

    Like

  6. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    The point is that Oregon colleges have been doing end runs around the 1989 law since it was put in place, and even the piece you’re pointing to, Steve, ignored it’s own link that made it clear the appeals court ruling only set aside one OU policy and made no sweeping claims of legality through all of Oregon’s higher education campuses,
    The UCC policy, besides the posted one that scares students away from self defense, is unclear even to a Oregon anti-gun activist:

    <

    blockquote> “Umpqua Community College says “possession, use, or threatened use of firearms … except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited,” according to its website.
    Starrett [a pro gun group activist] said arguments — which his group has encountered in the past — that state statute doesn’t expressly allow guns on school campuses are incorrect. “Most students see the rules and they just think that’s what it means and they obey them,” he said.
    Penny Okamoto, executive director of Ceasefire Oregon, said she, too, is not clear what the UCC’s policy on carrying concealed weapons on campus or how it was enforced.”
    Steve, UCC’s policy statement is boilerplate for gun free zones; the essence of your argument is that everyone who reads the policy should know they’re being lied to.

    Like

  7. John Avatar
    John

    Steve Frisch, why is it that when you are asked a very polite, simple, and direct question, you more often than not, will ignore the question but continue to spout talking points? Yesterday George asked you twice for some backup on your claim that there are numerous instances of concealed carry involvement leading to tragedy.We all know there are literally no documented instances of this happening, yet when asked for some backup you go silent on the issue. I asked you above at 10:08 how you justified your position that a never completed background check due to “inadequate resources” by law enforcement was acceptable and you are again silent. If you have reasonable explanations for these issues, it would be great to hear them.

    Like

  8. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Posted by: John | 03 October 2015 at 10:36 PM
    Seriously John, I actually answered both of your questions. And I did not see where George asked me yesterday about cases where concealed carry intervention has led to tragedy. Can you point me to it? Was it on this thread?

    Like

  9. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    But just for the hell of it here are two:
    Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington
    As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.
    Courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas
    In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.
    And this news story:
    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/family-mourns-man-killed-while-trying-stop-shooting-spree

    Like

  10. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Posted by: Gregory | 03 October 2015 at 10:36 PM
    Boy you sure are purdy when you are backtracking Greg.

    Like

  11. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Steve thinks “pink ghetto” is incredibly disrespectful. Tough.
    I think packing an elementary school with a single gender teaching staff is incredibly inappropriate and even could have been a contributing factor to the shootings. She’d been principal for a couple of years, though not during the shooter’s attendance (she was his mother’s boss) and the culture of the school and district was for elementary grades to be as testosterone free as possible. This is both very common and wrong. They are quite often “pink ghettos” devoid of male teaching staff.
    And regarding the principal’s education, I think it incredibly inappropriate for schools to be led by Special Education staff unless the school is a Special Education school. Unfortunately, from top to bottom in Western Nevada County, it’s Special Education trained administrators who are running the show. County Superintendent Hermansen. Former high school super Maggie Deetz. NU’s Dan Frisella. Then there’s the recently censured Trustee Linda Campbell.
    You have not had kids, Steve. Schools are not what you think they used to be,

    Like

  12. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    The 1036 of mine got some quotes and a link dropped. Just call me fumblefingers.
    Here’s NBC News’ take on it:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/debate-confusion-over-oregons-gun-rules-after-deadly-shooting-n437966
    No backtracking here, Steve.

    Like

  13. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Posted by: Gregory | 03 October 2015 at 11:05 PM
    What are you a shrink now Greg? You think the school is responsible for Adam Lanze shooting kids?
    The fact remains the Principal was new, was not responsible for the make up of the staff as I said, you were wrong, I was correct,.
    So now you are backtracking again. Can’t you do any research before you shoot your mouth off Greg? I may not be an expert in education but I was taught to do research before making a statement.
    I also don’t think anyone gives a damn what your pet theory about the right gender mix to educate children is.
    And none of it has anything to do with Nevada County schools.

    Like

  14. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    You are backtracking your lame butt off Greg.

    Like

  15. fish Avatar
    fish

    Yesterday George asked you twice for some backup on your claim that there are numerous instances of concealed carry involvement leading to tragedy.
    So in Frisch World people attempting to render assistance who are killed or wounded during the attempt somehow make matters so much worse? Seems to me I’d rather have the attempt at help….maybe you can get a medic-alert bracelet that says “Let the criminal kill me…do not intervene”….how noble!
    But no examples where some crazy cowboy pulled his gat trying to stop a robbery and plugged a natural gas tank that a bus load of nuns happened to be enjoying a lovely picnic lunch around at the time.
    You should probably try harder.
    Seems like you guys spend quite a bit of time reviewing Jeff’s blog for a guy you say is irrelevant.
    Oh he is….but such an incredibly rich vein of humor! Simultaneously promethean and cringingly self pitying. If jeffy didn’t exist we…using his turn of phrase…would have to invent him.

    Like

  16. fish Avatar
    fish

    Yep Steve….rules and regulations easily accessible to the common citizenry…..
    From Gregs link above.

    “The fact that so much confusion surrounds Oregon’s laws regarding concealed carry is no accident, according to Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Education Foundation.
    Oregon had a ban on carrying guns on campus dating to the 1970s, but it was challenged in 2009 by a Marine veteran attending Western Oregon University who was arrested and suspended for possessing a firearm in a public building.
    Starrett’s group filed a lawsuit on his behalf, arguing that the Oregon University System, which includes Western Oregon University, lacked authority to alter state law allowing licensed gun owners to carry their weapons on public property.
    The case eventually landed on the docket of an Oregon Appeals Court, which agreed with the plaintiffs and ended the ban.
    Starrett told NBC News Friday that while the court’s ruling didn’t directly address community colleges like UCC, “It’s doubtful that community colleges could make the case that they have the right to do it (ban guns on campus).”
    Much of the remaining confusion about whether licensed concealed carry is allowed, Starrett said, arises from the fact that many schools, fair boards and other entities continue to post signs and adopt policies either stating or strongly implying that guns are not allowed.
    For example, he said, Oregon’s State Board of Higher Education responded to the court loss by adopting a new policy in 2012 that banned guns from dormitories, buildings, classrooms and sports arenas. But as individuals challenge those policies, he said, administrators backed down, preventing a test case that could have drawn a bright legal line from being litigated.
    “As a result, I think it will be nebulous for a long time until not only someone is willing to fight it or the school takes a hard stance and decides to fight it,” Starrett said.
    Regarding UCC’s policy on concealed carry, Starrett said, that may explain why gun control advocates could have gotten the impression that it was a “gun-free zone,” despite law to the contrary.
    Umpqua Community College says “possession, use, or threatened use of firearms … except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited,” according to its website.”

    Like

  17. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Posted by: fish | 03 October 2015 at 11:30 PM
    I found it explained in 30 seconds on a gun rights blog Fish. It was out there enough that enough that people were carrying on the UCC campus, not that it did any good.
    The entire issue is kind of irrelevant anyway’ in the time it takes for an incident like this to occur someone with a CCP (or and armed guard for that matter) would not have had time to interfere anyway.
    But I am back to my original point: we have agreement that existing gun laws should be enforced so we should fully fund and vigorously enforce them right?

    Like

  18. fish Avatar
    fish

    I found it explained in 30 seconds on a gun rights blog Fish. It was out there enough that enough that people were carrying on the UCC campus, not that it did any good.
    It doesn’t trouble you that institutions that are operated by the state seem to have such difficulty comprehending and acting upon laws established by the state. Umpqua Community College has an attorney somewhere in the system that could have directed them to make the matter clear.
    They didn’t. Wonder why that was?
    Might have dome some good if a CCW holder happened to be in the class that the shooter chose first and those odds go up with more CCW holders.
    The entire issue is kind of irrelevant anyway’ in the time it takes for an incident like this to occur someone with a CCP (or and armed guard for that matter) would not have had time to interfere anyway.
    I find it interesting that following your line of reasoning there should be no need for armed police response during these events either. During the Columbine shooting there was plenty of time for the police to arrive, the “active shooter” phase of the incident went on for the better part of an hour (I realize that this is not a completely legitimate comparison as CCW permits aren’t issued to high school aged children) but it does show that these incidents are not always over so rapidly that..…”someone with a CCP (or and armed guard for that matter) would not have had time to interfere anyway. “
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#April_20.2C_1999:_The_massacre
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
    But I am back to my original point: we have agreement that existing gun laws should be enforced so we should fully fund and vigorously enforce them right?
    Yes. On this point we are in agreement. I wonder if the democrats will ever show a little spine and stand up to the NRA? I mean, peoples lives are on the line…..if public opinion is so overwhelmingly on your side of the issue there shouldn’t be any reason to fear the efforts of gun owners and there lobbying groups.
    Certainly not over something so trivial as a seat in congress.

    Like

  19. fish Avatar
    fish

    jeffpelline says:
    October 3, 2015 at 9:49 pm
    Oh, then there’s “fish” (AKA David Larsen of Carmichael), who pollutes the local blogs. Vocal but not too bright. Here’s his “genius” on the topic with a former colleague at The Chronicle:
    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle603-20110116-02.html
    Reply

    Never a complaint about where a commenter resides when they happen to agree with you jeffy. No whining about your new climate change BFF from Vancouver?
    Weak sauce fat man.

    Like

  20. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Steve F.
    Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Steve, now you are playing simplictist games when you say if LE does not have the resources to complete all background checks in a timely manner, then no gun can be purchased.
    You have been around the block more than once and know full well numerous projects and requirements have been approved and stuck in some bill or piece of signed legislation that has yet to see the light of day. All those passed pieces of legislation and budget items to increase border patrol agents and securing the border never saw the light of day as the formerly Dem controlled Congress at the time withheld the funds in various committees.
    Just ask ICE how that works. Ask any local Forest Service dude who cannot leave the office to patrol the woods and enforce laws because their gas budget only allows for 2-3 days of driving out to the boonies instead of 5 days a week.
    Laws are one thing. Funding those laws are another. Not saying you don’t have a right to claim “fund new gun control laws by the control everything crowd or no selling of firearms “. Just saying quit acting so naive when you know full well it always does not work that way.

    Like

  21. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Posted by: Bill Tozer | 04 October 2015 at 07:16 AM
    No Bill what I clearly said in my piece was that the NRA is saying “enforce the laws” at the very same time they work actively to ensure that the laws cannot be enforced because they are starved for funds, so if they want to support their enforce the law position they have to work to create the funding as well. They and you and George can’t have it both ways. Which is precisely the NRA’s strategy.
    But you and I both know that if the laws were enforced the NRA would be backtracking as well and advocating for removing the laws, just as George did up above.
    It is an inherently inconsistent position.
    LE should have the resources they need to do proper background checks but there have been numerous instances where LE has issued approval without doing so because of the three day rule. That is ridiculous. Either we have background checks or we don’t.

    Like

  22. fish Avatar
    fish

    No Bill what I clearly said in my piece was that the NRA is saying “enforce the laws” at the very same time they work actively to ensure that the laws cannot be enforced because they are starved for funds….
    How exactly are “they” starved for funds?
    Politics is about making choices. If you want full funding for law enforcement to be able to do a quick criminal and mental health background check take it from the “Obama Phone” budget…..not like that program isn’t neck deep in fraud, waste, and abuse.

    Like

  23. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    The UCC Code of Student Misconduct specifically requires written authorization for possession of a firearm by a student … #19
    https://umpqua.edu/resources-and-services/academic/student-code-of-conduct?showall=&start=4
    Regarding Frisch’s fully fund mantra… law enforcement is funded at the city, county, state and federal levels. Each should do their duty and if they need funding, be loud about it.
    A pet peeve of mine regarding background checks, if you purchase a firearm from a dealer (including the passing of private transactions through licensed dealers), you make a number of sworn statements, under penalty of up to 19 years in prison, and at one time, over 72 thousand purchases had been denied… yet only 22 prosecutions had begun.
    Steve, here’s one where the perp is caught by their own actions. Biden said they didn’t have the time or money to file all the charges when, at the time, they’d only filed three tenths of one percent of them… and that it was OK by Joe… the purchase was blocked. And someone who was arguably trying to purchase a firearm barred them by law walks the streets to buy one there.
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/
    My own suspicion is they didn’t want to fess up on how few of the denials were because of a bad guy being stopped, and how many were errors where good citizens were denied by a federal error. Ruins a perfectly good statistic for a soundbite.

    Like

  24. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    what about a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trail???

    Like

  25. fish Avatar
    fish

    Posted by: Bill Tozer | 04 October 2015 at 07:58 AM
    Defendant is free to walk any “trail” he or she chooses Bill!

    Like

  26. George Rebane Avatar

    For those readers who wonder why Obama and other national progressives did not make their usual speeches about religious tolerance were something negative said/done against Muslims, the rest of us wonder why no one came out to support Christians who were executed in Roseburg for their faith. Well, it turns out that Dr Ben Carson did.
    http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/carsons-i-am-a-christian-instantly-goes-viral/
    In the above exchanges the question of law enforcement comes up (BTW, I’ve given up attempting a dialogue since my questions don’t get answered and the other side speaks on from ex cathedra – it is so because I say it is so.)
    Prosecutorial discretion is the leeway permitted to various law enforcement agents in the executive and judicial branches that allows them to pick and choose which laws get enforced to what degree when resources don’t permit full scale enforcement, which they seldom do. PD is seen commonly in areas such as enforcement of drug use laws, mental health laws, traffic laws, drunk driving laws, and even gun laws.
    If the saving of human lives were the real concern, then more lives would be saved were we to put the resources in place to enforce laws that prescribe the legal use of motor vehicles. The Left’s politically motivated desire to systematically disarm Americans by focusing only on funding increased enforcement of the already stringently enforced gun laws rings hollow, especially when the claim is saving lives.
    Without involving a smidgeon of numeracy, as I have pointed out above, there is no reasonable basis for discussing more gun control – as with ‘climate change’, hysteria rules and organized progressives are its acolytes (I refer you to Connecticut Democrat Sen Blumenthal’s new legislation).

    Like

  27. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Posted by: Gregory | 04 October 2015 at 07:49 AM
    Well we mat have found something we can agree on Greg. I agree that failure to prosecute people who lie on their background check is a problem and that prosecution would act as a signal to others. Biden is wrong on this one.
    There is also a major problem with mental health providers not having the resources they need to report to the FBI and thus the background check database. That hole should be closed as well, which I suspect you would support.

    Like

  28. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    My, Fish, I gotta get up earlier to slip one by you! Slip on the trail?
    So Steve F, are you saying it is the NRA ‘s job to push for more funding for enforcement of new or existing gun control laws. I think not? It’s LE and our elected reps job.
    Who is responsible for funding our constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial? Or walking trails for that matter? What about the squirrels, Steve? Oh, that might be over your non local head. Smiley face time.

    Like

  29. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Not to through an irrelevant wrinkle into the hopper but I am wondering what you guys think of Wayne LaPierre getting a $972,000 per year salary before benefits, bonuses and outside business deals as the President of the NRA?

    Like

  30. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Posted by: Bill Tozer | 04 October 2015 at 08:15 AM
    What do you mean ‘non local head?’

    Like

  31. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    I mean that local Leaf Guard radio commerical. Have you thought about the squirrels, Steve? But I digress.

    Like

  32. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    George The Doc, @ 8:09 am.
    Agreed my good fellow. But, I do like the title of your post. “Obama shoots from the lip”. Big lower lip that pushes his lower jaw out when he is confronted. Good one. Like “corpse man”, as Obama would say addressing our enlisted personnel.
    Besides, I would rather talk about Hillary. At least she ain’t no stinkin’ gunslinging Republican.

    Like

  33. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    One more thing. At least when Obama shoots skeet, he donates the pieces to the local food bank. Later. I feel chipper this morning. Time to go out and kill something.

    Like

  34. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    There is a puff piece on the number of homicides in Oakland, CA in the Bee this morning. The city is becoming “gentrified” a new code word for “white folks” and the hope was the diminution of homicides in Jerry Brown’s town. Sadly, they are up. Something like 60 pr 70 so far this year. Black lives apparently don’t matter to the Mayor of “color” and the liberals now moving their to upscale the place.
    The UCC shooter apparently blew his own brains out too. Should have been a security guy doing that before the scumbag did his dirty deeds. They should hoist the pricks body on a petard in cit center.

    Like

  35. John Avatar
    John

    Steve, I am curious if you currently, or have ever owned a firearm?

    Like

  36. fish Avatar
    fish

    Posted by: Steve Frisch | 04 October 2015 at 08:18 AM
    Not to throw an irrelevant wrinkle into the hopper but I am wondering what you guys think of Wayne LaPierre getting a $972,000 per year salary before benefits, bonuses and outside business deals as the President of the NRA?

    The organization’s mission is simply stated, right at the top: “To protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.” To accomplish this, in 2010 the NRA reported that it had 781 full time employees, 125,000 volunteers and generated revenues of $227.8 million.
    Where does all that come from? In 2010, $71 million came from contributions and grants, $100 million from membership fees and $46 million from other revenue sources, like ad sales ($20 million) royalties, rents and subscriptions.

    His compensation coming from tax revenues?
    No?
    Don’t care…..

    Like

  37. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Frisch and others on the left still can’t come up with any specific leg that would have prevented the Roseburg (or Sandy Hook, et al) shootings.
    “Scott, I think it is too early to make that determination.”
    But not too early to claim that the NRA had something to do with this.
    Not too early to claim ‘more money’ would have prevented this shooting.
    Not too early to bitch about how much the head of the NRA makes.
    You can’t answer the question Frisch and now you are trying to change the subject.
    The left doesn’t seem too interested in stopping the shootings as I’ve pointed out what will stop them and they ignore it. They relish these tragedies as a way of demonizing their political enemies and use the shootings as a handy excuse to grow the power of govt to further restrict our rights and lesson our freedoms.
    ‘Increased mental health screenings’
    Really? How does that work? If the word goes out that certain medical treatments or certain medications will cause the govt to pull the right to own a weapon, and the treatment was discretionary, you will see less folks getting the help they need. Also, I can see very quickly a big brother mentality deciding that maybe your posts are a little too ‘conservative’ for you to be considered sane.
    Also – what if you can’t get the weapons legally and you just murder to get them and then use the illegally obtained weapons to murder more people?
    The left has struck out.
    No answers – just rants against their political enemies and personal insults against those of us trying to actually stop the murders.

    Like

  38. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Todd, we (they) should take the shooter’s dong, cut it off, and stick it in his mouth and place his head on a stake in full view of Allah. That’s what the Japanese did to GIs during the Second World War. 3 nukes stopped that foolishness.

    Like

  39. fish Avatar
    fish

    stevefrisch says:
    October 4, 2015 at 8:25 am
    I can hear the response already; if you ‘liberals’ and ‘collectivists’ want to fund law enforcement and mental health providers to have up to date information for background checks you have to do it by a) defunding Obamacare, b) defunding Planned Parenthood, c) defunding climate adaptation and mitigation, and d) eliminating subsidies for renewable energy. 🙂
    Reply

    Ah…..the smiley emoticon!
    Do you want people purchasing firearms to pay for their own background checks? A position not completely unreasonable.
    If we’re in the business of paying to exercise our “rights” perhaps an abortion surcharge is in order as well.

    Like

  40. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Yeah, if the county wants to inspect my cess pool ever year, they can do it for free…or just stop enforcing the local law. Smiley face.

    Like

  41. fish Avatar
    fish

    …and in matters purely political.
    Follow
    el Sooper ن
    ‏@SooperMexican
    Obama is mixed, but black because liberals need him to be, shooter was mixed but white bc (because) libs need him to be.

    Like

  42. fish Avatar
    fish

    3 nukes stopped that foolishness.
    3?
    Did I miss one?

    Like

  43. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    The shooters mom is a black woman and CNN bleached his picture to make him appear to be a white man. CNN did not want the scumbag to dilute the “black lives matter” agenda. If this is not one more example of why America trusts the media as much as a pile of dog sh**.
    http://www.infowars.com/cnn-turns-mixed-race-oregon-shooter-into-a-white-man/
    So Frisch and all you PC bastards have you an opinion on this? Crickets.

    Like

  44. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    Steve Frisch 04Oct15 08:18 AM
    “…I am wondering what you guys think of Wayne LaPierre getting a $972,000 per year salary before benefits, bonuses and outside business deals as the President of the NRA?”
    I think that LaPierre and the NRA’s board of directors probably negotiated mutually acceptable terms of LaPierre’s employment as CEO of an organization with annual revenues in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars.
    And what are your thoughts on the matter, Steve? Perhaps more to the point, how does LaPierre’s compensation in any way matter to the topic of this comment thread?

    Like

  45. steve frisch Avatar
    steve frisch

    Posted by: John | 04 October 2015 at 08:44 AM
    John, I have owned a firearm. I choose not to disclose whether I currently own a firearm.

    Like

  46. steve frisch Avatar
    steve frisch

    Posted by: Michael R. Kesti | 04 October 2015 at 09:56 AM
    Posted by: fish | 04 October 2015 at 08:45 AM
    Just testing the level of hypocrisy you guys are willing to support.

    Like

  47. fish Avatar
    fish

    Posted by: steve frisch | 04 October 2015 at 10:45 AM
    Just testing the level of hypocrisy you guys are willing to support.

    I’m not an NRA member so I’m not supporting any hypocrisy in this area at all.
    Really Steve try to not descend into Ben Emery territory….it’s beneath you.

    Like

  48. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Unlike Stephen Frisch silver plated teat, it isn’t tax advantaged money that fills LaPierre’s rice bowl. Personally, I gave up on the NRA decades ago when they wouldn’t lift a finger to help Libertarian candidates, but I wish them well. If you don’t like them, don’t give them money.

    Like

  49. Don Bessee Avatar
    Don Bessee

    No surprise that I come back after a day of fun and find frischy spewing the same talking point nonsense. In that time we had the gun restricted Palestinian murder a few in a knife attack in Israel. Then in frischys gun control nirvana example Australia we had a jihadi cap a cop with an illegal gun. Tiresome talking points at that frischy. We are going to a non-organic, non-free range genetically modified brunch now. LOL I smell chili fries, did someone mention he whos name we will not utter or was it a sock puppet drive by post. 😉

    Like

  50. Walt Avatar

    So Steve declares ” not willing to state” if he owns a gun.. Good and cowardly of him.
    Grow a pair Steve. Afraid the word might get out that your unarmed? ( Rob this place first)
    A proud life member of the NRA here. So is the wife. We exercise our rights every chance we get.
    Now head on over to your friends in Commie China. Try speaking freely over there. ( You know,, our 1ST Amendment here) What other parts of The Bill of Rights are you willing to give up and/or don’t like?
    Hell. If George deleted your posts just because he felt like it, I’m pretty sure you would bitch to high heaven. Your other LIB pal does just that. But how DARE someone from the “other side” do that.

    Like

Leave a comment