Where is the NRA for Ramsay Orta? Or is the term "Good guy with guns" not intended to be for those of dark complexion.

Ramsey Orta, the man who video recorded Eric Garner's death by choke-hold from NYPD officer Daniel Pantale. 2nd amendment rights activists should be clamoring to defend the private sale of fire arms (a .25-caliber Norton semiautomatic handgun), if there was colorblind opposition to the gun control laws like SAFE New York then this would be the best real world situation where the police target individuals based upon Mr. Orta's inconveniently videoing NYPD's malpractice. This arrest occurred last night and Mr. Orta was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon less than two weeks after he videoed the homicide of Eric Garner. The often repeated claim that there is constitutional right to privately transfer firearms is at question in this situation as well as NYPD's (thereby government) overreach that not only ended the life of Mr. Garner and infringe on Mr. Orta's 2nd amendment rights.

Will anybody take me up on a $2 bet that the NRA will not be coming to the aid of Mr. Otra's defense? Will gun-rights advocates be too busy dancing on the grave of recently deceased James Brady (Former Reagan press secretary turned gun control spokesman) to start taking this rare instance of a shared fight with liberals from the big-bad-godless city in the form of Rev. Al Sharpton. It would prove NRA-ILA's integrity and mettle were they to lend defense to Mr. Orta. Are the gun-rights advocates agnostic to whom has access to fire arms, since they are opposed to implementing any sort of national background checks that might bar individuals to access handguns for self-defense? Only time will tell if we see the same sort of banding together of fellow gun owners akin to what we saw in Clark County Nevada with stealing of services of grazing access which was the crime the Bundy Ranch committed (not a crime that has some constitutional question). There is a distinctly constitutional question to whether or not states have a right to intervene or make illegal private transfers of firearms; this past Supreme Court session did set precedence that states could not bar convicted felons of domestic violence from possessing a firearm and a couple years ago overturned D.C.'s universal ban of hand guns.

 

Unanimous Supreme Court Decision: Too Bad There Is No Means Of Enforcing It In Majority Of The States

Common sense prevailed this week deciding that those convicted of domestic violence forgo their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and with a unanimous decision. Convicted violent criminals can be universally understood, at least by reasonable individuals, to be individuals that can not be trusted with firearms. This comes along with criminal stats that 94% women who are murdered are victims of a male perpetrator were known to them, and two thirds of all murders from the same FBI statistics are committed with firearms. Firearms utilization in two thirds of American homicides has been a consistent percentage within the FBI statistics for nearly a decade, undercutting the primary argument for gun rights advocates that access to firearms isn't determinative to effect homicides. Though if firearms couldn't kill people effectively, the Department of Defense should see if they can get a refund for all of their small arms.

The Supreme Court decision barring convicts of even a "misdemeanor domestic assault" charge is enough of a violation to legally posses or purchase firearms. This is clearly a decision with 2nd amendment's "to ensure security" in mind rather than the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" clause. I still hold the belief that writers original intentions of the Second amendment was intrinsically tied to conscripted local militias to ensure slave revolts would arise (often refered to as 'slave patrols') and the since the passage of the 13th amendment alleviated the original intentions that necessitated the 2nd amendment it would be perfectly within a state's right to ban all firearms similar to the universal ban of firearms in the Wiemar Republic after Treaty of Versailles until 1928 when a firearms registry was instituted and that was done away with in 1938 (for all of those that believe Nazis against gun rights, they actually did the opposite in 1938, stop believing that misguided claptrap).

But on to the actual point, so the Supreme Court ruling that those convicted of non-felony violent crimes would be included being barred by Federal statute from buying and possessing firearms. If only a minority of states have instant universal background checks, what prevents the local wife beater to drive down to Virginia and purchase a firearm legally without ever even showing ID? If you guessed 'nothing' you are absolutely right! What would the gun manufacturers' lobby have against violent criminals accessing their wears? Will that where the expanding market is, of course. It's actually a two pronged viscous circle with two different expanding markets. The first market is for those convicted of crimes whom have had their firearms justifiably confiscated by law enforcement -- they are itching to get replacement guns when released from whatever correctional facility they come out of. The second market is for the woman that are now justifiably afraid that their convicted male acquaintance might have them at the other end of the right to bear arms-- therefore if there was an universal instant background check national implemented they would be able to play off the fears of women and relying on just law abiding male citizens is just not quickly expanding as much as the shareholders are demanding to be. So we have the acknowledgement of some the most conservative legal minds in the free world that violent people shouldn't be given any access to "boom-sticks", while the National Rifle Association (also known as NAMBLA) exerts force on Congress to do the will of gun manufacturers all for the sake of maximizing profit regardless of the 8,000 or so lives that are loss to homicides by firearms.





http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/26/3419173/man-convicted-of-domestic-violence-cant-possess-a-gun-supreme-court-rules/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/opinion-analysis-state-conviction-for-misdemeanor-domestic-assault-counts-as-misdemeanor-crime-of-domestic-violence-for-purposes-of-federal-gun-restrictions/

NRA: Please put away the Obama target mannequin, but lone female target "the EX" keep selling those

This past weekend at the NRA national conference in Houston, TX had hundreds of vendors sell their wares from guns, hunting accessories, gun related books, clothing, and practice targets. One of the vendors that sells practice targets that bleed when you shoot them, named Bleeding Zombie Targets by Zombie Industries. The NRA requested that take the Bleeding Zombie Target model named "Rocky" (which has user submitted videos on their website referring to it as "Barry") off display due to it's obvious resemblance to President Barack "Barry" Obama. They were free to continue to sell the less than respectful depiction of the Commander-in-Chief, the vendor was just not allowed to put it up front on display. This decision was in reaction to news reporting about the product, what strikes me is that no mention to the other model that clearly plays out on a fantasy of violence towards women named "the EX" and the only female target.

So it is okay to carry out violence on exes effigy that bleeds faux blood, but it is beyond the pale to claim that conservatives have a war against women.

So it is okay to carry out violence on the president effigy if he is a Democrat, but if Code Pink interrupts public appearances and calls judicial process being initiated to prove whether or not war crimes have been committed in our name-- that is demeaning to Office of the President.

So moral relativism is an abomination when discussing public policy, unless it is American Exceptionlism because all countries are equal just some countries are more equal than others.

http://zombieindustries.com/video/jerry-ike-reviews-our-rocky-zombie/