PDA

View Full Version : Legal Community Against Violence 17th Anniversary Dinner pictures!!


Steyr_223
08-02-2010, 4:40 PM
Where are the protesters??

;)

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs220.snc4/39337_470087725808_215654610808_6233037_3682441_n. jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs170.snc4/37825_470086795808_215654610808_6233024_150037_n.j pg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs090.ash2/37825_470086790808_215654610808_6233023_7729409_n. jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs090.ash2/37825_470086785808_215654610808_6233022_7038008_n. jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs190.snc4/37825_470086775808_215654610808_6233020_675777_n.j pg

Steyr_223
08-02-2010, 4:42 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs195.snc4/38094_470084510808_215654610808_6232984_6809503_n. jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs094.ash2/38023_470078555808_215654610808_6232876_4277984_n. jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs094.ash2/38023_470078550808_215654610808_6232875_5650715_n. jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs094.ash2/38023_470078545808_215654610808_6232874_4724238_n. jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs194.snc4/38023_470078540808_215654610808_6232873_4142952_n. jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs094.ash2/38023_470078530808_215654610808_6232872_2791632_n. jpg

Steyr_223
08-02-2010, 4:43 PM
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Legal-Community-Against-Violence/215654610808

wash
08-02-2010, 4:55 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs094.ash2/38023_470078555808_215654610808_6232876_4277984_n. jpg


I wonder what kind of proposition she recieved?

Joe
08-02-2010, 5:04 PM
Disgusting

Window_Seat
08-02-2010, 5:05 PM
I don't have a problem with a community that is against violence, but the LCAV is (in all reality) a community against legal gun ownership in the home and everywhere else.

Erik.

POLICESTATE
08-02-2010, 5:07 PM
Too bad you can't see craziness in the face, if I didn't know what this event was I'd assume it was just some business get together or something. But in reality it's a bunch of people with no concept of reality.

jshoebot
08-02-2010, 5:12 PM
You know, as much of a nutjob robin is, she sure is a good looking older woman. Too bad she's dumb :(

Colt
08-02-2010, 5:39 PM
Maybe people should have been outside with signs about being against drinking and driving...

santacruzstefan
08-02-2010, 5:42 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs094.ash2/38023_470078545808_215654610808_6232874_4724238_n. jpg

Who are these two angry-looking douches and what are those awards for?

Edit: Note how the guy in the dark suit is holding his award in relation to his body... perhaps I'm reading into it too much, but it seems a bit suggestive...

Hunt
08-02-2010, 5:51 PM
these people have a serious case of hoplophobia and extreme busy bodies. Why can't they just mind their own business

rromeo
08-02-2010, 5:58 PM
I don't have a problem with a community that is against violence, but the LCAV is (in all reality) a community against legal gun ownership in the home and everywhere else.

Erik.

Just like "Mayors Against Illegal Guns " wouldnt be bad, but they're really "Mayors against guns being legal."

GuyW
08-02-2010, 6:00 PM
....the communists fade into the population, until their verbally-presented mental disorder manifests itself....
.

Pig Rifle
08-02-2010, 6:01 PM
Edit: Note how the guy in the dark suit is holding his award in relation to his body... perhaps I'm reading into it too much, but it seems a bit suggestive...

.....and they accuse us of treating our guns that way, LOL!

santacruzstefan
08-02-2010, 6:03 PM
Wow. I've been cruising their site, and they are truly a bunch of ignorant fools. I love how they twist statistics to make themselves seem to stand on firm moral ground, and give themselves broad support. "More than 40% of Americans support a nationwide ban on the carrying of concealed firearms." Yes, that means that a majority of Americans are against such a ban... but perhaps the people they represent are too stupid to realize that they are in the minority? Unreal... these guys seem worse than the Brady campaign, if only because they bandy about with their legal credentials to back them up with a false sense of authority.

N6ATF
08-02-2010, 7:54 PM
Agh, it burns...

The only place I want to see these victim disarming traitors' faces are in booking photos for complicity in countless crimes they enabled.

383green
08-02-2010, 8:00 PM
Where are the protesters??

The protesters are in their minds, man! :willy_nilly:

Lex Arma
08-02-2010, 8:01 PM
I know the awards they aren't getting.....

The one for predicting that the Second Amendment required membership in a militia, and that it doesn't apply to state and local gov't.

The award for accurately predicting that constitutional question goes to......? :gura:

JBBenson
08-02-2010, 8:08 PM
You know, I don't see any African-Americans in any of the pictures.

Is the LCAV some kind of racist organization?

N6ATF
08-02-2010, 8:15 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs194.snc4/38023_470078540808_215654610808_6232873_4142952_n. jpg

Argh, eyes burning again. One guy, 2 cm above centerline, 2 cm from left side.

Of course they're a racist organization. Gun control was originally racist, so they're KKK-lite (and yet more sinister, because at least you could shoot the KKK in self-defense, LCAV victimizes everyone by protecting their proxy agents, the International Criminals Union). If this guy meant to attend this function, he's not only a traitor to law-abiding citizens, he's a traitor to his own race.

Cali-Shooter
08-02-2010, 8:26 PM
The Legal Community Against Violence... they might as well flipping give up on mankind, and renounce their status as humans. Violence prevention? By taking away legal ownership of guns? Big LAFF. Who the bloody hell do they think they are? Someone needs to pound it into their heads that taking away guns would not mean that the violence would cease. Human beings are violent by nature, it's a matter of using it for good or bad. What a hopeless, fruitless, pointless non-profit org.

Lone_Gunman
08-02-2010, 8:31 PM
C'mon God, is it so much to ask? One well placed meteor. That's all I want.

ccandgc
08-02-2010, 8:34 PM
Who are these two angry-looking douches and what are those awards for?



Looks like he had a chin implant with what the vet chopped off from between my terrier's rear legs.:rolleyes:

Ford8N
08-02-2010, 8:41 PM
Everyone in that room is mentally ill. They all have irrational fears of inanimate objects and demonizing the object like it causes the crime. It's a terrible sickness.

Roadrunner
08-02-2010, 8:57 PM
Anyone get A/V to go with the pics ?

Rossi357
08-02-2010, 8:58 PM
Everyone in that room is mentally ill. They all have irrational fears of inanimate objects and demonizing the object like it causes the crime. It's a terrible sickness.

I had a phobia. My shrink had never heard of it, so we named it Knobophobia.
I was afraid of being naked, bending over and backing into a cold doorknob. A little exposure therapy and I am no longer afraid. I highly recommend exposure therapy.

caoboy
08-02-2010, 9:08 PM
Their organization implies there is an Illegal Community Against Violence? Can't they just be a 'Community Against Violence'?

Oh wait...that would be normal people, who own guns, protecting themselves against violence.

SJgunguy24
08-02-2010, 10:22 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs194.snc4/38023_470078540808_215654610808_6232873_4142952_n. jpg

You know, I don't see any African-Americans in any of the pictures.

Is the LCAV some kind of racist organization?

There is 1 person of "color" in there, you just gotta look really hard. To the left in the pic, he's even facing the camera.

pullnshoot25
08-02-2010, 10:45 PM
Yes, Robin is not all that bad looking.

Unlike all of you guys though, I had to sit next to her. Better her than Saldana, though!

SJgunguy24
08-02-2010, 10:49 PM
Yes, Robin is not all that bad looking.

Unlike all of you guys though, I had to sit next to her. Better her than Saldana, though!

Dude you should have brought a fart machine with you, then request to move do to her flatulence.:D

anthonyca
08-02-2010, 10:56 PM
I know the awards they aren't getting.....

The one for predicting that the Second Amendment required membership in a militia, and that it doesn't apply to state and local gov't.

The award for accurately predicting that constitutional question goes to......? :gura:

Where is the waving head for Mr. Kilmer? You Sir won a ruling that incorporated the second amendment (before going en banc) IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT of all places. That was one of the all time biggest milestones of civil rights wins IMHO. That win was slaying the dragon in his own den, now his family is after you, but we know you will win again.

dantodd
08-02-2010, 11:07 PM
The Friends of the NRA dinner was much less formal. But, Chuck Michel spoke, you didn't have to dress up, it was on the Hornet and best of all Gun Raffles!

I know I had more fun than anyone there had!


And it doesn't hurt to be on the same side as the Founders of our Great Nation.

jdberger
08-02-2010, 11:32 PM
Let's identify some people...

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs190.snc4/37825_470086775808_215654610808_6233020_675777_n.j pg
Charles Dyke and Juliet Leftwich

Charles Dyke wrote LCAV's amicus for McDonald. Why they're honoring him completely escapes me. Did the Captain of the Titanic get an award, too?

Juliet Leftwich is LCAV's Legal Director.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs094.ash2/38023_470078555808_215654610808_6232876_4277984_n. jpg
Robyn Thomas and Jeffrey Toobin

Robyn Thomas is LCAV's Executive Director ($96k/yr)

Jeffrey Toobin is author of The Nine which had a pretty unflattering portrait of Justice Clarence Thomas. I wonder what he though of the dissent....:cool:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs194.snc4/38023_470078540808_215654610808_6232873_4142952_n. jpg
Two of LCAV's Board of Directors are at this table. William Kissinger (hitchhiking) and George Hisert (facing left).

All in all, it looks like a fun dinner.

I wish we could have been there.....:chris:

jdberger
08-02-2010, 11:44 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs094.ash2/38023_470078545808_215654610808_6232874_4724238_n. jpg
Charles G. Ehrlich (http://www.arias-us.org/arbitrators.cfm?app=&id=253) formerly of Petit & Martin

John Heisse (http://www.howrey.com/people/People_Detail.aspx?professional=f2b6fa51-2e97-4c57-bf8c-33a2e3b2e0f6&op=)

SanPedroShooter
08-03-2010, 5:32 AM
Awesome! A room full of rich white lawyers congratulating themselves. This is the liberal elite. The best schools, the powerful positions, the most money. More dangerous than a hundred million mom type organizations. Cause they know the law. How to use it, how to make it work for them.
Jesus, people like this give me the creeps.
There may be plenty of anti's out there, but these are the true believers.
I'm glad these type of collaborators are in the minority...
Maybe i give them too much credit?

And does Julie Leftwitch have crazy eyes?

IGOTDIRT4U
08-03-2010, 6:14 AM
Nice collection of smiling fools. Little do the CA taxpayers know how mouch tax money these people have and will waste on pointless and worthless litigation based upon false premises and self-enabling marketing.

jdberger
08-03-2010, 8:29 AM
Nice collection of smiling fools. Little do the CA taxpayers know how mouch tax money these people have and will waste on pointless and worthless litigation based upon false premises and self-enabling marketing.

Well, we can help with that, can't we?

NightOwl
08-03-2010, 8:30 AM
Part of me wants to photoshop mustaches on them, with little silly but catchy phrased thought bubbles. The other part of me would love to buy them a drink and listen to whatever they'd like to talk about.

Know your enemy. Which means that everyone in this country should know them.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-03-2010, 8:31 AM
Well, we can help with thay, can't we?

lol, yes we can.

It kills me that I know some of these supporters. But I don't dare speak to them about it in public. Sad days.

But, there is always next year's dinner!

IGOTDIRT4U
08-03-2010, 8:31 AM
Part of me wants to photoshop mustaches on them, with little silly but catchy phrased thought bubbles. The other part of me would love to buy them a drink and listen to whatever they'd like to talk about.

Know your enemy. Which means that everyone in this country should know them.

Agreed as to the latter. Especially if they lay out their litigation strategy in detail.

CalNRA
08-03-2010, 8:40 AM
Awesome! A room full of rich white lawyers congratulating themselves. This is the liberal elite. The best schools, the powerful positions, the most money. More dangerous than a hundred million mom type organizations. Cause they know the law. How to use it, how to make it work for them.
Jesus, people like this give me the creeps.
There may be plenty of anti's out there, but these are the true believers.
I'm glad these type of collaborators are in the minority...
Maybe i give them too much credit?

not enough credit.

remember the thread on how much police protection they got?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=321766

jdberger
08-03-2010, 9:03 AM
lol, yes we can.

It kills me that I know some of these supporters. But I don't dare speak to them about it in public. Sad days.

But, there is always next year's dinner!

Better to educate local politicians on what listening to LCAV actually costs.

It cost San Francisco about a million dollars. The costs of defending it's gun laws are going to cripple DC. Who know's what's going to happen to Chicago? And Cleveland is now taking advice from those hacks....does anyone think that Cleveland really has the money to spend on litigation?

The fact remains that LCAV loses many more cases than it wins. I think that they're running a 2 and 9 record.

If you were a city politician and Robyn Thomas came to you with a plan for more "reasonable gun laws" and you KNEW that you ran the risk of being sued -and if you were, that the odds were that you'd lose, how would you react to their offer?

Education.

LCAV is selling snake oil.

Wherryj
08-03-2010, 11:10 AM
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Legal-Community-Against-Violence/215654610808

When is Facebook going to put in the "thumbs down" option? Some may like it, but I assume that an equal number would "hate it".

Wherryj
08-03-2010, 11:20 AM
I had a phobia. My shrink had never heard of it, so we named it Knobophobia.
I was afraid of being naked, bending over and backing into a cold doorknob. A little exposure therapy and I am no longer afraid. I highly recommend exposure therapy.

It's amazing. Every time I have seen someone admitted for a "retained rectal foreign body" they CLAIM to have been walking around naked and "didn't see" that huge bottle/hairbrush/dildo sitting on the chair before they "sat down on it"...

True story...

B Strong
08-03-2010, 11:44 AM
A coalition of the deluded and morally impaired.

kcbrown
08-03-2010, 1:30 PM
If you were a city politician and Robyn Thomas came to you with a plan for more "reasonable gun laws" and you KNEW that you ran the risk of being sued -and if you were, that the odds were that you'd lose, how would you react to their offer?


If the politician is anti-gun as well then why wouldn't he listen? After all, it's not his money that would be lost. And given his anti-gun constituency, it may even end up looking good for said politician. After all, he did try to do something about guns and got smacked about by those evil gun-toting maniacs.

Of course, if the politician can think of ways to make himself more effective politically with the money in question than by attempting to enact anti-gun ordinances, then he'll rightly pass on the "advice".


Name me one city politician here in California who has lost his political position directly as a result of losing an RKBA lawsuit. Better yet, name me two, because one does not a trend make.

Until politicians actually start losing their positions as a direct consequence of losing these lawsuits, they're going to continue to try to enact anti-gun ordinances, because they don't have anything personal to lose.

jdberger
08-03-2010, 1:38 PM
If the politician is anti-gun as well then why wouldn't he listen? After all, it's not his money that would be lost. And given his anti-gun constituency, it may even end up looking good for said politician. After all, he did try to do something about guns and got smacked about by those evil gun-toting maniacs.

Of course, if the politician can think of ways to make himself more effective politically with the money in question than by attempting to enact anti-gun ordinances, then he'll rightly pass on the "advice".


Name me one city politician here in California who has lost his political position directly as a result of losing an RKBA lawsuit. Better yet, name me two, because one does not a trend make.

Until politicians actually start losing their positions as a direct consequence of losing these lawsuits, they're going to continue to try to enact anti-gun ordinances, because they don't have anything personal to lose.

Because most politicians aren't really "anti-gun". Gun prohibition is just an easy way to seem like they're doing more about crime. It's the easiest approach.

Why so frowny, kcbrown? This seems to be a trend with you.

Don't you understand, we're winning.

For goodness sake, we're winning the hearts and minds.

N6ATF
08-03-2010, 2:11 PM
Because most politicians aren't really "anti-gun". Gun prohibition is just an easy way to seem like they're doing more about crime. It's the easiest approach.

The easiest approach is to pass victim disarmament laws that increase crime, and claim crime decreased despite all statistical evidence to the contrary...

kcbrown
08-03-2010, 2:16 PM
Because most politicians aren't really "anti-gun". Gun prohibition is just an easy way to seem like they're doing more about crime. It's the easiest approach.


Really? The actions of the Oakland city council could have fooled me on that...

If the average person in California really didn't care one way or the other, then whichever group pushes hardest for something would generally win. We've been pushing hardest for quite a long time now, and yet you still have things like AB 962 which prove quite effectively that pushing hard isn't enough.

And yet, our only recourse is through the federal court system. We don't even have enough traction to manage wins in state courts (for the most part).

I consider all that to be prima facie evidence that the average person in California does have an anti-gun leaning, even if it's mild. And that means that most California politicians will certainly have an anti-gun leaning, if only to please their constituency.



Why so frowny, kcbrown? This seems to be a trend with you.
This is why (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4656804&postcount=191).



Don't you understand, we're winning.

For goodness sake, we're winning the hearts and minds.Of the people in California? I've seen scant evidence of that, but I'm not exactly the best person to ask about what the average person thinks. I can only go by what I see.

The firearm laws in California are more draconian than most any other place in the U.S. for a reason. It's not just happenstance.

GrayWolf09
08-03-2010, 2:33 PM
Who are these two angry-looking douches and what are those awards for?

Edit: Note how the guy in the dark suit is holding his award in relation to his body... perhaps I'm reading into it too much, but it seems a bit suggestive...

They got the *****s of the year award!;)

IGOTDIRT4U
08-03-2010, 3:11 PM
If the politician is anti-gun as well then why wouldn't he listen? After all, it's not his money that would be lost. And given his anti-gun constituency, it may even end up looking good for said politician. After all, he did try to do something about guns and got smacked about by those evil gun-toting maniacs.

Of course, if the politician can think of ways to make himself more effective politically with the money in question than by attempting to enact anti-gun ordinances, then he'll rightly pass on the "advice".


Name me one city politician here in California who has lost his political position directly as a result of losing an RKBA lawsuit. Better yet, name me two, because one does not a trend make.

Until politicians actually start losing their positions as a direct consequence of losing these lawsuits, they're going to continue to try to enact anti-gun ordinances, because they don't have anything personal to lose.

I dunno. I would venture the reality is that politicians go which ever way the wind blows at the moment two of their grey cells collide and a simple thought occurs. In other words, something right in between the thoughts of JDBerger and kcbrown. In short, whatever is expedient.

kcbrown
08-03-2010, 3:30 PM
I dunno. I would venture the reality is that politicians go which ever way the wind blows at the moment two of their grey cells collide and a simple thought occurs. In other words, something right in between the thoughts of JDBerger and kcbrown. In short, whatever is expedient.

I expect politicians will follow these simple rules, in order:


If there is significant personal gain or loss to be had, he'll act in whichever way he needs to in order to achieve the gain or avoid the loss.
When there is no significant personal gain or loss to be had, but there is significant political gain or loss to be had, he'll act in whichever way is likely to net him the greatest political gain, or avoid political loss. Generally this means taking action to please his constituency or to avoid annoying his constituency.
When there is no significant consequence of either of the above types, he'll do what he personally prefers.


Which is to say: I expect politicians to act in the most corrupt way possible. They'll "do the right thing" only when there's nothing on the line, and their nature is such that there's a high probability that they won't "do the right thing" even then.

yellowfin
08-03-2010, 3:35 PM
It's such a shame to see all those minds completely wasted. I guess I see what Patton was thinking when he'd see a battlefield after his guys would lay waste to thousands of Germans and he'd say it was a shame and he pitied them. That said, of course: "My God have mercy on my enemies, because I sure as hell won't."

jdberger
08-03-2010, 4:01 PM
Really? The actions of the Oakland city council could have fooled me on that...

But the actions of the Emeryville City Council wouldn't...

If the average person in California really didn't care one way or the other, then whichever group pushes hardest for something would generally win. We've been pushing hardest for quite a long time now, and yet you still have things like AB 962 which prove quite effectively that pushing hard isn't enough.

And yet, our only recourse is through the federal court system. We don't even have enough traction to manage wins in state courts (for the most part).

I consider all that to be prima facie evidence that the average person in California does have an anti-gun leaning, even if it's mild. And that means that most California politicians will certainly have an anti-gun leaning, if only to please their constituency.

This isn't about the "average Californian". As you alluded to in a follow up post, this is about the average politician - who, for the most part, couldn't care less about gun politics. Most go along because it "looks good". If we can make it look bad, then they'll stay away, no matter what their constituents want.


This is why (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4656804&postcount=191).

That's the frowny face I was referring to... Try to be an optimist. It's contagious.

Which is to say: I expect politicians to act in the most corrupt way possible. They'll "do the right thing" only when there's nothing on the line, and their nature is such that there's a high probability that they won't "do the right thing" even then. If their choice is a "feel good law" and constituents angry that the City spent $1MM to defend an unconstitutional (and stupid) law instead of paying their police - what do you think they'll do?

Politicians are rational actors. They aim to be re-elected. We can show them that alliances with LCAV won't accomplish that. We can show them that alliances with us will, or at the very least, if they remain neutral, we won't target them.

The strategy won't work with a Saldana or Don Perata because they're ideologues - but it will work with the folks who don't have any skin in the game.

kcbrown
08-03-2010, 4:37 PM
But the actions of the Emeryville City Council wouldn't...


Sort of. They went halfway towards LCAV's side, as I recall (I'm going to have to go look the relevant threads over). Which is to say, we still lost, but we didn't lose completely. But that's just based on my memory, which is famously bad...



This isn't about the "average Californian". As you alluded to in a follow up post, this is about the average politician - who, for the most part, couldn't care less about gun politics. Most go along because it "looks good". If we can make it look bad, then they'll stay away, no matter what their constituents want.
But unless the politician in question has something personal on the line, they'll take whatever action they think will win them the most points (or lose them the least points) with their constituents. So it is about the "average Californian" or, at least, about their average constituent, because that's the audience they're trying to please.

So it then comes down to the question: do they look better by pushing for anti-gun ordinances and getting their butt handed to them in court, with the consequences of not being able to pay for the police and so forth, or do they look better by rejecting anti-gun ordinances just to avoid a lawsuit? The first can easily be spun to make them look like they are proactively trying to please their constituency, because the fact that they get sued isn't their fault, after all. But how do you spin the latter? Saying you're not going to do anything for fear of a lawsuit from the evil gun-toting maniacs makes you look like a coward, right? What mildly anti-gun Californian would vote for such a person?

No, I think the political angle is less straightforward than you appear to believe. But I'm no politician. I just know that they manage to stay in power despite multiple screwups of greater magnitude than losing (badly) a firearms-related lawsuit.


We've seen municipalities lose these lawsuits, sometimes badly. We've seen them eliminate large portions of their police force and other basic services due to their financial state of affairs. But as far as I know, what we haven't seen is any of these politicians who voted for these anti-gun measures actually being thrown out of office because of the consequences of losing said lawsuits. If anything, we've seen them stay in power. If that isn't a direct illustration of the disconnect between action and consequence for them, what is?


Believe me, I very much want these politicians to be hurt badly in the arena of politics by their anti-gun actions, but I've seen no evidence whatsoever that they ever have been, or ever will be.




That's the frowny face I was referring to... Try to be an optimist. It's contagious.
Oh, but I am an optimist: whenever I make a prediction, things usually turn out even worse than I predicted! :D

Seriously, though, whenever I do turn optimistic, the real world slaps me in the face, hard. It has been completely consistent that way. So I'd rather remain a realist, and celebrate when we actually achieve real RKBA here in California.



If their choice is a "feel good law" and constituents angry that the City spent $1MM to defend an unconstitutional (and stupid) law instead of paying their police - what do you think they'll do?
That depends on how they spin it and whether or not the constituents believe the BS. Californians seem to be willing to believe just about anything. How else have the laws gotten so screwed up around here?

Ford8N
08-03-2010, 4:43 PM
Nice collection of smiling fools. Little do the CA taxpayers know how mouch tax money these people have and will waste on pointless and worthless litigation based upon false premises and self-enabling marketing.


The average tax payer is an idiot. Easily swayed by the 30 second sound bite. That's why we have the gun laws we do.

jdberger
08-03-2010, 5:34 PM
Sort of. They went halfway towards LCAV's side, as I recall (I'm going to have to go look the relevant threads over). Which is to say, we still lost, but we didn't lose completely. But that's just based on my memory, which is famously bad...

Glass half empty/ half full.....it's a matter of perspective. They eliminated the most onerous portions of the bill, the parts that LCAV had their hopes riding on. They punted on the rest.



Believe me, I very much want these politicians to be hurt badly in the arena of politics by their anti-gun actions, but I've seen no evidence whatsoever that they ever have been, or ever will be.

Are you willing to help make it happen? If so, send me a PM and we'll put you to work. We've lots to do in this State. We need help. We need orators and artists and communicators and nerds and techies....we need lots of folks. C'mon. Join the fight with us. It's fun. It's cathartic, too.

We.
Are.
Winning.

Come help us win more.

Pig Rifle
08-03-2010, 5:52 PM
Yes, Robin is not all that bad looking.

Unlike all of you guys though, I had to sit next to her. Better her than Saldana, though!

TBH man, it totally crossed my mind a few times that I could've pied Saldana's unpleasant face from where I was sitting.

DISCLAIMER: I have no intention of assaulting any public official with pastries or baked goods of any kind. Besides, she probably wouldn't get the message anyways and I'm not a guy who wastes pie. :D

kcbrown
08-03-2010, 7:02 PM
Glass half empty/ half full.....it's a matter of perspective. They eliminated the most onerous portions of the bill, the parts that LCAV had their hopes riding on. They punted on the rest.


No, this is not a matter of perspective. The RKBA situation there after the meeting was worse than it was before the meeting. I call that a "loss". Did we lose as much as was possible? No. But it's a loss nonetheless.

By way of comparison, the outcome in McDonald was a clear win: the situation afterwards is better than it was before the ruling was issued.



Are you willing to help make it happen? If so, send me a PM and we'll put you to work.PM sent. I'm already helping some (trying to, anyway).

skyadrenaline
08-03-2010, 7:42 PM
lol, it's not necessary to make fun of their physical appearances.

Let's just keep winning and stay classy.

TatankaGap
08-03-2010, 9:24 PM
Awesome! A room full of rich white lawyers congratulating themselves. This is the liberal elite. The best schools, the powerful positions, the most money. More dangerous than a hundred million mom type organizations. Cause they know the law. How to use it, how to make it work for them.
Jesus, people like this give me the creeps.
There may be plenty of anti's out there, but these are the true believers.
I'm glad these type of collaborators are in the minority...
Maybe i give them too much credit?

And does Julie Leftwitch have crazy eyes?

LCAV is misguided and pursuing a misguided agenda which very unfortunately is oppressive and intended to deprive people of their constitutional rights. Sometimes lawyers do that. Remember that before becoming Chief Justice, Renquist used to do things at AZ polling places that would now commonly be considered illegal and inappropriate - it goes both ways....

LCAV was formed in response to a terrible tragedy in which many lawyers were killed by a madman with a TEC-9 and 50 round clips at 101 California Street on July 1, 1993. The lawyers were targeted by an insane shooter who blamed innocent people for his own personal failures.

Too bad no one out of more than 200 people there that day was an armed citizen or the shooter could have gone down earlier and some lives would have been saved. Instead, he killed himself after being locked inside the stairway. I was about 5 feet away from the doorway that the gunman was headed for when 'we' locked him in the stairway. I heard his final suicide shot.

The legal community had been attacked, lawyers from several different firms had been killed just for being lawyers and so they formed LCAV. It's not that they are in the elite. All those people had families - I knew some of them. It was really sad and people wanted to do something.

And maybe the two lawyers pictured who look grumpy are really just sad because the event probably reminds them of the mass office shooting they lived through and the friends they lost that day.

Just because they are wrong on the law, and have misguided agendas does not mean that they should be the target of ire or bashing. It's not like they're winning....it's not like they are on a roll. Give them some compassion - it doesn't hurt anyone here and the higher moral ground is where we are -

They are not the liberal elite (currently residing in Chicago, NY and DC) - they did not necessarily go to the best schools. They are not very effective. Why not just leave them alone except to expose the extent to which they have an agenda to deprive people of their civil rights -

IMHO, if you want to have a good lawsuit, sue LCAV for tortious interference with the exercise of constitutional rights ~

Challenge them to public debates - help them see that they are actually working against liberty and freedom, in a good way, please -

Offer to take them shooting :)

Just for fun and since I have cred with them, I'll offer to take them shooting :) I'll let you know what happens ~

Hunt
08-03-2010, 9:24 PM
A coalition of the deluded and morally impaired.

I dislike busy bodies of any kind deluded morally impaired or otherwise. Wish they would mind their own business.

aklon
08-03-2010, 10:02 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs094.ash2/38023_470078545808_215654610808_6232874_4724238_n. jpg

Who are these two angry-looking douches and what are those awards for?

The guy on the right is none other than John Heisse, a long time director of LCAV. He was a partner at the firm that got shot up at 101 California and he's never been the same since.

I worked at Thelen when he was there for four years and when John found out I was in NRA, he freaked. I was terminated and my picture posted downstairs at the guard desk with instructions to have me arrested if I ever set foot in the building.

By the time I took up their invitation cooler heads had prevailed and I was getting the glad hand all over. Then they went out of business not more than six months later. Heisse landed on his feet at Howrey, along with a few other attorneys who I recognize in these pictures.

Distasteful, all of them, to say the least.

GuyW
08-03-2010, 10:59 PM
You know, as much of a nutjob robin is, she sure is a good looking older woman. Too bad she's dumb :(

Takeoff on an old saying, "beauty is only skin deep, but stupid goes to the bone..."

.

jdberger
08-04-2010, 12:21 AM
LCAV is misguided and pursuing a misguided agenda which very unfortunately is oppressive and intended to deprive people of their constitutional rights. Sometimes lawyers do that. Remember that before becoming Chief Justice, Renquist used to do things at AZ polling places that would now commonly be considered illegal and inappropriate - it goes both ways....

LCAV was formed in response to a terrible tragedy in which many lawyers were killed by a madman with a TEC-9 and 50 round clips at 101 California Street on July 1, 1993. The lawyers were targeted by an insane shooter who blamed innocent people for his own personal failures.

<snip>

The legal community had been attacked, lawyers from several different firms had been killed just for being lawyers and so they formed LCAV. It's not that they are in the elite. All those people had families - I knew some of them. It was really sad and people wanted to do something.

And maybe the two lawyers pictured who look grumpy are really just sad because the event probably reminds them of the mass office shooting they lived through and the friends they lost that day.

Just because they are wrong on the law, and have misguided agendas does not mean that they should be the target of ire or bashing. It's not like they're winning....it's not like they are on a roll. Give them some compassion - it doesn't hurt anyone here and the higher moral ground is where we are -

They are not the liberal elite (currently residing in Chicago, NY and DC) - they did not necessarily go to the best schools. They are not very effective. Why not just leave them alone except to expose the extent to which they have an agenda to deprive people of their civil rights -

IMHO, if you want to have a good lawsuit, sue LCAV for tortious interference with the exercise of constitutional rights ~

Challenge them to public debates - help them see that they are actually working against liberty and freedom, in a good way, please -

Offer to take them shooting :)

Just for fun and since I have cred with them, I'll offer to take them shooting :) I'll let you know what happens ~

No.

They're not simply "misguided".

They're malicious.

The shooting at 101 Cal was a tragedy. Their response to it was an atrocity.

A man is walking home with his family and he's mugged by two young black men. His wife is killed. Is he then justified in joining the Klan?

Is his ire (like the ire of the LCAV attorneys) simply misdirected?

Is his desire (like the desire of the LCAV attorneys) to curtail the rights of people who had nothing to with the crime, who would have endeavored to stop it simply reprehensible?

Is his compulsion (like the compulsion of the LCAV attorneys) to foment lies, skew facts and vilify his opponents simply horrifying?

None of these actions are justified. They're dishonest, deceitful, hateful, condescending, malicious......

In their zeal to hold complicit those who've offered them no harm they've threatened the very structure of the Republic. They've sought to stifle the right to protest (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/CGF-AB1934-Opposition-2010-06-21.pdf), they've sought to gut the 2nd Amendment, they've sought to brush away (http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/NRA_LOP/opposition%20letter%20to%20proposed%20ordinance%20 regulating%20firearm%20dealers%20and%20ammunition% 20vendors.pdf) the protections of the 4th Amendment (http://www.lcav.org/publications-briefs/model_laws/LCAV_Model_Resolution_Prohibited_Armed_Persons_05. 09.pdf) and kick the 5th Amendment to the curb (http://www.lcav.org/content/reporting_lost_stolen.pdf)... all in pursuit of some malevolent revenge fantasy punishing a different culture.

The fact that LCAV is not successful now doesn't absolve them of their atrocious actions over the last 15 years.

These are the elite. These LCAV lawyers come from the largest and most prestigeous law firms in the Country. They have armies of associates, barrels of money and infinite resources.

You attempt to assuage their guilt by stating:

LCAV is misguided and pursuing a misguided agenda which very unfortunately is oppressive and intended to deprive people of their constitutional rights.

Does our hypothetical Klansman deserve the same sympathy? Or does he deserve our wrath and condemnation? What's a couple of burning crosses, eh?

The directors and members of LCAV made a conscious decision to destroy the gun culture through litigation, legislation and by persecution.

I reserve my right to focus my ire and bashing upon them. Let them come on their knees and beg for forgiveness and I'll consider letting up.

:rant:

jdberger
08-04-2010, 12:26 AM
One more thing -

Think of the families LCAV has destroyed in their single-minded pursuit of "sensible gun laws". Think of the innocents who have been snagged in California's byzantine gun laws? Think of the effect of a felony on the record of some poor schmuck who didn't think he had to register his Colt SP1 because he bought it at a gun store. Think of the employment applications where he has to disclose that he's a felon.

kcbrown
08-04-2010, 1:02 AM
One more thing -

Think of the families LCAV has destroyed in their single-minded pursuit of "sensible gun laws". Think of the innocents who have been snagged in California's byzantine gun laws? Think of the effect of a felony on the record of some poor schmuck who didn't think he had to register his Colt SP1 because he bought it at a gun store. Think of the employment applications where he has to disclose that he's a felon.

Yep. LCAV deserves no sympathy. Their actions have taken them well beyond that.


Not to derail the thread too much, but your example above, more than anything else, should illustrate to everyone the folly of removing RKBA from those who have prior felony convictions.

In other words, why are some of the people here so incredibly naive as to believe that just because something is a felony, it somehow means that the person who is convicted of it is dangerous enough to be worthy of stripping their RKBA after they serve their sentence?

Such ex-felons will wind up being thrown under the bus because it's a political battle that can't be won, but make no mistake: removal of RKBA from ex-felons leaves us wide open for an obvious attack on RKBA from any legislative body with the resolve to classify a bunch of innocuous crimes that are now misdemeanors as felonies. The distinction is essentially completely arbitrary as it is, as your example proves.

wildhawker
08-04-2010, 2:14 AM
jdberger's most recent 2 posts above should be moved to their own thread, stickied and closed.

odysseus
08-04-2010, 2:28 AM
Great thread. Thanks for posting pictures, this really brings it more home.

SanPedroShooter
08-04-2010, 5:38 AM
No.

They're not simply "misguided".

They're malicious.

The shooting at 101 Cal was a tragedy. Their response to it was an atrocity.

A man is walking home with his family and he's mugged by two young black men. His wife is killed. Is he then justified in joining the Klan?

Is his ire (like the ire of the LCAV attorneys) simply misdirected?

Is his desire (like the desire of the LCAV attorneys) to curtail the rights of people who had nothing to with the crime, who would have endeavored to stop it simply reprehensible?

Is his compulsion (like the compulsion of the LCAV attorneys) to foment lies, skew facts and vilify his opponents simply horrifying?

None of these actions are justified. They're dishonest, deceitful, hateful, condescending, malicious......

In their zeal to hold complicit those who've offered them no harm they've threatened the very structure of the Republic. They've sought to stifle the right to protest (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/CGF-AB1934-Opposition-2010-06-21.pdf), they've sought to gut the 2nd Amendment, they've sought to brush away (http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/NRA_LOP/opposition%20letter%20to%20proposed%20ordinance%20 regulating%20firearm%20dealers%20and%20ammunition% 20vendors.pdf) the protections of the 4th Amendment (http://www.lcav.org/publications-briefs/model_laws/LCAV_Model_Resolution_Prohibited_Armed_Persons_05. 09.pdf) and kick the 5th Amendment to the curb (http://www.lcav.org/content/reporting_lost_stolen.pdf)... all in pursuit of some malevolent revenge fantasy punishing a different culture.

The fact that LCAV is not successful now doesn't absolve them of their atrocious actions over the last 15 years.

These are the elite. These LCAV lawyers come from the largest and most prestigeous law firms in the Country. They have armies of associates, barrels of money and infinite resources.

You attempt to assuage their guilt by stating:



Does our hypothetical Klansman deserve the same sympathy? Or does he deserve our wrath and condemnation? What's a couple of burning crosses, eh?

The directors and members of LCAV made a concious decision to destroy the gun culture through litigation, legislation and by persecution.

I reserve my right to focus my ire and bashing upon them. Let them come on their knees and beg for forgiveness and I'll consider letting up.

:rant:

Thank you for the insight. While i was unaware if the cal 101 shooting as the cause for the founding of LCAV, it doesn't change my opinion of their group or what they stand for. If this group does not represent part of the elite in this country, at least in the legal community, who does? Would any law of God or man prevented the shootings that happened that day? And does that tragic incident make it any less imperative on me to protect my life and the life of my family? The actions of evil men shouldnt hamper the rights, and dare i say duty, of the just.

TatankaGap
08-04-2010, 6:46 AM
I reserve my right to focus my ire and bashing upon them. Let them come on their knees and beg for forgiveness and I'll consider letting up.

:rant:

People who are stingy with giving compassion to others are usually surprised when they don't get the compassion they seek in their own lives from others.

Think about it - what good does your ire and bashing do except create more conflict? Do you think that your rant makes the people at LCAV who monitor this board think you are less of a 'gun nut'? probably not.....

Why so angry? You're winning. Have some grace willya?

No one can help those with so much righteous indignation - so you are helpless.

If the purpose is to be complaining, y'all are doing great.

btw, people who don't want to be accused of invasion of privacy should probably avoid posting pictures, the names of the people in the pictures and their opinions of such people -

For my part, I survived the shootings, moved away from the insanity of CA and I'm sorry to know you are still so oppressed - but my ire would be for the legislators who so eagerly sold out your rights and not against a bunch of lawyers who are just mouthpieces -

I don't like coming to CA and only do so to visit family and attend to family matters. I don't like the way CA sheriffs oppress law abiding citizens who want CCWs and I don't like the way CA law is written to trap and trick people.

If you insist on ranting, it just reinforces the people at LCAV and makes you look like a ranter. :eek:

hill billy
08-04-2010, 8:16 AM
For my part, I survived the shootings, moved away from the insanity of CA and I'm sorry to know you are still so oppressed - but my ire would be for the legislators who so eagerly sold out your rights and not against a bunch of lawyers who are just mouthpieces -

I don't like coming to CA and only do so to visit family and attend to family matters. I don't like the way CA sheriffs oppress law abiding citizens who want CCWs and I don't like the way CA law is written to trap and trick people.

If you insist on ranting, it just reinforces the people at LCAV and makes you look like a ranter. :eek:I am wholly unconcerned with my status in the minds of members of the LCAV, the Brady's or any other corrupt organization who conspires to take away my right to self defense. They lie for money and fame. As such, they are no better than the legislators who have sold me out, indeed they may be worse. Legislators may simply be stupid and listening to the wrong voice in their ear. The LCAV knows what they are doing and they press on.

The LCAV does what they do out of malice. As such, they deserve only the same malice, or worse, in return. "If you are in a fair fight, your tactics suck." or, to paraphrase a scripture, " I am not here to make peace, I am here to destroy" I WANT to see them put out of business. I want to see them ruined and corrupted and penniless, the same misfortunes they have heaped on countless others who suffer under the ruin and reign they helped create. There is no victory in a consensual withdrawal, I want them to suffer.

Suvorov
08-04-2010, 8:22 AM
jdberger's most recent 2 posts above should be moved to their own thread, stickied and closed.

jdberger has stated things far more eloquently than I could ever have.

There is a time to be civil and accommodating and there are groups that deserve respect and understanding.

This is NOT the time and LCAV is NOT such a group.

TatankaGap
08-04-2010, 8:39 AM
Would any law of God or man prevented the shootings that happened that day?

'Shall issue CCW' - it would not have prevented the shootings but would have ended them before most of the victims were killed. Shall issue CCW is vital. On this we all agree, yes?

jdberger
08-04-2010, 8:46 AM
People who are stingy with giving compassion to others are usually surprised when they don't get the compassion they seek in their own lives from others.

I still have compassion for those who lived through or were affected by that tragedy. It wanes for those who decided to take their anger out on innocents. For every Gian Ferri there are 1,000 Otis McDonalds. In this country we don't punish the masses for the transgressions of individuals.

Think about it - what good does your ire and bashing do except create more conflict? Do you think that your rant makes the people at LCAV who monitor this board think you are less of a 'gun nut'? probably not.....

The social ostracization worked against the Klan. Hopefully it will work against he hangers-on at LCAV. I don't hold out any hope that it would influence the "bitter-enders". And I'm not so much a "gun-nut" as I am a "rights-nut".

Why so angry? You're winning. Have some grace willya?

Why so angry? I'm not angry. I'm motivated. Motivated by the almost 2 decades of malicious injustice.

btw, people who don't want to be accused of invasion of privacy should probably avoid posting pictures, the names of the people in the pictures and their opinions of such people -

People who would accuse others of invasion of privacy might have a complaint had they not posted the same pictures with the names of the people in the pictures on their Facebook page.

My opinions are protected by the First Amendment. The people in the pictures, due to the nature of their work are public figures.

For my part, I survived the shootings, moved away from the insanity of CA and I'm sorry to know you are still so oppressed - but my ire would be for the legislators who so eagerly sold out your rights and not against a bunch of lawyers who are just mouthpieces -

The legislators aren't immune - but let's be clear, LCAV has driven an enormous amount of this legislation. We've seen it in San Mateo, Oakland and Emeryville. LCAV posts model laws, gives soothing legal analysis and promises litigation support for such laws. They're much more than just "mouthpeices".

wash
08-04-2010, 8:57 AM
LCAV gives lawyers a bad name.

Think about it, most people hate the defense attourney that lets a child molestor get off scott-free, but that criminal has a right to a defense because that's how the system works and that's how the founding fathers designed the system to work.

The defense attourney is a check against government and police persecution and we need that.

No one needs the LCAV because they are trying to strip our rights and use our system to hurt us.

They serve no purpose other than their own.

If I saw any of them standing on railroad tracks and a train was coming, I might take a picture but I don't know if I could stomach helping them.

thedrickel
08-04-2010, 8:59 AM
http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/khrushchev_shoe1.jpg

^^ I found this picture of Gene speaking at the LCAV dinner highly entertaining . . .

Suvorov
08-04-2010, 9:08 AM
'Shall issue CCW' - it would not have prevented the shootings but would have ended them before most of the victims were killed. Shall issue CCW is vital. On this we all agree, yes?

Yes, we all agree. But if LCAV has there way, Shall issue will NEVER happen and you and I will be lucky to own a single shot rifle.

While we all have sympathy for those who have lost friends and loved ones to the actions of murderous souls, it does change the fact that they stand opposed to everything we hold dear. That their start is the result of a terrible tragedy does not excuse the lies and deceit they use to advance their agenda, nor the terrible price many innocents have paid for their irresponsible litigation and efforts.

History is full of thousands of tyrants and murderers who were initially motivated by grief. Perhaps LCAV was founded with noble intent, but it has quickly become a vanguard of the statist agenda. A viscous dog may very well have been the victim of horrible treatment by its owners, but it does not change the fact that the dog must be put down before it does more harm.

N6ATF
08-04-2010, 9:25 AM
http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/khrushchev_shoe1.jpg

^^ I found this picture of Gene speaking at the LCAV dinner highly entertaining . . .

"WE WILL BURY YOU! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you)"

If I saw any of them standing on railroad tracks and a train was coming, I might take a picture but I don't know if I could stomach helping them.

Why endanger your own life to prevent their suicide out of guilt over all the people they've gotten killed, raped, maimed, and otherwise victimized?

hill billy
08-04-2010, 9:34 AM
The legislators aren't immune - but let's be clear, LCAV has driven an enormous amount of this legislation. We've seen it in San Mateo, Oakland and Emeryville. LCAV posts model laws, gives soothing legal analysis and promises litigation support for such laws. They're much more than just "mouthpeices".

And even more nefarious, they are not on the hook to pay the bills when the house of cards they have been propping up fails. They say, "Oops, sorry" and walk away.

gunsmith
08-04-2010, 11:35 AM
I was a messenger, I had to go up thru the delivery entrance because I wasn't wearing a suit like psycho killer was. I wasn't a gun owner at the time but I always carried some sort of weapon, I believed in gun ownership but was your basic weed smoking hippie punk bike messenger.
I was about 3 blocks away when I noticed the cavalry rushing to the scene ( only to stay outside until psycho killer creep was done )

I wondered why no one shot back when I watched the news that night, if I had the $$ the office ppl had I would have bought a gun.

The only way to survive a psycho killer bent on killing you is to fight back, all the laws in the world all the cops in the world can't get in between you and the nutcase.

I guess Robin is the lady that was saved by her husband crawling over her to protect her- going thru that would make most a little kooky, I feel sorry for her.

When my brother in law was shot dead in NYC I was angry that he couldn't shoot back - he obeyed the law and died.

I do not understand how "smart" people can convince themselves that being a victim is a way to survive. Instead of learning/healing from the massacre they seek to recreate the circumstances for them and everyone else ... they want me to be disarmed because they were. ... weird.

jdberger
08-04-2010, 11:54 AM
I guess Robin is the lady that was saved by her husband crawling over her to protect her- going thru that would make most a little kooky, I feel sorry for her.



John Scully was protecting his wife, Michelle. Though it's possible that his widow might have changed her name, I doubt it.

I don't know what Robyn Thomas's motivation is. Frankly, I don't care. Like my hypothetical Klansman above, she's decided to victimize innocents in her vindictive pursuit of an oppressive agenda.

Hunt
08-04-2010, 3:13 PM
...I don't like the way CA law is written to trap and trick people. thanks, so true, it's almost like the lawmakers have creative trapping consultants.

GOEX FFF
08-04-2010, 4:22 PM
Alcohol and Violence

http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/violence.htm

• Alcohol availability is closely related to violent assaults. Communities and neighborhoods that have more bars and liquor stores per capita experience more assaults.
• Alcohol use is frequently associated with violence between intimate partners. Two-thirds of victims of intimate partner violence reported that alcohol was involved in the incident.
• In one study of interpersonal violence, men had been drinking in an estimated 45 percent of cases and women had been drinking in 20 percent of cases.
• Women whose partners abused alcohol were 3.6 times more likely than other women to be assaulted by their partners.
• In 1997, 40 percent of convicted rape and sexual assault offenders said that they were drinking at the time of their crime.
• In 2002, more than 70,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 were victims of alcohol-related sexual assault in the U.S.
• In those violent incidents recorded by the police in which alcohol was a factor, about nine percent of the offenders and nearly 14 percent of the victims were under age 21.
• Twenty-eight percent of suicides by children ages nine to 15 were attributable to alcohol.
• An estimated 480,000 children are mistreated each year by a caretaker with alcohol problems.
============================


As we all know, (not to mention all of the automotive alcohol related deaths every year)... this list goes on and on and on...........

Looking at the pictures here, you'll clearly see wine glasses and most probably other (alcoholic) beverages on the tables with people casually sipping away.
IF the LCAV is truly against violence, then maybe they should toss out the booze and should be drinking spring water, juicy juice and warm milk at their future dinner events.
Yet, with all the alcohol related violence, the LCAV I’m sure pays a substantial amount for the booze tab served at their dinners.

I mean really, what crock of Hypocrites here.

On a related note, I'm sure Helmke cracks a beer or sips his own "whine" without giving a second thought about how many people die, are assaulted, families destroyed, children abused and neglected all due to alcohol related crimes.

Its all about their personal agendas.