PDA

View Full Version : Another Obama Lefty Confirmed to the Bench...


Danz la Nuit
02-23-2012, 5:03 PM
http://gunowners.org/a022312.htm

Dear Friend of the Second Amendment,

Last week, we alerted you to a radical anti-gun nominee President Obama named to the federal bench, Jesse Furman.

To no one’s surprise, Furman is cut from the same judicial cloth as other Obama nominees such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

For instance, in an article published a number of years ago—but from which Furman has not distanced himself—he writes that: “Probably the best explanation for the amount of violent crime in the United States is its fascination with guns.”

GOA members flooded the Senate with emails, and many Senators voted against Furman. But Majority Leader Harry Reid kept every single Democrat in lock-step with the Obama agenda, and Furman was confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the bench on a vote of 62-34.

Republicans Jon Kyl and John McCain (AZ), Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (ME), Jeff Sessions (AL), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Scott Brown (MA), and Lindsey Graham (SC) joined all Democrats in voting for Furman.
This vote serves to highlight the difficulty in protecting the courts from anti-Second Amendment nominees who come before the Congress. Obama will continue to nominate far left gun grabbers, and Harry Reid will be his go-to guy for confirmation votes.

And if Obama wins a second term, his agenda will become only more brazen. That’s why a top goal of GOA in 2012 is to help elect as many truly pro-gun friends as we can to the U.S. Senate.

It is crucial that Harry Reid does not retain the gavel next year. But it is not enough to just elect members of the opposing party. We need to elect strong candidates who understand the Constitution and who will not bow to pressure from the White House—whoever the occupant may be—or from the leadership of either party in the Congress.

Window_Seat
02-23-2012, 5:27 PM
Right now I'm not worried, and frankly don't really care, even if every single solitary Judge in every DC is a radical leftist nut as long as none of them end up in the same seats as our "Heller Five". Once that happens, then it's time to worry. OK, we don't want every DC to be completely full of them...

Erik.

Rumline
02-23-2012, 5:56 PM
Right now I'm not worried, and frankly don't really care, even if every single solitary Judge in every DC is a radical leftist nut as long as none of them end up in the same seats as our "Heller Five".
Except that the more of them you have in district courts, the higher chance that one of them will make it to the supreme court.

easy
02-23-2012, 6:08 PM
...and frankly don't really care, even if every single solitary Judge ...is a radical leftist nut as long as none of them end up in the same seats as our "Heller Five".

And there's the entire problem!

ElvenSoul
02-23-2012, 6:13 PM
At this point I hope Obama Wins, and re apoints every Judge. The faster they flush this country down the toilet. The faster we can get on rebuulding it.

radioman
02-23-2012, 8:55 PM
At this point I hope Obama Wins, and re apoints every Judge. The faster they flush this country down the toilet. The faster we can get on rebuulding it.

I like your take on this, but let me ask you, what if we can't rebuild it?

resonance
02-24-2012, 12:05 AM
You rebuild, after you retake..........What if we cant find enough men with the balls for the fight?....The muslim terrorist has just begun to destroy this country, from within....if he gets another term, borrows another 15 trillion to give to his fathers people, we all will be finished...too poor to fight and no guns to do it with....When calif can stand off and not give you your God given RIGHTS by the Constitution and the feds don't pour in here to defend your RIGHTS, its time to take care of business.....The 2nd Amendment was put in place, by our fore fathers, for just this reason, use it or lose it.......

vantec08
02-24-2012, 3:59 AM
You rebuild, after you retake..........What if we cant find enough men with the balls for the fight?....The muslim terrorist has just begun to destroy this country, from within....if he gets another term, borrows another 15 trillion to give to his fathers people, we all will be finished...too poor to fight and no guns to do it with....When calif can stand off and not give you your God given RIGHTS by the Constitution and the feds don't pour in here to defend your RIGHTS, its time to take care of business.....The 2nd Amendment was put in place, by our fore fathers, for just this reason, use it or lose it.......


I know what you're saying - - we aren't mineral, aren't vegetable. We are in this nether-nebula of being off of a map that is quite clear in it's intent and meaning. It's compounded by the Overseers of our society that ridicule and even despise the very documents that have made us unique in history. A sitting supreme court justice has recently told Egypt they should not pattern their Constitution on the US model. She wants an "independent judiciary" (like she isnt now??) - meaning I WANT ABSOLUTE POWER -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/. Unfortunately, the cycle of societies forming, decaying, dying, resurrecting takes decades unto centuries. It was great while it lasted.

Curley Red
02-24-2012, 7:24 AM
What has Furman done in the past in regards to firearms and the 2A. the only thing I can find about him was that he did believe in gun registration. Other than that, I can't find anything else. I know a lot of people feel that since he is a democrat he is against guns, but there have been plenty of republicans that backed the Brady bill and took away some of our gun rights. So can someone point me to what he has done to show that he is an anti-gun politician.

Uxi
02-24-2012, 7:28 AM
Except that the more of them you have in district courts, the higher chance that one of them will make it to the supreme court.

Exactly! Preferable to win at the lower courts and have the Heller-5 uphold that ruling

ja308
02-24-2012, 7:34 AM
At this point I hope Obama Wins, and re apoints every Judge. The faster they flush this country down the toilet. The faster we can get on rebuulding it.

Exactly how do you plan on rebuilding it?

We cannot even stop the worst legislation in cali !

Possibly we could look to states that are winning on the 2A issue and see how they did it !

tankarian
02-24-2012, 7:43 AM
What has Furman done in the past in regards to firearms and the 2A. the only thing I can find about him was that he did believe in gun registration. Other than that, I can't find anything else.

Governments cannot confiscate guns that aren't registered. This is why EVERY SINGLE TIME, IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY where gun confiscation happened, it ALWAYS STARTED WITH GUN REGISTRATION. (http://www.survivalandpreparednessforum.com/showthread.php?1094-registration-%28always%29-leads-to-confiscation-soon-or-later)
Isn't that enough for you? :facepalm:

ja308
02-24-2012, 7:46 AM
What has Furman done in the past in regards to firearms and the 2A. the only thing I can find about him was that he did believe in gun registration. Other than that, I can't find anything else. I know a lot of people feel that since he is a democrat he is against guns, but there have been plenty of republicans that backed the Brady bill and took away some of our gun rights. So can someone point me to what he has done to show that he is an anti-gun politician.


Thank you for your polite question .

Do you believe the problem of violence in america is because of american's fascination with guns?

Wherryj
02-24-2012, 9:00 AM
Right now I'm not worried, and frankly don't really care, even if every single solitary Judge in every DC is a radical leftist nut as long as none of them end up in the same seats as our "Heller Five". Once that happens, then it's time to worry. OK, we don't want every DC to be completely full of them...

Erik.

The problem with this tactic is that waiting until it becomes a crisis leaves only two options should the courts get stacked: 1. Willingly give up your guns, and 2. Armed civil war.

Neither one seems preferable to keeping a vigilent watch and trying to prevent the crisis.

LikeAllGuns
02-24-2012, 9:07 AM
And there's the entire problem!

Darn tooting.....WE should all care !!!!!!!

LikeAllGuns
02-24-2012, 9:10 AM
If you own a gun you should belong to NRA.....

80 million pluss gun owners in USA and only over 4 million NRA members.

Curley Red
02-24-2012, 9:23 AM
Thank you for your polite question .

Do you believe the problem of violence in america is because of american's fascination with guns?

Nope I blame the person not the weapon of choice. But it is not only democrats that blame the guns, plenty of republicans have the same thoughts. I am just tired of people saying that every democrat is after our gun rights.

Curley Red
02-24-2012, 9:23 AM
Governments cannot confiscate guns that aren't registered. This is why EVERY SINGLE TIME, IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY where gun confiscation happened, it ALWAYS STARTED WITH GUN REGISTRATION. (http://www.survivalandpreparednessforum.com/showthread.php?1094-registration-%28always%29-leads-to-confiscation-soon-or-later)
Isn't that enough for you? :facepalm:

No, it isn't. Both Reagan and Bush were supporters of registration. Heck Reagan was a backer of the Brady bill.

1859sharps
02-24-2012, 9:30 AM
At this point I hope Obama Wins, and re apoints every Judge. The faster they flush this country down the toilet. The faster we can get on rebuulding it.

Assuming a majority agrees with your vision of rebuilding it...which by the way is what?

frankly this idea/approach is very misguided and dangerous.

ja308
02-24-2012, 10:50 AM
Nope I blame the person not the weapon of choice. But it is not only democrats that blame the guns, plenty of republicans have the same thoughts. I am just tired of people saying that every democrat is after our gun rights.

Thank you for your candid response , I appreciate your honesty .

The main difference I see is that repubs get really ticked at anti gunners and try to remove them . witness lugar from indianna , repub. gun owner from all over USA are giving small amounts to his challenger .

Dems do not hold their anti's to any standard . They simply blow off anti gun positions ,by saying repubs do it too.

We welcome your efforts to help remove Lugar from Indianna senate . I will post the challengers name and site -- or anyone feel free to do so .

ja308
02-24-2012, 11:11 AM
Governments cannot confiscate guns that aren't registered. This is why EVERY SINGLE TIME, IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY where gun confiscation happened, it ALWAYS STARTED WITH GUN REGISTRATION. (http://www.survivalandpreparednessforum.com/showthread.php?1094-registration-%28always%29-leads-to-confiscation-soon-or-later)
Isn't that enough for you? :facepalm:

Good point and of course ,history backs up your statement ,100%

mud99
02-24-2012, 11:49 AM
Laws are one thing, but the fact that in every instance the police actually enforced these laws is what concerns me more.

I know I am going to get flamed for saying this, but when the government comes to take away your guns, it is your duty to stand your ground, armed or not, whatever the consequences, to defend your liberty.

A government agent entering your home, with the intent of taking away your rights, is a much larger danger than a robber trying to steal your TV, and should be dealt with accordingly.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

ja308
02-24-2012, 1:18 PM
No, it isn't. Both Reagan and Bush were supporters of registration. Heck Reagan was a backer of the Brady bill.

Bush signed no anti gun legislation . His court appointee's were all Pro 2a
likewise his cabinet , He checked rkba via NRA before doing any appointments .

reagan signed the 86 import ban , likewise his appointments were all 2A .

As for Brady it took clinton and a democratic congress to pass this garbage .

I believe you are an honorable man . However someone is NOT tellinjg you the truth.

Republicans need to be pro 2a ,regardless of their disposition ,in most cases.

A good example is Gingrich who in ,I think 94 sided with anti gun stuff .
The GOP base screamed so loud , Gingrich has been pro2A ever since.

A through search may find an aberation of the above ,but mostly it's true.

BTW -the democratic base does NOT hold their anti's accountable , because the majority of the base does not want rkba ,or even know it exist's .
Obviously you are a proud exception .

Gray Peterson
02-24-2012, 1:23 PM
Governments cannot confiscate guns that aren't registered.

Tell that to the folks in New Orleans post-Katrina....

Curley Red
02-24-2012, 2:30 PM
As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers.

ElvenSoul
02-24-2012, 2:43 PM
Nostalgia People! It took Democracy & Freedom over a 1000 years to return last time. I'm betting it will be a lot quicker this time around. The Kommunist States of America will have a short reign. More & More People are waking up & getting angry.

Uxi
02-24-2012, 3:53 PM
Nostalgia People! It took Democracy & Freedom over a 1000 years to return last time. I'm betting it will be a lot quicker this time around. The Kommunist States of America will have a short reign. More & More People are waking up & getting angry.

I used to scoff at it, but I do think it will eventually come to arms. Hopefully it's a small and relatively bloodless with the military mostly siding with the Constitution without completely shredding it with a junta.

kcbrown
02-24-2012, 5:35 PM
Bush signed no anti gun legislation . His court appointee's were all Pro 2a


Oh, yeah? Then who's Morrison England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_C._England_Jr.), who ruled against us in Richards v Prieto (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Prieto)? He was nominated by Bush.

tuna quesadilla
02-24-2012, 5:40 PM
At this point I hope Obama Wins, and re apoints every Judge. The faster they flush this country down the toilet. The faster we can get on rebuulding it.

How quaint.

kcbrown
02-24-2012, 5:45 PM
Laws are one thing, but the fact that in every instance the police actually enforced these laws is what concerns me more.

I know I am going to get flamed for saying this, but when the government comes to take away your guns, it is your duty to stand your ground, armed or not, whatever the consequences, to defend your liberty.

A government agent entering your home, with the intent of taking away your rights, is a much larger danger than a robber trying to steal your TV, and should be dealt with accordingly.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

The problem is that standing your ground gets you killed every single time, while inflicting minimal losses on the enemy. Furthermore, it forecloses all other options, such as redress in the courts.

The government has more resources than you do. You will always be outgunned. If the resistance on the part of civilians was consistent then the response of the government would be to use more drastic means that cannot be countered by civilians, such as bulldozing over your house with a tank or something.

mud99
02-24-2012, 10:03 PM
How many people are registered on calguns? If everyone on calguns "stood their ground" should a gun confiscation happen, you can be sure that the effects would be felt.

And while the US has a lot of firepower, it still does not have enough tanks or willing foot soldiers to roll through every neighborhood crushing houses.



The problem is that standing your ground gets you killed every single time, while inflicting minimal losses on the enemy. Furthermore, it forecloses all other options, such as redress in the courts.

The government has more resources than you do. You will always be outgunned. If the resistance on the part of civilians was consistent then the response of the government would be to use more drastic means that cannot be countered by civilians, such as bulldozing over your house with a tank or something.

kcbrown
02-24-2012, 10:35 PM
How many people are registered on calguns? If everyone on calguns "stood their ground" should a gun confiscation happen, you can be sure that the effects would be felt.


Felt, yes. But that's not what we would be after. We would be after a cessation of the confiscation. The amount of pain caused by people resisting at the point of confiscation simply isn't enough. Not nearly enough.

If the government is sufficiently determined to accomplish that, it will, regardless of the resistance of those targeted. The government will merely step up its methods to overcome the resistance.



And while the US has a lot of firepower, it still does not have enough tanks or willing foot soldiers to roll through every neighborhood crushing houses.

We're not talking about a battle against another standing army with the same sorts of hardware available. It's an action against a much less well armed civilian population. What you're talking about is like a few people with firearms going up against a larger number of people with sticks and stones. The latter is simply going to be easily outclassed by the former. The government doesn't need a lot of tanks and other types of impenetrable vehicles in this case. It only needs enough to accomplish the task.

No, the danger to the government in that scenario isn't from those in the civilian population who are attempting to resist the confiscation efforts and are getting themselves killed as a result. Those people are mere cannon fodder. The danger is from the people who get fed up with it all and start taking out politicians and/or their loved ones from a great distance.

QQQ
02-24-2012, 10:40 PM
The problem is that standing your ground gets you killed every single time, while inflicting minimal losses on the enemy. What country do we live in again? Now remind me, how did we get our start?

kcbrown
02-24-2012, 11:03 PM
What country do we live in again? Now remind me, how did we get our start?

We got our start back when the firepower of the average soldier was about the same as the firepower of the average civilian.

There were no tanks. No planes. No artillery worth talking about. No missiles. No UAVs. No miniguns. Armies fought it out with people bearing muskets. Anyone can bear a musket.

And the English were at a major disadvantage because they were an occupying force separated from their source of supplies and reinforcements by thousands of miles of ocean at a time when crossing that ocean was a long and perilous journey.

And, despite that, we apparently still had trouble pulling it off. It wasn't a cakewalk.


Fast forward to today. The civilian population is armed almost entirely with small-caliber semi-automatic weapons. They don't even have armor-piercing rounds. The government is armed with machine guns, tanks, fighters, bombers, helicopter gunships, artillery (including airborne artillery a la the C-130 gunship), miniguns, guided smart missiles, chemical agents, biological agents, and even nuclear ordnance. And that's just a sample of the stuff we know about.

No, this is no contest at all. The civilians may as well be armed with sticks and stones in a stand-up fight against the government. Using your semi-automatic M1 Garand against a C-130 gunship will have the same effect as using harsh language.


So no, the real danger to the government isn't from those who will attempt to resist, in futility, the confiscation of their guns. The real danger will, in that scenario, come from those who take it upon themselves to start taking out politicians from a distance in such a way that they are not detected until it's too late. And rest assured, the government will make that as difficult as possible. We'll have martial law at that point, or shortly after the point at which one or two politicians have lost their lives.

You'd better pray that those in the U.S. military are more concerned about upholding the Constitution than following orders. Because it's quite clear that law enforcement isn't. Katrina proved that.

QQQ
02-25-2012, 6:22 AM
In the long run, you cannot win an occupation without the support of the people, or at least as long as there is active opposition. This was true in 1776. It was true in 1968, and it's proving itself to be true again today in Afghanistan.

Technological superiority only assures increases the odds of victory in a conventional war.
So no, the real danger to the government isn't from those who will attempt to resist, in futility, the confiscation of their guns. The real danger will, in that scenario, come from those who take it upon themselves to start taking out politicians from a distance in such a way that they are not detected until it's too late. And rest assured, the government will make that as difficult as possible. We'll have martial law at that point, or shortly after the point at which one or two politicians have lost their lives.Ah, so you recommend simply waiting for the knock on your door before standing up to fight. Yeah, that's a winning strategy.

You'd better pray that those in the U.S. military are more concerned about upholding the Constitution than following orders. Because it's quite clear that law enforcement isn't. Katrina proved that.Yes, I'm praying and keeping my powder dry.

vantec08
02-25-2012, 10:11 AM
Nostalgia People! It took Democracy & Freedom over a 1000 years to return last time. I'm betting it will be a lot quicker this time around. The Kommunist States of America will have a short reign. More & More People are waking up & getting angry.


I dont know if its more citizens getting angry or just the intelligent ones getting vocal. http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/a-black-man-the-progressive%E2%80%99s-perfect-trojan-horse-by-lloyd-marcus-black-tea-party-patriot/

Thats Lloyd Marcus, an unapologetic, unhyphenated Tea Partier.

ja308
02-25-2012, 10:22 AM
Wow --calgunners sure kniow their history when it comes to repubs !

^5 we are winning in cali --finally !

If every republican supportted Brady , they didnt ,but if they did ,.
It was still Clinton who signed it ,passed by a democratic legislature .

I have Clintion campain literature - he ran on passing the brady bill !

Gray Peterson
02-25-2012, 10:57 AM
I dont know if its more citizens getting angry or just the intelligent ones getting vocal. http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/a-black-man-the-progressive%E2%80%99s-perfect-trojan-horse-by-lloyd-marcus-black-tea-party-patriot/

Thats Lloyd Marcus, an unapologetic, unhyphenated Tea Partier.

Racism is gone? Racism is alive and well in California, as shown by sheriff carry license policies....

kcbrown
02-25-2012, 1:33 PM
In the long run, you cannot win an occupation without the support of the people, or at least as long as there is active opposition. This was true in 1776. It was true in 1968, and it's proving itself to be true again today in Afghanistan.


Sure you can. Look at Iraq. When you have vast superiority in arms, the only thing you need to keep the occupation going is the will to do so.

But in any case, an "occupation" isn't going to be the problem here. The problem is going to be how to remove the sitting government from power. That's a much harder problem.

Or is it your contention that the Soviets had the "support of the people" during their reign of terror (most especially during Stalin's reign)?



Technological superiority only assures increases the odds of victory in a conventional war.


Yes. In a conventional war. The problem is that the power that has the non-conventional arms has the option of turning it into an unconventional war at any time.

Regardless, if the technological superiority is sufficient (as it is here), the odds in question are increased to such a degree that it will be hard to distinguish them from certainty.



Ah, so you recommend simply waiting for the knock on your door before standing up to fight. Yeah, that's a winning strategy.


As opposed to kicking off the armed insurrection before such things start to happen? Absolutely. Armed insurrection is the last option. You do that when you've run out of options, not before. That's because it's a very low-probability, very high-cost option. Who do you think you'd be killing in such an action? Foreigners? Faceless drones? No, you'll be killing your fellow countrymen. You'll be targeting your coworkers, acquaintances, neighbors, and maybe even some of the people you currently regard as friends. This won't be like the American Revolution where the enemy was an occupying military force, or like the Civil War where the enemy was someone from a completely different part of the country. This will be the country more or less self-destructing. And the government will not play fair. They will do things like kick off false flag operations that, among other things, wind up killing a bunch of innocents to make the revolutionaries look evil, thus removing popular support from the insurrection.


The participants in the American Revolution got lucky due to their time, place, tactical situation, and type of people in charge. Most revolutions wind up replacing one dictator with another, and sometimes a democracy with a dictator. The most rare type of revolution seems to be one that replaces a non-representative government with a truly representative one (as opposed to one that merely pretends to be representative, e.g. the Soviet Union), particularly when the non-representative government is equipped with modern military weaponry.



Yes, I'm praying and keeping my powder dry.

Likewise.