Comments on: The Los Angeles Times On Ignorance, Intentional Ignorance. http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/ Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:00:02 -1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: adsensepublishing.com » http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17590 adsensepublishing.com » Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:08:58 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17590 [...] The Los Angeles Times On Ignorance, Intentional Ignorance.Men’s News Daily, CA - Sep 5, 2006… is that they won t be able to access data on … along with the jobs, the readership and the advertisers. … authority and training as hundreds of thousands of gun … [...] [...] The Los Angeles Times On Ignorance, Intentional Ignorance.Men’s News Daily, CA - Sep 5, 2006… is that they won t be able to access data on … along with the jobs, the readership and the advertisers. … authority and training as hundreds of thousands of gun … [...]

]]> By: John Longenecker http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17316 John Longenecker Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:48:00 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17316 Thank you kindly, Black Bear. I read you and I appreciate you. Go Black Bear. Thank you kindly, Black Bear. I read you and I appreciate you.

Go Black Bear.

]]> By: Black Bear Blog » Blog Archive » Intentional Ignorance On Guns http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17314 Black Bear Blog » Blog Archive » Intentional Ignorance On Guns Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:43:28 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17314 [...] John Longenecker, Men’s News Daily, weighs in on the intentional ignorance of the Los Angeles Times on guns and gun control. Worth the read. [...] [...] John Longenecker, Men’s News Daily, weighs in on the intentional ignorance of the Los Angeles Times on guns and gun control. Worth the read. [...]

]]> By: John Longenecker http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17309 John Longenecker Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:50:55 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17309 You I would like to have a copy of my Second Edition out soon, Roger. You see, our liberty is not all guns, but general values such as fathers' rights, most of which are protected by lawful force: our force. The move is on to take that force to pave the way for total dissolution of Marriage, privacy, and for hi-tech surveillance by having officials have all the force. No plug intended, but you can get some content insight at www.TransferOfWealth.net Write me with your hard address. You I would like to have a copy of my Second Edition out soon, Roger. You see, our liberty is not all guns, but general values such as fathers’ rights, most of which are protected by lawful force: our force.

The move is on to take that force to pave the way for total dissolution of Marriage, privacy, and for hi-tech surveillance by having officials have all the force.

No plug intended, but you can get some content insight at http://www.TransferOfWealth.net

Write me with your hard address.

]]> By: Roger Knight http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17300 Roger Knight Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:39:17 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17300 I agree that those convicted of violent felonies should be stripped of the right to keep and bear arms along with other restrictions, such as the right to vote. But ONLY if such provisions are on the statute books at the time the crime is committed, and ONLY if such are specifically included in the sentence notifying the defendant of these legal restrictions. I am extremely offended by judges who make up cutie-pie reasons for not enforcing the provisions of the Constitution and the state constitutions. I believe we all agree that there are extremely important reasons for prohibiting bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and requiring equal protection of the laws, meaning that ALL citizens are affected by a piece of legislation and not just some. If we tolerate stripping a citizen with an old felony conviction of any civil right that he was not stripped of at the time of sentencing, by a new legislative fiat, then next thing we will see are noncustodial parents with old child support orders and old CS arrearages being stripped of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle by new legislation without even the requirement that such penalty being written into an order on modification of the CS order. Oh, that's right, that has already happened. I want to caution you to please consider that those with old felony convictions and noncustodial parents are the guinea pigs upon whom are tested the new technologies and techniques of tyranny. And if they can get away with doing such garbage to divorced fathers never convicted of any crime other than being unable to pay the support due to the rampant outsourcing of our jobs and insourcing of dirt poor Mexicans who will work for less than what Americans can afford to work for, then do not think that they will stop with divorced fathers and those with old criminal convictions. They can always find an excuse to do to you what we allow done to divorced fathers. I agree that those convicted of violent felonies should be stripped of the right to keep and bear arms along with other restrictions, such as the right to vote.
But ONLY if such provisions are on the statute books at the time the crime is committed, and ONLY if such are specifically included in the sentence notifying the defendant of these legal restrictions.
I am extremely offended by judges who make up cutie-pie reasons for not enforcing the provisions of the Constitution and the state constitutions.
I believe we all agree that there are extremely important reasons for prohibiting bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and requiring equal protection of the laws, meaning that ALL citizens are affected by a piece of legislation and not just some.
If we tolerate stripping a citizen with an old felony conviction of any civil right that he was not stripped of at the time of sentencing, by a new legislative fiat, then next thing we will see are noncustodial parents with old child support orders and old CS arrearages being stripped of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle by new legislation without even the requirement that such penalty being written into an order on modification of the CS order.
Oh, that’s right, that has already happened.
I want to caution you to please consider that those with old felony convictions and noncustodial parents are the guinea pigs upon whom are tested the new technologies and techniques of tyranny.
And if they can get away with doing such garbage to divorced fathers never convicted of any crime other than being unable to pay the support due to the rampant outsourcing of our jobs and insourcing of dirt poor Mexicans who will work for less than what Americans can afford to work for, then do not think that they will stop with divorced fathers and those with old criminal convictions.
They can always find an excuse to do to you what we allow done to divorced fathers.

]]> By: nighthawk http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17298 nighthawk Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:22:28 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17298 Gentlemen Agree with most of the stuff about restraining orders. I know some folks who were victims of what I guess we could call abusive/paranoid/retaliatory restraining orders. I also know some folks who were urged by local law enforcement to purchase a firearm to protect themselves and their families from abusive ex-husbands that were not expected to obey the restraining order. In one of these cases, he violated the order and shots were fired in response. He has not been seen since. The bottom line: restraining orders are too easy to use as a weapon, and they are not effective. “...... could show how to make gun-control laws more effective.” “This is where that ignorance on guns comes in: ........” This, my friends, is where the Times slipped up. They’re not ignorant, they’re hoping we are. Of course, they’re also working hard to keep the American public ignorant. To them, effective gun control means disarmament of the law-abiding. We have many instances of this kind of journalistic malfeasance going on lately. Some examples: In Ohio, the newspapers are publishing personal information about concealed carry permit APPLICANTS. They are pushing for (and succeeding) ballistic fingerprint legislation. Totally ineffective, unless tou want to use it for a registration scheme. Remember Ronnie Barrett’s letter to the LAPD? Where they misrepresented the type of firearm that they wanted to ban. Truth means nothing to these people. Gentlemen

Agree with most of the stuff about restraining orders. I know some folks who were victims of what I guess we could call abusive/paranoid/retaliatory restraining orders.
I also know some folks who were urged by local law enforcement to purchase a firearm to protect themselves and their families from abusive ex-husbands that were not expected to obey the restraining order. In one of these cases, he violated the order and shots were fired in response. He has not been seen since.

The bottom line: restraining orders are too easy to use as a weapon, and they are not effective.

“…… could show how to make gun-control laws more effective.”

“This is where that ignorance on guns comes in: ……..”

This, my friends, is where the Times slipped up. They’re not ignorant, they’re hoping we are. Of course, they’re also working hard to keep the American public ignorant.
To them, effective gun control means disarmament of the law-abiding.

We have many instances of this kind of journalistic malfeasance going on lately.
Some examples:

In Ohio, the newspapers are publishing personal information about concealed carry permit APPLICANTS.

They are pushing for (and succeeding) ballistic fingerprint legislation. Totally ineffective, unless tou want to use it for a registration scheme.

Remember Ronnie Barrett’s letter to the LAPD? Where they misrepresented the type of firearm that they wanted to ban.

Truth means nothing to these people.

]]> By: John Longenecker http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17287 John Longenecker Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:01:45 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17287 You should read my four-part series Repeal All Gun Laws here at MND (and elsewhere). I'm pretty much a purist for liberty reasons, but realistic in denying the vote, RTKBA and other citizenship benefits to violent felons. Irrespective of how we got here -- and your history is accurate -- we don't need to take the very same path home again retracing steps, such as restoring the right to felons. I know you didn't mean this, but I wanted to clarify. I write Good For The Country not for gun owners, but for the non-gun owners in America. We didn't mess up: officials mess things up. In repealing all gun laws, we'll sort it out. We repeal all gun laws first. The second thing we need to do is remind our fellows that our Document puts limits on government, on subjects not open to discussion. Liberty You should read my four-part series Repeal All Gun Laws here at MND (and elsewhere). I’m pretty much a purist for liberty reasons, but realistic in denying the vote, RTKBA and other citizenship benefits to violent felons. Irrespective of how we got here — and your history is accurate — we don’t need to take the very same path home again retracing steps, such as restoring the right to felons. I know you didn’t mean this, but I wanted to clarify. I write Good For The Country not for gun owners, but for the non-gun owners in America.

We didn’t mess up: officials mess things up.

In repealing all gun laws, we’ll sort it out. We repeal all gun laws first. The second thing we need to do is remind our fellows that our Document puts limits on government, on subjects not open to discussion.

Liberty

]]> By: Roger Knight http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17276 Roger Knight Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:22:34 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17276 Whoa. A little history lesson is order here. 1994 was 12 years ago, and for those of over 30 it was "just yesterday". I mean, didn't that Challenger space shuttle blow up just a few years ago? How easy it is for college professors to forget that to their students, John Belushi has always been dead. That was when the Brady Bill passed. And the Democrats lost Congress because the NRA rallied to punish them for infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Before the Brady Bill passed, and before the Washington Legislature passed the Violence Reduction Act containing changes in our state's firearms laws to harmonize with the Brady Bill, convicted felons were not actually prohibited from owning firearms. That is right, CONVICTED FELONS WERE NOT ACTUALLY PROHIBITED FROM OWNING FIREARMS. They were only prohibited from owning "short" firearms, meaning guns with barrels shorter than 12 inches. Pistols. They could still own rifles and legal shotguns, with barrels longer than 12 inches. And that only applied to those convicted of certain felonies, not all felonies. Those conmvicted of non-violent felonies, such as fraud or false info on a tax return, had no restrictions on firearms ownership whatsoever. I kid you not! There has arisen a number of cases where those with old felony convictions challenged as ex post facto laws, the legislative extension of the firearms prohibition to include long firearms. The Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of Washington (5-4 split, give the dissenting justices credit for actually knowing what an ex post facto law is) each avoided a strike down with the following cutie-pie conclusion: Because the convicted felons already had a long list of firearms ownership restrictions (I know, pistols shorter than 12 inches is not a long list) the changes in the Brady Bill and the Violence Reduction Act were only "administrative" and "incidental" adjustments in these restrictions and therefore were not ex post facto laws when applied to those with old felony convictions. However, this dodge does not work with the fraud convict who was not deprived of ANY firearms ownership until 1994 when Congress and the Washington Legislature deprived them of the Right by legislative fiat. Such legislative fiat is also called a bill of attainder, which is also prohibited by the Constitution. If we are not seeing any cases that address this question, it is probably because prosecutors are WISELY using their prosecutorial discretion when it comes to charging those with old non-violent felony convictions of unlawful possession of firearms. Like, they don't. As for under-age, there was a time when 15-17 year olds owned firearms, kept them in gun racks in their pickups in the high school parking lot, and went hunting after school and NOBODY thought there was anything wrong with this picture. It made for an Army that could go into war with greener troops than anyone else and still win its battles. The kids were inducted already knowing how to shoot. Whoa. A little history lesson is order here.
1994 was 12 years ago, and for those of over 30 it was “just yesterday”. I mean, didn’t that Challenger space shuttle blow up just a few years ago? How easy it is for college professors to forget that to their students, John Belushi has always been dead.
That was when the Brady Bill passed. And the Democrats lost Congress because the NRA rallied to punish them for infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Before the Brady Bill passed, and before the Washington Legislature passed the Violence Reduction Act containing changes in our state’s firearms laws to harmonize with the Brady Bill, convicted felons were not actually prohibited from owning firearms.
That is right, CONVICTED FELONS WERE NOT ACTUALLY PROHIBITED FROM OWNING FIREARMS.
They were only prohibited from owning “short” firearms, meaning guns with barrels shorter than 12 inches. Pistols.
They could still own rifles and legal shotguns, with barrels longer than 12 inches.
And that only applied to those convicted of certain felonies, not all felonies. Those conmvicted of non-violent felonies, such as fraud or false info on a tax return, had no restrictions on firearms ownership whatsoever.
I kid you not!
There has arisen a number of cases where those with old felony convictions challenged as ex post facto laws, the legislative extension of the firearms prohibition to include long firearms. The Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of Washington (5-4 split, give the dissenting justices credit for actually knowing what an ex post facto law is) each avoided a strike down with the following cutie-pie conclusion: Because the convicted felons already had a long list of firearms ownership restrictions (I know, pistols shorter than 12 inches is not a long list) the changes in the Brady Bill and the Violence Reduction Act were only “administrative” and “incidental” adjustments in these restrictions and therefore were not ex post facto laws when applied to those with old felony convictions.
However, this dodge does not work with the fraud convict who was not deprived of ANY firearms ownership until 1994 when Congress and the Washington Legislature deprived them of the Right by legislative fiat.
Such legislative fiat is also called a bill of attainder, which is also prohibited by the Constitution.
If we are not seeing any cases that address this question, it is probably because prosecutors are WISELY using their prosecutorial discretion when it comes to charging those with old non-violent felony convictions of unlawful possession of firearms. Like, they don’t.
As for under-age, there was a time when 15-17 year olds owned firearms, kept them in gun racks in their pickups in the high school parking lot, and went hunting after school and NOBODY thought there was anything wrong with this picture.
It made for an Army that could go into war with greener troops than anyone else and still win its battles. The kids were inducted already knowing how to shoot.

]]> By: John Longenecker http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17269 John Longenecker Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:41:20 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17269 Correct. But I'm talking about owning, not handling. Training kids to shoot is vital. They can wait till 18 to own. I understand TRO, the hearingprocess and the final order, but what about the legitimate instances? Felons? No way. Furriners? Same here. Rights of citizens belong to citizens alone. Governments do not have rights, they have only powers. Only citizens have rights, and rights trump powers. No guns for under-age, aliens or felons. Correct. But I’m talking about owning, not handling. Training kids to shoot is vital. They can wait till 18 to own.

I understand TRO, the hearingprocess and the final order, but what about the legitimate instances?

Felons? No way.

Furriners? Same here.

Rights of citizens belong to citizens alone. Governments do not have rights, they have only powers. Only citizens have rights, and rights trump powers.

No guns for under-age, aliens or felons.

]]> By: Roger Knight http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17265 Roger Knight Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:13:06 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17265 Most restraining orders are NOT based on proof of acts beyond reasonable doubt. That's the problem with them. The facts "proven" could merely include that the female petitioner is "afraid" of the respondent, it could be based on an incident that occurred YEARS before, with no NEW incidents needing to be proved. The domestic "violence" can include yelling or slamming a door too loud during an argment. Or whatever the judge decides constitutes DV. In Washington, he does not even have to set forth what specific facts he found that constitutes the domestic violence. That is like being charged with robbing the Washington Mutual Bank on Tuesday, but being unable to prove that crime beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution presents evidence that you robbed the Bank of America on Friday, without previously notifying that you were accused of such thing! Then on the conviction slip, the jury found that you robbed a bank, without any specific finding as to which bank on which day you robbed! Mind you, it often does not matter that said female party was the aggressor in the altercation, EVEN IF SHE WAS CONVICTED OF A CRIME OF ASSAULT HERSELF. She can be a screaming banshee throughout the relationship, but no restraining order court will hold her to account for any contribution she makes to the sturm und drang of the relationship. As for the underage person possessing and using firearms, please consider the following scenario: Your daughter is 15 years old and drop dead gorgeous. Down the street there lives your Friendly Neighborhood Level III Registered Sex Offender. His history indicates a preference for 15 year old girls. If it was me, I would enroll my drop dead gorgeous daughter in the NRA's Eddie Eagle Progam and get her trained in the use and safekeeping of firearms. I would also make damn sure well that she knew exactly where the firearms are kept in the house and how to check them, load them, and use them. And I would make damn sure she was able to get her hands on these firearms in an emergency, such as the registered sex offender coming by to pay her a visit. Oh and by the way, for every registered sex offender, there was a first time. When they weren't registered. Most restraining orders are NOT based on proof of acts beyond reasonable doubt. That’s the problem with them. The facts “proven” could merely include that the female petitioner is “afraid” of the respondent, it could be based on an incident that occurred YEARS before, with no NEW incidents needing to be proved. The domestic “violence” can include yelling or slamming a door too loud during an argment.
Or whatever the judge decides constitutes DV. In Washington, he does not even have to set forth what specific facts he found that constitutes the domestic violence.
That is like being charged with robbing the Washington Mutual Bank on Tuesday, but being unable to prove that crime beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution presents evidence that you robbed the Bank of America on Friday, without previously notifying that you were accused of such thing! Then on the conviction slip, the jury found that you robbed a bank, without any specific finding as to which bank on which day you robbed!
Mind you, it often does not matter that said female party was the aggressor in the altercation, EVEN IF SHE WAS CONVICTED OF A CRIME OF ASSAULT HERSELF. She can be a screaming banshee throughout the relationship, but no restraining order court will hold her to account for any contribution she makes to the sturm und drang of the relationship.
As for the underage person possessing and using firearms, please consider the following scenario:
Your daughter is 15 years old and drop dead gorgeous. Down the street there lives your Friendly Neighborhood Level III Registered Sex Offender. His history indicates a preference for 15 year old girls.
If it was me, I would enroll my drop dead gorgeous daughter in the NRA’s Eddie Eagle Progam and get her trained in the use and safekeeping of firearms.
I would also make damn sure well that she knew exactly where the firearms are kept in the house and how to check them, load them, and use them.
And I would make damn sure she was able to get her hands on these firearms in an emergency, such as the registered sex offender coming by to pay her a visit.
Oh and by the way, for every registered sex offender, there was a first time. When they weren’t registered.

]]> By: John Longenecker http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17264 John Longenecker Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:08:03 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17264 Correct. Correct.

]]> By: DrDamage http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/comment-page-1/#comment-17262 DrDamage Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:23:21 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/09/04/the-los-angeles-times-on-ignorance-intentional-ignorance/#comment-17262 <blockquote>There is no legitimate due process anywhere in America which can legally disarm citizens short of a Constitutional Amendment Repeal, and that’s not likely in a post 9/ll era – with the exception of taking the right from felons, and of not selling weapons to under-age persons, not selling to non-citizens (they don’t have a right if they’re not a citizen) <i>and people with restraining orders</i> and so forth</blockquote> Unless said restraining order is based upon acts determined beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm not so sure this is reasonable or wise.

There is no legitimate due process anywhere in America which can legally disarm citizens short of a Constitutional Amendment Repeal, and that’s not likely in a post 9/ll era – with the exception of taking the right from felons, and of not selling weapons to under-age persons, not selling to non-citizens (they don’t have a right if they’re not a citizen) and people with restraining orders and so forth

Unless said restraining order is based upon acts determined beyond a reasonable doubt, I’m not so sure this is reasonable or wise.

]]>