What about the UAW members at the Colt plant?

having fun here?

The answer is no..?

Union workers at West Hartford’s Colt Firearms plant are scared for their jobs after the company announced they will open a new manufacturing plant in Central Florida. The move can’t help but remind one of this year’s NLRB complaint against Boeing for moving a plant of theirs to South Carolina from Washington as retaliation against their union workforce.

After 175 years in Hartford, Colt’s move to Kissimmee, FL marks the first time that Colt has considered any U.S. operations outside of Connecticut. According to The Hartford Courant, United Auto Workers (UAW) members met on Sunday in Newington where they learned that part of the company’s plan is to freeze jobs at the West Hartford plant and begin cutting them in the New Year. The UAW represents 350 workers at the plant.

In June of 2010, 128 union workers were layed off. Since then, though, all but 26 have been hired back. But the news that the company will begin operations in “Right-to-Work” Florida has bleakened the outlook of the Local 350 members:

“They told us to expect more layoffs after the holidays,” said Mike Holmes, the shop chairman at Colt’s for UAW Local 376.

http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2011/12/13/colt-vs-uaw/

NOTE: Florida Governor Rick Scott has committed $1.6 million to the new facility in order to lure it away from Connecticut

What UAW members at the Colt plant?


Nice try, your magazine's empty.

Sorry, those people are losing their jobs. Maybe than can move to wonderful (sic) gun toting Florida? More GUNS in Florida.

If anything you're the one gloating over your fellow UAW members getting laid off.

yada yada yada

cya

Post after post after post of the same drivel and BS.

we probably would have had 50 states (instead of the 49 he claims), if the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.

As you said, this is a discussion board. You present your points and I present mine.

Maybe, finally, the American people have had enough, and in some limited way you will lose your ability to buy and sell semiautomatic weapons.

Using a tragedy as an excuse to remove another's rights isn't really something to celebrate.

You can still have your bolt action hunting rifles and revolvers and shotguns. But you have no right to semiauto rifles and pistols any more than you do to a full auto .50 cal.

While we can go back and forth regarding the restrictions, I can't strap a 20mm cannon to my car, the intent of the amendment is clear.

If a well regulated militia can't have car-mounted cannons, the entire bill of rights is meaningless.

Those are adorable. Missiles are clearly armaments, and I therefore have the right to keep and bear them. Once I can afford to, I'm going to stock my back yard (ok, I don't have a back yard, but my parents' back yard maybe) with a load of 'em.

by the writers. It include a prefatory clause, it is the only right and amendment to include one, making that "right" different than all the others. Always good to recall when comparing the right to bear arms with any other right, as so many do.

There is no "well regulated militia" anymore. And you can have as many fucking muskets are you want.

There. That's the original intent of the 2nd amendment. Buh bye.

Any more than rights are removed by banning you from owning a battery of hellfire missiles. Your right to keep and bear arms would still exist, but the list of qualified items would be shortened.

Further, the 2nd amendment is one of several thousands of obsolete laws existing in this country. When looking at a law, you have to consider why that law was passed, what its function was, and whether it's applicable today.

The second amendment clearly describes the need for citizen militias. At the time it was written, there was no standing military in this country. It was all militia and conscripts. All of them were expected to bring their own weapons (guns were REALLY expensive back then, and even large towns like Boston only had so many spares in the armory). The point of this citizen militia was to serve as community or national defense against the young nation's foes.

Not one iota of this is applicable today. We do have a standing military. We also have regular police forces, rather than volunteer constabulary. The nation and our communities can easily afford to equip these men and women out of a communal holding of weapons; a young enlistee doesn't have to shoulder paw's hunting rifle before going off to training. There is no need at all for a citizen militia that serves with its own arms.

Further, the point of such a militia is obsolete as well. Let's say the War of 1812 was rematched today; Canada might lose the fight, but it sure as fuck wouldn't be because of a bunch of dinks in Vermont armed with Smith & Wessons. They'd get turned into so much protein mulch by weaponry vastly beyond their own firepower. Pretty much every foe our nation might face in the future is going to be packing weaponry that make every gun-stuffer squawking on the internet today look like Ralphie with his Red Rider BB gun.

Tomorrow! Russia attacks! Do a bunch of plucky young footballers from the midwest throw them back with hunting equipment and team spirit? Fuck no, they get turned into bait by a drone operated out of Severomorsk or somewhere.

In this day and time, the only point to the 2nd amendment is so a bunch of nitwits can wave their guns around and go "WOOOO I HAVE A RIGHT!"

It might as well be a right to own a giraffe, for all it matters in the scope of things.

Simply the best line of the argument, you win!!!!!

First the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Second, the 2nd amendment assures we have a means to fight the government. Remember, the founders had just fought a war against a tyrannical government. Third, the idea that it's obsolete is simply naive. No government is perfect and every government has the ability to become tyrannical. Though I doubt it would ever happen in our lifetimes. As I posted in another thread, our founders had a good idea in checks and balances on power. That's all the 2nd Amendment is, a check to the government's power.

They may have final say on standing law, but it doesn't actually mean they are right (See Dredd Scott, corporations under the 14th amendment, Citizens United, etc.) "Legal" does not always equal "correct," just as it does not always mean "ethical."

And no, the 2nd amendment does not give you a check to the government's power; the fact that as a citizen you ARE the government gives you that check. The idea that the citizenry and the government are divided and hostile is a right-wing talking point, and you might do well to scrape that off your shoe before you track it all over our carpet, thanks.

Next, as I pointed out, any foe we might face is going to have far superior firepower. In the revolution, the rifles the colonials had were equal in quality and killing power to the rifles of their opponents. This is so far from being the case today that I would literally have to laugh in your face if we were talking in person. If this weird Hal Turner fantasy of "fighting the government" actually became truth, who do you think wins? My money's on whoever has superior air power.

You do not have superior air power. So that narrows the betting pool.

Also, spare me the "The military would side with the citizens!" - yeah, sure, like the cops do? Fun fact of history; armed forces are exclusively loyal to whoever's putting coin in their hands. we are not a magical wonderland where this isn't true; if our armed forces were managed by ethics instead of paychecks, a lot more Vietnamese peopel would have grandparents, and Fallujah would still look like a city instead of an abandoned quarry.

First I agree with their interpretation and you don't. Fair enough. Second and third point, true yes we would be outnumbered but military history shows it's not always the bigger army that wins. Look no further than the last civil war to see how the military splits in a civil war friend. As to the last point, as callous as it seems, it's different when it's "your own people".

I think we can leave it at that.

I'm not a nut, I just understand why the amendment is there. That is its intention.

Again, this whole "we need to fight against our oppressive and evil government!" is a really modern invention from the right wing. it's like how they point at the pledge to claim we're a christian nation, and ignore that "under god" wasn't added until the 19 fucking 50's.

The amendment is there because the expectation at the time was that the US would have no standing army. You'll notice only two military forces are provided in the constitution; a standing navy, and the citizen militia. Article 1, Section 8. Calling forth the militia is one of the powers of congress;

I grant you the historical relevance, but the original intent is the same. Time has sifted us from muskets and forming an army to the populous having "black rifles" and forming a militia to fight the government's standing army.

-In fact, that is why the NDAA is required. Otherwise, according to the constitution, our standing army would be in violation of the constitution

you might conceivably have in your private armory. You, and maybe lots of other people, will end up as a pink fog most likely.

Have you not got the faintest clue what the current US military machine is like at this point in time?

Unless you're agitating for the rights of private citizens to own tactical nuclear missiles, your notions are pure fantasy.

I also wanted to add that the current gun culture in this country probably has alot to do with a police force that is overly aggressive and tends to shoot to kill first and ask questions later. If anybody might be armed, the police have to assume the worst case scenario and act accordingly. Alot of good that's doing for the personal liberties of the American people.

Am I to understand that you believe a small and weak military force cannot beat a superior military force when proper tactics are used?

For the terms as they would be defined for this particular discussion, yes, you understand my views correctly.

Take for instance, the Indian Wars; in terms of tactics, terrain, and maneuverability, every group of Indians on the continent was superior to the US military.

But they lost. Why?

Because they could not sustain the fight. They had everything on their side except for two things; manpower and sustained firepower. Every fighting man in the tribe was also a family man, was also a hunting or farming man, was a craftsman, was all the things that made his society work, in addition to being a fighter. By contrast he was fighting men who were soldiers and nothing else. If the Indians lost a guy in a fight, they lost a provider. If the US lost a man in the same fight, it lost a soldier and nothing more.

Further, the Indians lacked the ability to restock their arms reliably; the US had munitions factories cranking out a steady stream of weaponry, while Indians were cutting bullets out of the dead to re-cast.

The US military was able to beat the shit out of the Indians in the 19th century despite all their advantages, becuase the US could afford to keep coming.

But that goes back to tactics not size. Had the indians better understood how to fight us they would have probably driven us off the continent.

One major reason is that the indians in the east gave up the use of bows for the guns of the time. Ever seen one of these guns? They're shit. But they were new and neat and intimidating, so the Indians loved 'em and did all they could to stock up on the things, and basically let their skills with the bow go to shit, when it was actually the superior weapon at the time.

Think about it, which would you pick, knowing what you do now? Muzzle-loaded blunderbus, or a longbow? Give me the stick with a string anytime on that choice.

Next was a lack of any sort of cohesion between the Indians. This flaw was nearly overcome by Tecumseh. Close, so very, very close. it's one of those things that, if you were reading it in a book, would make you think it was by George R. R. Martin or something. Tecumseh is gathering up all these people, making alliances all the way south into the Alabama territory, rallying Indian tribes all across the territories, and what happens? His brother decides to lead an attack prematurely to show what a badass he is and everything falls to shit. Way to go, Tenskwatawa.

After that... it was pretty much a lost cause for the Indians. Past that point, with a settled beachhead and the Tecumseh confederacy dispersed, would have amounted to a heap of anything. Fast-forward to the Civil War and suddenly the Union has a huge surplus of soldiers and arms, which greatly outclass most of what Indians west of the Mississippi have (rifles beat bows, which is why bowhunting is a hobby and rifles are used when you're hungry).

The point is though, it's about sustaining the conflict. The winner of every war is simply whoever lasts the longest.

Here in little ole CT we had Colt, Smith & Wesson and Winchester (right near my house in New Haven). They got pretty rich selling their product to the U.S. Army.

If a gun, issued by the government to its soldiers, isn't the closest thing to a "registered" gun, then I don't know what is...

because if you do you are beyond delusional

It's called "Red Dawn". I'm no history buff, but, apparently, in the mid 80's, the US was invaded by a coalition made up of the USSR and some Latin American pinkos (I think they blew up the space shuttle challenger, maybe). This new government was then overthrown by a few scrappy teenagers, with the help of some guy from the Army or Air Force or something, with nothing but rifles and some home-made bombs. Their leader was named Thomas Jefferson Wildcat. He wrote the second amendment, and later added the rest of the constitution to it, along with Paul Revere, Ronald Reagan, and Sam Adams. He later went on to invent the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.

On principle, damn men in black...

Yet, when that was written care to tell me how many folks could not own weapons?

There is more, tyrannical government. The two times we had people rise, it was put down...the first in months, the second in four bloody years...how long do you think it will take the modern security Aparatus to do that? Ok, ok, you could use unconventional warfare...yup, you could...for the most part that uses guns as a last resort. If you need your gun, you did something wrong.

This red dawn fantasy is just that.

There's a far better chance the us will break up that citizen militias taking on the evil guv'ment head on.

voting is our main recourse to tyranny
my 22 is not going to have much effect on drones and cruise missiles

really, things are quite different down here than they are up there. On a lot of matters.


Even, say, lawyers don't always grasp the differences.

Okay, wherever that came from.

Buuuut the truth of the matter is that the 2nd amendment isn't exactly arcane. Anyone with a grasp of english and a 5th-grade education in history can figure out what it's saying well enough.

What led you to bring Canadians into this?

So, you're not Canadian, then?

No. I'm not Canadian.

Go back to watching Snorks.

*snork!*

Mr. "Lurk for 7 years and then post 59 posts in 2 days about guns sounding like an NRA employee" didn't know what hit him.

If the shooter's "right" trumps those of 70 others, it's time to re-examine your fucking "right".

venue without worrying their safety from someone who is armed to the teeth not being removed? You have effectively removed the rights of others by insisting that everyone be given the right to every type of weapon available.

It is a tragedy and not something to celebrate, but there aren't any excuses anymore.

No more excuses, no more rationalizations, no more talking points.

same when Gabby Gifford's and her entourage was shot.

they're a buncha maroons...

It's all a grand conspiracy and has nothing to do with people being tired of being demeaned and deciding to present their own side of the story.

and was exercising his legitimate rights to use the 2nd Ammendment to combat the perceived tyrrany.

Hate 'em so bad that I had to swallow hard and insist that a trigger lock be secured on his hunting shotgun at all times while in our home before I'd even agree to marry my late, great husband.

But I will defend to my last, dying breath the constitutional right of others to own and keep firearms if that is their will because I expect them to feel as strongly about my rights.

Those claiming that gun owners should give up their firearms because you think they ought to, please ennumerate which of your rights you would be willing to abandon because someone else doesn't think you need them.

Just sayin'.

Thank you for your honest and proper opinion!

I just wish some of the more spontaneous and thoughtless members here would see it that way.

the second amendment. Hell, I don't even think that we, as a modern democracy, even NEED a second amendment. I think we're the only constitutional democracy around the world that has one. And, while I'm on the subject, it's no wonder emerging modern democracies no longer look to the U.S. for a constitutional model. They are choosing others because they find ours too unworkable and limited. Even Justice Ginsberg said as much. I agree with her.

Yes, I would regulate and limit the ownership of firearms. We have shown clearly that our democracy suffers from having such firearms. It does nothing to enhance our freedom. It takes away our freedom. We are being subjected to the tyranny of the gun lobby and its unfortunate foolish "believers."

Nobody. But my right to own guns means that those I take dogs from can't come near me. They don't dare. And if they did, I'm sorry for their families.

I am Lennox, as are all of my dogs past and present.

Be well

I think "great majority" is an overestimation, because a lot of good liberals own and shoot firearms. I'm not afraid the govt is coming for the couple pistols I have left, but we do have the right to keep them.

This lefty maintains a lifetime membership in the NRA. I wouldn't want to tell her she's in the wrong party:



Maddow's first date with her life partner was at an NRA sponsored shoot.

I'm really surprised by that considering that I watch her show everyday and she seems to be vehemently anti gun. Hell, she wanted people to lose their 2nd amendment rights without due process without redress if put on a government list.

..mostly as it pertains to large capacity magazines and assault weapons, but she's a strong supporter of private gun ownership. I couldn't help but notice she took a day off the day after the Colorado shootings.

That doesn't mean she's anti-gun. I personally have disassociated myself from the NRA since Wayne LaPierre has taken over. Under his (mis)leadership the organization has focused less on gun rights and more on installing Republicans.

Proof of this is when he endorsed Ken Blackwell over Ted Strickland for Ohio governor back in '04. Strickland has a triple A rating from the Buckeye Gun Owners Assn.

just spew your pro-gun viewpoint for the rest of us to enjoy.

I clearly wrote, we can't do jack shit, so what's your point?

And why did you call Rachel a "lefty"? We don't call each other "leftys". We call each other Progressives, Liberals. not "Leftys"


(Big big grin)

This lefty maintains a lifetime membership in the NRA. I wouldn't want to tell her she's in the wrong party:

Right Wingers aren't a very bright bunch.

it ain't like it was in the days of tombstones and pizas....

I'm a lifelong registered Democrat, having cast my first vote for McGovern in 1972, a 35 year dues paying UAW member, and volunteer for both Obama campaigns. I'm currently involved in retaining Sherrod Brown as our senator. Don't you dare imply I'm a right wing troll just to supplement your weak argument that the Democratic Party is pro gun control or that liberals hate guns.

I'll put my left wing credentials up against yours anyday after you get some seniority here.

thanks for the biography 'lefty'.

I'm uninterested.


Goodbye

...but I would still call you a brother in solidarity, though our opinions on the single issue of gun control differ.

when they were discussing guns. Meghan told her she should go and Rachel did some report on it for her show.

it was meghan who made some joke about rachel being her date .

I didn't know the OP tried to silence me through a jury.

I'm not necessarily taking a far right pro-gun stance as I am not opposed to some regulations and I no longer associate myself with the NRA, but I didn't appreciate the "get out of my website" attitude in the original post.

I was just pointing out that guns are not a defining issue between Democrats and Republicans.

misrepresentations from the right, but that does not make her left

Maddow herself jokes: "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform.", so she may not agree with the staunchest members of the left wing, but I think that's the essential backbone and free minded spirit of a true liberal.

I've learned things from people with opposing views -- even people I really didn't like on this board.

Even when the topics have huge consequences or touch nerves, discussion is worthwhile.

Do you learn things from discussion? Even from people with opposing views?

Look shiny......

They gravitated here like flies since yesterday. Kicking and screaming about their gun rights and needing their 2nd amendment rights. They came to the wrong place obviously. I wouldn't give them the time of day for their rights to own a gun. I figure they must need their guns to feel like manly men.

I wonder who really are the ignorant ones, those fearful of losing their guns, or us for giving in that they can keep them forever and forever...

As for coming to the wrong place, I'm decidedly liberal except on gun rights. Why don't I belong here, because you don't like defending your opinions or you don't like hearing opinions you don't agree with?

with all your 35 posts when other conversations of national consequence were happening? Or do you and yours just get defensive after a recent massacre?

As I posted in another thread, I've been lurking for about 7 years. I see the same threads time and time again after a tragedy. I normally post on a dozen other boards but I was bored and tired of hearing a half hearted defense of gun rights here so I decided to finally say something. I'll be here for a while, it seems though that most on the board don't really want to discuss gun rights when challenged by a fellow liberal. They just want to post their opinion for others to read, but I'm here now and I will be posting.

But joined yesterday, Jul 21 2012, to defend your right to own guns in the wake of a gun slaughter in Aurora Co. I'm not making a half-hearted defense of guns. There doesn't seem to be a point to make on their behalf at all in my opinion. If I had my way, they would be confiscated and illegal. So there's no common ground between us.

There's no doubt in my mind that the NRA degenerates dispatch a horde of you to defend the gun lobby after every abuse of guns and that's the only reason so many of you are here defending the honor of guns and ammo.

So you should probably adjust your tinfoil and yes it was the anti-gun posts that finally made me decide to start posting. I'll bet there's more common ground between us than you think, but apparently gun rights is not an issue we can agree on.

So, someone lurked for SEVEN years, nothing EVER caused him/her to come here to post before, and BINGO, mass murder and here they come like ants to honey......


yep it is so obvious it hurts.

On most of the topics that get posted we'd probably agree and other posters covered what I had to say. So why bother posting? As for gun rights, well like I said I was bored so figured I'd jump in defending that point and trust me, I will be doing so in the future. You're tilting at windmills friend and I will bring a pro gun voice to this forum in the future. I'm not going anywhere now.

"do you and yours just get defensive after a recent massacre?"


Where were the 100's of cries to ban guns before Thursday night? General and Latest have been flooded with demands up to and including reinstating the AWB. Why did they rally around the BradyCampaign.org flag only after a recent massacre?

they got a not so subtle reminder of how violent this place has become. Maybe it reminds us that we can't even go to a movie theater or a diner without a decent chance of gunfire breaking out and rattling the walls with bullets and smoke. I know I did.

and this isn't so rare anymore. The only fear that I have is that innocent people have to die for no other reason than the NRA has so much money to spend buying votes in the Senate and House to keep their killing machine fed. And they have enough influence to dispatch people like yourself all over the internet to defend their cause. I'm probably old enough for you to be my son if not grandson.

Simply a figure of speech and your emotional reaction to this tragedy is devoid of logic. Are these shootings more frequent than we'd like, yes. Can many of them be averted by better mental health screenings, yes. I was not "dispatched" by anyone. I came here because, to be honest, I'm sick of people like you going unanswered.

There really isn't a reasonable case against things like limits on the size of clips.

So they have to shout louder than everyone else.

Given the purpose of the 2nd amendment why do you feel law abiding citizens should be punished for this maniacs acts? If the AW ban had still been in place and he had just reloaded are you seriously telling me you wouldn't have been calling for more gun control in the light of this tragedy?

The 2nd amendment was written when a militia actually could fight an army.

That's not possible anymore. Your militia would be utterly useless against a modern military. So claiming the 2nd amendment still serves a purpose against tyranny is laughable.

Second, there's a speed limit on the roads you drive on. Why are you being punished for the poor driving of others? Because a lot less people die with them in place.

I'm sorry there's crazy people in the world. But people should not die for your convenience at the gun range.

First, military history proves you wrong (even modern military history). Second, the speed limits are set for a variety of reasons not just driver's safety. Remember why they lowered them in the 70s? Your third point is simply emotional, I agree we should do what we can to avoid tragedies like a huge revamp of the mental health system, but these events will still happen from time to time. As for your last point, convenience. Supposedly he had in AR-15, so you're talking 3-4 seconds reload time for every 30 rounds. He choose a 100 round drum because it was the most convenient. Simple as that.

First, you're incorrect. Everything comes down to force. Second, it's not hyper-literalism it's fact and we already do make compromises on the 2nd Amendment. Third, I already covered the shooting. Your last point goes back to my point about the 2nd amendment's purpose in another thread. Why should we punish the majority for the acts of a mad man? Would you apply that same standard to every amendment?

Interesting.

Don'tcha know that we're the most evil people on earth because we choose to (gasp) exercise a right? Get with the program man!!!


BTW, welcome to DU, where fun was had by all.

for people who want to have a serious debate, not people like whose only solution is to vilify gun owners.

You have no argument, only ridicule in your attempt to drive off any actual debate.