Pennsylvania's Negro Caucus: We want gun control or we walk

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Lambo

    R.I.P.
    Dec 6, 2005
    4,523
    Bel Air, Maryland
    .......and they did, walked off the floor of the State Legislature demanding the passage of a trio of Gun Control Measures.
    The thing is, they didn't walk far enough! All the way to Philly I say, the Brothers there are the Root Problem. Who among this Tan Klan will come forward to admit it & do something about it? I wouldn't suggest holding your breath!
    ~Lambo

    ~Snip
    Posted on Thu, Dec. 6, 2007


    Black Caucus walks out over guns
    The Pa. legislators, mostly from this region, want House colleagues to reconsider a trio of firearms bills.
    By Angela Couloumbis and Mario F. Cattabiani

    Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

    HARRISBURG - At least a dozen members of the Legislative Black Caucus abruptly walked off the House floor yesterday, saying they were angered and frustrated over the lack of movement on any meaningful gun-control legislation.

    "This wasn't a walkout - this was a stand-up. It was a stand-up for a cause," said Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland (D., Delaware), chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus. ". . . What we did today was start a movement. What we did today was raise the bar and raised the issue about lives being lost in our various communities."

    The 12 members, almost all from Philadelphia and its suburbs, asked to be placed on leave just as debate had begun on a bill to make government records more accessible, one of the few major items left on the legislative agenda this year. Soon after, the House went into recess, and several hours later, broke for the day without explanation.

    While on the floor, caucus members did not explain in detail why they were requesting the leaves. But they made it clear soon after: They want to refocus attention on legislation they believe would help stem the relentless spate of violence in Philadelphia and other cities.

    Kirkland acknowledged that the caucus timed the event to coincide with the start of debate on widening the state's open-records law.

    "We got their attention," he said. "It was an opportunity, and when an opportunity arises you have to take that opportunity."

    It was unclear yesterday when the group planned to return from leave - although adding to the confusion and dissonance of the day, several caucus members were spotted milling around on the House floor in the late afternoon.

    It's not the first time the black caucus has employed such a tactic.

    In late June, the group warned it would withhold its votes and potentially thwart passage of the state budget until gun measures were considered. However, Kirkland lifted that threat days later after meeting with legislative leaders and NRA officials. He said at the time that he was satisfied with the progress being made on the issue.

    Right after yesterday's walkout, caucus members met privately with House leaders. Both sides emerged saying they had jump-started "a conversation" on guns.

    But what transpired during that meeting was a source of confusion.

    Rep. Tony Payton Jr. (D., Phila.) said the group wanted to revive a trio of bills, two of which were recently struck down in the House Judiciary Committee, and have them voted on by the House's full membership. One of the measures would limit Pennsylvania residents to one handgun purchase a month.

    After the meeting, though, Kirkland said a mere floor vote on those three bills was not enough. He said the caucus would not be satisfied unless those and other gun-control bills were passed and signed into law. He would not be more specific.

    Kirkland, as well as Rep. Jewell Williams (D., Phila.), said the caucus has often supported other lawmakers on bills important to their constituents.

    "What we are just saying is that we've been helping you . . . all we want is some help to resolve the crime and violence," Williams said.

    Kirkland said the caucus supported open-records legislation, but cast yesterday's walkout as a matter of priority.

    "When we have to walk by an open casket, day in and day out, our priority is to make sure that guns are taken off the street," he said.

    Just last month, the House Judiciary Committee voted down bills that would would have limited handgun purchases to one a month, as well as allow municipalities to enact their own gun legislation. The committee tabled a measure that would require owners to report lost or stolen guns immediately to police.

    The committee's action came despite an appeal by Gov. Rendell, who, in a rare move, requested to testify on the gun-control measures. Several polls show a majority of Pennsylvanians support laws limiting gun purchases to one a month.

    On Monday, Rendell, Mayor Street, Mayor-elect Michael Nutter, and a number of other mayors from across the state are scheduled to appear at a news conference in the Capitol, organized by CeasefirePA, to revive discussion on gun-control measures.

    "The simple fact is, we're not going away," said Phil Goldsmith, president of CeasefirePA. "This issue is not going away."

    Besides Kirkland, Payton and Williams, those who walked out were Reps. John Myers (D., Phila.); Angel Cruz (D., Phila.), Rosita Youngblood (D., Phila.); Curtis Thomas (D., Phila.); Thomas W. Blackwell (D., Phila.); James Roebuck (D., Phila.); Jake Wheatley (D., Allegheny); Cherelle Parker (D. Phila.); and Harold James (D., Phila.)


    Contact staff writer Angela Couloumbis at 717-787-5934 or acouloumbis@phillynews.com.
    ~Snip
    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20071206_Black_Caucus_walks_out_over_guns.html

    Link to Pennsylvania's 2007 proposed Gun Laws,
    http://www.acslpa.org/
     

    Bigdtc

    Ultimate Member
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 6, 2007
    6,673
    South Carolina
    Maybe the Negro caucus wants to ban guns in Pa. so thier brothers dont get shot trying to rob,rape, murder,etc. us?...Also, I wonder how the people who bought THEM here way back would feel about them now? How about Lincoln, Union soldiers,etc?
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    What do you do when a democratic reversal of the founding principals of the country don't work. walk out and pout?, maybe that isn't enough, I say if the good people of PA continue to refuse to enact "modern and sensible" Jim Crow laws, the black caucus members should resign, that oughta do it.;)
     

    RobMoore

    The Mad Scientist
    Feb 10, 2007
    4,765
    QA
    I believe this is a shining example for democrats everywhere. Whenever you don't get your way, go home and stay there.
     

    Half-cocked

    Senior Meatbag
    Mar 14, 2006
    23,937
    The truely pathetic thing is, if you suggested a law banning gun sales to blacks only, that group would probably buy into it!
     

    jpk1md

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 13, 2007
    11,313
    This conversation is reminding me of a hearing in Annapolis this past year where a certain black delegate suggested "Chipping" CCW holders so that the police could monitor them....I wonder how he would feel if someone were to suggest chipping all african americans because the Uniform Crime Report shows that they are much more likely to be the aggressor in a Violent Crime....so that the Police could proactively track them.....I'm not advocating this in any way shape or form only illustrating the absurd notions that an alarming number of elected officials subscribe to that are 100% contrary to the principles laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
     

    Jim Sr

    R.I.P.
    Jun 18, 2005
    6,898
    Annapolis MD
    This conversation is reminding me of a hearing in Annapolis this past year where a certain black delegate suggested "Chipping" CCW holders so that the police could monitor them....I wonder how he would feel if someone were to suggest chipping all african americans because the Uniform Crime Report shows that they are much more likely to be the aggressor in a Violent Crime....so that the Police could proactively track them.....I'm not advocating this in any way shape or form only illustrating the absurd notions that an alarming number of elected officials subscribe to that are 100% contrary to the principles laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    :shocked2:
     

    coinboy

    Yeah, Sweet Lemonade.
    Oct 22, 2007
    4,480
    Howard County
    What exactly does a one gun a month rule acomplish anyway?

    It's obvious that this guy want all guns banned and this is his start of it.
     

    3rdRcn

    RIP
    Industry Partner
    Sep 9, 2007
    8,961
    Harford County
    What would be great is if they "chipped" all felons convicted of violent crimes, rape, burglary etc. and recorded their movements, if a crime happened in a area they could see if we had a repeat offender.
     

    jpk1md

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 13, 2007
    11,313
    What would be great is if they "chipped" all felons convicted of violent crimes, rape, burglary etc. and recorded their movements, if a crime happened in a area they could see if we had a repeat offender.

    At first blush that sounds great but its a very dangerous proposition in reality.

    Either a person is trusted to reclaim their role in society and behave after doing time or they should not be released at all.

    Its a one or a zero in my opinion......either you are deemed to be safe/trusted or you remain in jail.......

    PART of the problem these days is that convicts are released after serving some pre-ordained period of time as punishment with little or no consideration whether or not they are FIT to be released at the end of served time......I would advocate that we need to implement some sort of "Fitness Test" in order to determine whether someone can be released or not.......

    And then once released you get ALL of your rights back.....not like today where folks are semi-citizens.
     

    Simon Yu

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 12, 2007
    1,357
    Rockville
    At first blush that sounds great but its a very dangerous proposition in reality.

    To say nothing of the cost involved. Tracking technology isn't free, nor are the related things like hiring people to monitor the things or set up the towers/satellites that get used.
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    What exactly does a one gun a month rule acomplish anyway?
    question

    It's obvious that this guy want all guns banned and this is his start of it.
    answer



    as far as chipping criminals, we kinda already do. Home detention bracelets monitor thousands, and have proven fairly succesful for people convicted of "modest" crimes.
    While many repeat felonious crimes, those under house arrest seem less likely to do so than people subject to traditional incarceration. It keeps criminals out of "advanced felony training" AKA prison, it reduces our burdon to fund their sentence, but the lower repeat rate may also be due to the fact many of the crimes resulting in home detension are less serious than the rape/robbery/murder that is all but guaranteed to put someone in prison upon conviction.

    I agree with JPK1MD that a criminal shouldn't be released untill they are no longer a danger to society, and when no longer a threat, their rights should be restored. The problem is that with the flow of POWs from "the war on drugs" prisons get overcrowded, so either more tax money is used to expand the prison system, or prisoners are released early while still a threat. They also spend their time in prison surrounded by some of the most violent and malicious people in the world, make new contacts, join new gangs, work out and learn tricks of the trade from others. The original idea of prisons was as "rehabilitation" not separatism, problem is, they are being rehabilitated by other prisoners, and then released to prey on people, and largely in the case of places like MD, there are plenty of criminals on the street to work and associate with, and plenty of disarmed sheep to prey on. Basically the liberal solution, like that posed by the black caucus in PA is to disarm honest folk, shift accountability from the offender to "society" of "culture", catch and release, and remove the capital puishment deterrent.

    Honest people simply don't break most laws, especially the ones inended to punish "real" crime, and this includes gun laws, criminals on the other hand, by definition break laws, and the most violent and dangerous of them break the most serious of laws. The complex, but logical answer to gun crime is one of family values, or lack thereof, a legal system instead of a justice system, the catch-harden-release nature of our punishment system, and a large segment of the population that has little to no honor, or respect for human life. The easy, but irrational answer that seems to keep these idiots employed is of social modeling and socialist programs, increased funding to defunct programs and a higher tax burdon on the majority of people who are not the problem to begin with, gun control has little to do with crime control, and they know it, it is to keep honest folk from having a means to prevent tyranny, and to ensure fear of crime. Fear of crime, a need forgovernment to provide an illusion of safety, and irratinal legislation to place blame on innanimate objects for human behavior are what keeps sheep and thugs alike voting them into office. Kinda funny that the sheep and wolves tend to vote the same, and as a result lambchops are always for dinner. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pretrial.htm
     

    coinboy

    Yeah, Sweet Lemonade.
    Oct 22, 2007
    4,480
    Howard County
    question


    answer



    as far as chipping criminals, we kinda already do. Home detention bracelets monitor thousands, and have proven fairly succesful for people convicted of "modest" crimes.
    While many repeat felonious crimes, those under house arrest seem less likely to do so than people subject to traditional incarceration. It keeps criminals out of "advanced felony training" AKA prison, it reduces our burdon to fund their sentence, but the lower repeat rate may also be due to the fact many of the crimes resulting in home detension are less serious than the rape/robbery/murder that is all but guaranteed to put someone in prison upon conviction.

    I agree with JPK1MD that a criminal shouldn't be released untill they are no longer a danger to society, and when no longer a threat, their rights should be restored. The problem is that with the flow of POWs from "the war on drugs" prisons get overcrowded, so either more tax money is used to expand the prison system, or prisoners are released early while still a threat. They also spend their time in prison surrounded by some of the most violent and malicious people in the world, make new contacts, join new gangs, work out and learn tricks of the trade from others. The original idea of prisons was as "rehabilitation" not separatism, problem is, they are being rehabilitated by other prisoners, and then released to prey on people, and largely in the case of places like MD, there are plenty of criminals on the street to work and associate with, and plenty of disarmed sheep to prey on. Basically the liberal solution, like that posed by the black caucus in PA is to disarm honest folk, shift accountability from the offender to "society" of "culture", catch and release, and remove the capital puishment deterrent.

    Honest people simply don't break most laws, especially the ones inended to punish "real" crime, and this includes gun laws, criminals on the other hand, by definition break laws, and the most violent and dangerous of them break the most serious of laws. The complex, but logical answer to gun crime is one of family values, or lack thereof, a legal system instead of a justice system, the catch-harden-release nature of our punishment system, and a large segment of the population that has little to no honor, or respect for human life. The easy, but irrational answer that seems to keep these idiots employed is of social modeling and socialist programs, increased funding to defunct programs and a higher tax burdon on the majority of people who are not the problem to begin with, gun control has little to do with crime control, and they know it, it is to keep honest folk from having a means to prevent tyranny, and to ensure fear of crime. Fear of crime, a need forgovernment to provide an illusion of safety, and irratinal legislation to place blame on innanimate objects for human behavior are what keeps sheep and thugs alike voting them into office. Kinda funny that the sheep and wolves tend to vote the same, and as a result lambchops are always for dinner. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pretrial.htm

    Can't argue with that. Well spoken! I stiil don't understand why the Liberals feel that taking my guns away and lessening crime penalities at the same time is a good thing? For instance, look at MD. Our death penality is pretty well shot now thanks to the O'Mouthy administration. We all know the story on guns in this state. MD's laws stink.
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    Can't argue with that. Well spoken! I stiil don't understand why the Liberals feel that taking my guns away and lessening crime penalities at the same time is a good thing?

    it isn't, and they know it, as soon as people feel empowered with their own safety, and are not terrified of crime, only able to yell "someone needs to do something" the jig is up. Most of the apeal that the left has is based on reaping the fruits of someone else's labor, basically bribing us with our own money, people attack and rob us, and instead of fighting back, people turn to uncle O'Mouthy for help, and gladly fork over their money to ensure additional police to investigate crimes, and catch criminals (after the fact of course). They might as well run for office on a platform of "elect me and I will give you someone else's money", but like getting an antique fruitcake from your office's "secret santa", this has some inherent problems, those who contribute the most, tend to get the least benefits from this plan.

    Most importantly, Gun control, overboard political correctness, and isolating people wise to the ways of the system keeps the population subservient, makes widely unpopular liberal social experiments easier to enact and enforce (taxhike and amnesty being recent examples), and broadens the powers of elected officials. After all, what other job does someone raise and spend millions to get a job making a couple hundred thousand, so it can't be for the money, it is for the POWER.

    Quite simply firearms are a powerful tool, they give millions of people a year the power to halt crimes in progress, they gave a relatively small band of free-thinking patriots the power to declare independence and found our own country, and they give us power to resist the re-establishment of tyranny on large or small scales. So more guns in private hands shifts the power to the people, where our constitution intended it to be, but being that power and influence is inherently a finite quality, many politicians would like to redistribute or reduce the money and guns in politically unfrinedly, private and independent hands, keep their money and guns, along with money and guns that they control, and stay in office long enough to make a "difference". So most people are scared of crime, spend such a small portion of their time understanding history and politics (outside of what they are fed by "the media"), and do not understand what the battle is over.

    The beauty is that politicians do not have to "solve" the crime problem to get elected by these people, you only have to "do something" about it, weither it works or not, and just about universally for the worse, gun control is in fact sold as "doing something" about crime. However, if crime goes noticeably away, so do those misinformed and frightened votes, in this way, gun control is actually the PERFECT target, it accomplishes both goals (doing something, without actually doing something), and helps with the goals outside of public view, both the accrual of power, and to prevent actual effective resistance to future social experimentation.

    This is why folks like myself, others on this forum and others like it do all that we can to shout the truth from the rooftops, all in hopes people will wake up and see what is happening right in front of their eyes, and understand why it has happened countless times worldwide, throughout recorded history.
     

    deerslayer79

    Active Member
    Jan 27, 2007
    215
    Delmar Md
    Maybe the Negro caucus wants to ban guns in Pa. so thier brothers dont get shot trying to rob,rape, murder,etc. us?...

    Does it matter. if you were if you shot,beat them down,or maced them in self-defence,or protecting you and you family,YOU ARE RACIST,because a Brother did it,and you aren't a brother.Let them walk,and take the NAACP and Jesse Jackson with them,just don't stop until your out of the country.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,227
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom