In the wake of Friday’s horrific killings in Newtown, CT, Texas Democrat John Cobarruvias tweeted the following, according to Eric Dondero.
Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?
He has since removed the tweet and apologized, but the apology may not be heartfelt. Later on December 14, he tweeted that the NRA is to blame.
Let’s face it. The #NRA is nothing but a domestic terrorist organization. They have done NOTHING to stop this violence except make excuses.
— John Cobarruvias (@BayAreaHouston) December 14, 2012
Describing the NRA as a “domestic terrorist organization” equates them with the likes of the KKK, which was once the most effective Democratic Party domestic terrorist organization in existence.
He also tweeted:
We are a nation of cowards afraid of upsetting the #NRA and those who defend them.
— John Cobarruvias (@BayAreaHouston) December 14, 2012
It may be news to Mr. Cobarruvias that Americans don’t support the Second Amendment because the NRA supports it. They support the NRA because the NRA supports the Second Amendment.
Now, you may be asking yourself who John Cobarravius even is. He runs a Houston-area left wing blog, Bay Area Houston. He is a Harris County Democratic Party Precinct Chairman, which is an elected position. He is also a member of the Texas Democratic Party’s Executive Committee, elected to that position from District 11. As a member of the Texas State Democratic Executive Committee, he is in a position to influence his party’s strategies, finances and legislative agenda.
His call for the shooting of anyone who supports the NRA includes Texas’ governor, both of its senators, all of its other statewide officials and most elected members of the state’s legislature. His public threat against so many elected officials could constitute a terroristic threat.
I didn’t think they owned those evil machines? How do these statements work? I’m anti-gun but I’m calling for someone to be shot? I’m anti-violence, but calling for a mass murder? How can this guy decide to anything in his day that is logical? I just can’t wrap my around anyone like this rising above manual labor. Just plain dumbfounded.
It’s the Progressive Left’s own version of Taqiyya and Jihad.
Rules for Thee But Not for Me.
There are only two classes in America — the productive class, which creates wealth, and the political or parasite class, which lives off what wealth it can siphon/redistribute from others. Manual laborers are in the first class, which as far as I am concerned, makes them completely respectable. So a member of the political class made this statement? Yeah, I guess I don’t have any problem understanding that.
The Democrat Party murdered thousands of people in terror attacks in it’s heyday.
The NRA, OTOH, has nothing to do with terrorism, and never has…which is more than you can say for the Democrats and their political organization.
The most you can say for the Dem is that they don’t appear to be employing terror tactic TODAY.
Some of them might be threatening to shoot people, but they’re not actually doing it (at least not systematically).
They’re OK disarming the law-abiding, because they know their thugs will ignore the law.
Remember, the calls to violence and hate only come from the Right.
What was his take on all the kids murdered at Waco twenty years ago? Bet the psychotic, statist thug had loads of excuses ready.
Just a thought – The media narrative is that law enforcement should pursue those who make or pose a credible threat to others. It seems that we should forward a copy of these threats to Texas AG Greg Abbott and request that John Cobarruvias be held accountable for making threats against identifiable individuals. Likewise – every public person who makes a rhetorical threat should have their words forward to the AG’s office of their respective states.
“Life is hard; its harder when you’re stupid.” – John Wayne
Just in case you want to jump on the band wagon.
greg.abbott@texasattorneygeneral.gov
He also issued his call on his Facebook page…
http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-democratic-party-leader-blogger-calls-for-shooting-nra-members
He works at NASA?
Can we get his supervisor’s name?
Yep — he is quite a piece of work, as those of us who have had to deal with him down in Houston know. This isn’t his first brush with threatened violence — or with violating federal law. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/335732.php
“If it may please the court:”–A Thought Experiment.
It is said that the Second Amendment applies only to well-regulated militias; that the militia as was no longer exists and the National Guard has subsumed its place, and that therefore the people not in the National Guard cannot possess weapons. But the Second Amendment does not say the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, nor of the active duty state armed forces–which did exist, to various extent, at the time of the Founding generation. No, it says the people–not a subset of the people, not a select group of the people, but THE PEOPLE as a whole shall have a right to keep and bear arms. Which thus implies at an individual level.
Therefore, it is submitted without proof, that one cannot deny the people said right to arms solely by denying them the opportunity to do so by making membership in the militia either too restrictive, too onerous, or too incompatible with civilian life (i.e., frequent Guard call-ups for Federal service). If one wishes to hang one’s hat on the “well-regulated militia” clause, then one must provide for a well-regulated militia that allows the average man to keep and bear arms. Else one has made a nullity of a Constituional clause, which no body is empowered to do. The court has ruled time and time again that governmental bodies cannot make restrictions on rights so onerous so as to make them impossible to exercise, therefore, there simply is no logical way to keep the people, in their individual localities, from keeping and bearing arms. Government must simply either allow for individual unrestricted ownership, or it must provide for it via a *real* well-regulated militia, not fig-leaf ones, that give the right to keep and bear arms to THE PEOPLE, not a select few, and which level of government being, via the way the Ninth and Tenth Amendments should be read, should properly be seen as being the states, who as a matter of wisdom should leave it to more local levels for execution of basic policy, bur we argue not that here.
Thus we state as a general principle that you cannot deny the people, in general, arms by denying them a well-regulated militia at the local level, and then saying the Second Amendment applies only to a well-regulated militia, and there isn’t one, so the people can’t bear arms. Catch-22. Sorry, no. The Second Amendment must be honored, and it’s meaning should be clear. You cannot keep military-grade arms out of the hands of the people; the best you can do is impose some regulatory framework upon a universal suffrage right. Therefore, there can be no wholesale assailt weapons ban.
Finally, I would note that if National Guard members cannot keep and bear arms absent being on duty, then the Second Amendment is made an effective nullity if one relies on the “well-regulated militia” clause in combination with “National Guard=only allowable militia”, for the “keep and bear” part would have been vitiated, which is not in the power of any state or Federal-level body go do, for changes to Constitutional Clauses can come only through the amendment process, and that process alone, and said process has not occurred, and thus even though the people, and not just National Guardsmen, have rights to keep and bear arms, at the present it is doubtful whether even National Guardsmen really have that right, and thus whether a Second Amendment reading relying on the “well-regulated militia” clause is really valid, in the sense of asking whether a right guaranteed by amendment is actually capable of being exercised, or is actually being exercised.
Or in shorter words, if the only people in America that will one day have weapons in their homes are cops, then the Courts will have essentially removed a Constitutional Amendment from existence, and this they cannot do, not having the charter for it.
I thank the court for its time.
tl;dr
It always makes my day when people who don’t allow guns in their houses threaten to shoot people who have a different gun for every day of the week. What can you POSSIBLY say to such a moron besides: BRING IT.
Gee if this outstanding democrat retracted what he said about killing the NRA members then he should take it of of his Facebook site as well or excuse me, since he is a demoncrat the rules don’t apply to him. He should be recalled or impeached and charged appropriately in accordance with the existing laws. I know if I said a threat like that they would be knocking on my door to ask questions.
Wake up sheeples.