One of the best gun control ads you’ll ever see

These are the kind of ads that liberals need to run more often. If Cong. John Barrow (D-GA-12) wants to be an NRA puppet in Congress, and accept tens of thousands of dollars in NRA blood money, then he can face the consequences.

Barrow is one of those gun nuts, like the NRA, that wants to arm our schools. And of course, he hates what the President is proposing post- Sandy Hook, even though he probably doesn’t even know what it is. If the NRA says it’s bad, that’s good enough for John Barrow.

”I strongly disagree with proposals that would deny law abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights, and I’m disappointed he did not propose increased security measures for our schools.”

Liberals have woken up. Democrats have woken up. And Americans have woken up. The age of the gun nuts is over.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

14 Responses to “One of the best gun control ads you’ll ever see”

  1. lbmiel says:

    Hi BPI that’s a great question, you caught me off guard. Pure luck I found this site so quickly. This is to answer the military chaplain question.

    The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and its globally affiliated organizations are committed to ensuring the ongoing viability of freedom and liberty in the United States and around the world.

    By focusing on U.S. constitutional law, European Union law and human
    rights law, the ACLJ and its affiliated organizations are dedicated to
    the concept that freedom and liberty are universal, God-given and
    inalienable rights that must be protected.

    The ACLJ and its worldwide affiliates engage in litigation, provide
    legal services, render advice to individuals and governmental agencies,
    as well as counsel clients on global freedom and liberty issues. They
    also support training law students from around the world in order to
    protect religious liberty and safeguard human rights and dignity.

    We live in a very litigious society, where almost
    anyone can sue another for virtually any offense, real or imagined.
    Department of Defense (DOD) policy makers are not immune from such
    litigation. In fact, there are growing numbers of persons and advocacy
    groups in the United States actively seeking to remove from public
    life—including in the armed services—virtually all symbols and
    expression of religion and America’s religious heritage by advocating a
    strict “separation of church and state” that is counter-constitutional.
    Many of these groups are already actively engaged in filing lawsuits
    against the DOD and its leaders over various concerns about religious
    expression in the armed services. Still others have threatened lawsuits.
    Persons and groups have every right to hold and zealously advocate such
    views, but many of their views on church-state separation go well
    beyond what the Constitution and US law require. In fact, they endanger
    the very freedoms the First Amendment was intended to protect. The ACLJ
    is dedicated to preserving and protecting the rights of the men and women in the armed forces to continue to exercise themselves the freedoms they fight to protect for us.

    The Establishment Clause Does not Prohibit Religious Speech by Military Chaplains, or the Accommodation of Religious Beliefs.

    The Establishment Clause was not intended to forbid paid, legislative chaplains and their daily, public prayers. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 787-88 (1983). The Marsh Court concluded that chaplain-led prayer opening each day’s session in both houses of Congress “is not . . . an ‘establishment’ of religion,” but rather “a
    tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this
    country.” Id. at 792. Additionally, the First Congress—the same
    Congress that drafted the First Amendment—established the tradition of
    clergy-led prayer at presidential inaugurations (which, in truth,
    constitute military change-of-command ceremonies, where the nation’s new
    commander in chief assumes office from his predecessor). See Newdow v. Bush, 355 F. Supp. 2d 265, 270 n.5, 286–87 (D.D.C. 2005).

    The Establishment Clause does not prohibit government accommodation of religious beliefs. Within the sphere of military society, the Department of Defense has chosen to strongly support free exercise of religion by the men and women in uniform. In
    DOD Instruction 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices within the Military Services, DOD lays out its policy on free exercise: The U.S. Constitution proscribes Congress from enacting any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions. It is DoD policy that requests for accommodation of religious practices should be approved by commanders when accommodation will not have an adverse impact on mission
    accomplishment, military readiness, unit cohesion, standards, or discipline

    DOD Instruction 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services, 2009, para. 4. It is clear from the Constitution and from the precedent
    of the Supreme Court that such a policy is not prohibited by the Establishment clause; it is, in fact, preferred by the Establishment Clause.

    In the area of religious expression, the Supreme Court has held that “private religious expression receives preferential treatment under the Free Exercise Clause” (emphasis in original). Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 767 (1995). In fact, “discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995). Of special note, the Supreme Court has “not
    excluded from free-speech protections religious proselytizing . . . or
    even acts of worship . . . .&rdquo Capitol Square, 515 U.S. at 760.
    Further, “the [government’s] power to restrict speech . . . is not
    without limits. The restriction must not discriminate against speech on
    the basis of viewpoint . . . and the restriction must be ‘reasonable in
    light of the purpose served by the forum.’” Good News Club v. Milford Central School,
    533 U.S. 98, 106–07 (2001) (internal citations omitted). These views
    are fully in line with the well-established principle that “there is a
    crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which
    the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion,
    which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.” Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990). The Mergens Court aptly noted that it is not a difficult concept to understand that the government “does not endorse or support . . . speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis.” Id.

    There’s more pertaining to individuals and chaplains’ expressions and prayer. If you want to see that.

    This confirmed what I thought, the military didn’t establish a religion, force anyone to attend, or prevent soldiers from practicing their religion. The chaplain nor the soldiers impose their beliefs on others or disparage different faiths.

  2. BPI Squirrel says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    And yet: Congress established military chaplains and Christmas a federal holiday, your free exercise of religion can’t include human sacrifice, your free speech can’t incite riots, your free press can’t publish child pornography, your peaceable assembly probably requires a parade permit, and your petition can’t be just walking into the White House, the Capitol, or a federal court to announce your grievances.

    Should the First Amendment be as absolute as you argue for the Second: allowing religions that practice human sacrifice, publication of child porn, and abandoning rules of procedure in our courts? If not, why not … and why should the Second be more absolute than the First?

  3. lbmiel says:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Actually, the 2nd does give blanket rights to own firearms. You say it ensures members of a regulated (trained, in good working order) militia the right to keep and bear arms. Arms are not defined, why wouldn’t the ff be specific on what ‘arms’ meant? They purposely used ‘arms’ because they didn’t want to limit what ‘arms’ the people could own. Now, to address to whom militia refers. All you have to do is search for ff quotes and you will find many references to what ‘militia’ meant then. The people are the militia, all men (women are included now) between the ages of 16 and 60. So militia and people mean the same thing – the militia is all people and all people are the militia. Power belongs to the individual first, the states next, and lastly the federal government. The federal government only has the power to govern us because we allow them to. The Constitution limits what the government can do, it does not limit the people. Since the people are NOT limited in what ‘arms’ we can own, all gun restrictions are infringements. SHALL NOT be
    infringed. The government has no power to impose ANY restrictions on
    owning ‘arms.’

    Definition of INFRINGEMENT
    1: the act of infringing : violation
    2: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

    Examples of INFRINGEMENT

    I hope this helps you understand a little better.

  4. Marc says:

    I guess the part about that smith and wesson being used to stop a lynching was inconvenient to the narrative?

  5. cole3244 says:

    another d in name only, wolf in sheeps clothing is more accurate, i like wolves but i don’t like the john barrows of the world.

  6. Tatts says:

    That’s not the point. I don’t care about the distinction. My gripe is with the callous use of those kids’ images and names.

    If the NRA made an ad supporting their idea to put armed guards in all schools, and in that ad they used the very same images, Americablog readers would be screaming bloody murder. Yet somehow, everyone here thinks it’s okay to take advantage of these little dead kids to make our point.

    But it’s not. It’s a horrible, slimy, appalling thing to do. And we should be screaming bloody murder at the producers of this ad, but all I hear is crickets chirping in the silence. This blows.

  7. I must admit that while George W Bush was president I was asleep while he trampled on the Constitution and wreaked havoc on the world. But I am awake now I am very much awake

  8. Badgerite says:

    Mr. Barrows was not dressed in kevlar or holding a Bushmaster Assault Weapon. The kind of weaponry ‘that his daddy had’ are not the kind that would be banned under the President’s proposals. I can’t help but wonder what the rest of the world sees when it looks at America these days. Not so much ‘a shining city on a hill’ as the Hatfields and the McCoys.( the NRA’s idea of freedom).

  9. perljammer says:

    “Assault rifle” is not an indistinct category. It is a selective fire (either fully automatic and/or burst, and semi-automatic as well) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies.

    The indistinct category you’re thinking of is “assault weapon”. This term is generally applied to any semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to military firearms, such as a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding stock, a flash suppressor or a bayonet lug. Proposed legislation formerly under consideration attempted to define
    the term even more broadly to mean any semi-automatic firearm, any
    firearm with a detachable magazine, or handguns holding more than 10
    rounds; this includes the majority of all firearms.

    For more information, consult the Wikipedia entries for “assault rifle” and “assault weapon.”

  10. Tatts says:

    This is wrong. We can’t complain about the NRA using Obama’s kids in their ads and then turn around and use photos, names, and ages of real little dead kids in ads like this. This is indecent. I hope no family member of those kids is ever exposed to this ad. This is as shameful as the NRA ad everybody is complaining about.

    I fully support making it as difficult as possible to buy guns and I support the banning of large clips and “assault rifles” (an indistinct category). We’d be better off if there were no guns. But this ad crossed a line that should not have been crossed. Shame.

  11. S1AMER says:

    “Blood money.” That’s what NRA contributions to politicians should always be called. “Blood money” it most certainly is.

  12. Carl Gorney says:

    Christian Bale says “Oh, good for you! How was it?”

  13. Straightnotnarrow says:

    ”I strongly disagree with proposals that would deny law abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights, and I’m disappointed he did not propose increased security measures for our schools.”

    Really!? The president did call for increased security measures in our schools. These people need a giant pin to pop the bubble they are living in. Furthermore, the second amendment does not give blanket ‘rights’ to own firearms. It ensures members of a regulated militia the right to keep and bear arms. Where are the constitutional ‘purists’ now?

  14. guest1 says:

    Long before I was born my grandfather used this little smith and wesson here to help stop a lynching.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS