That's actually a flattering picture. Here is another one, which obviously reflects the real Rebecca.
Posted on 04/30/2006 10:06:16 AM PDT by neverdem
After Port Arthur, Australia set off a universal gun-control revolution
TODAY we remember the Port Arthur murder victims in church services and vigils, prayers and concerts, books and documentaries. The cross listing their names overlooks the memorial garden, a quiet place for contemplation and tears in honour of those so brutally slain on April 28, 1996.
Another memorial to those killed and wounded on that awful day is less visible or tangible but powerful nonetheless: Australia's nationally uniform gun laws. Out of horror and insanity, something positive and rational was forged.
Ten years later it is hard to believe the indifference to public safety embodied in the old gun laws. In those days civilians could buy military weapons and there was no limit on the number of guns an individual could stockpile. NSW, Queensland and Tasmania had no registration for rifles and shotguns, so it was impossible for the police to know if someone had a gun (or 10).
A judge in a domestic violence case might order that firearms be seized, but in the absence of registration the perpetrator could claim not to have any guns and the matter would end there. In other states and territories the laws were stricter, but could be evaded simply by travelling to one of the three permissive states to shop for weapons.
Throwing out this rickety framework was a pioneering step for Australia alongside Canada, which was also overhauling its law in the wake of a massacre by an alienated and angry young man with easy access to military assault rifles. Both countries have experienced a drop in gun violence as a result.
In Australia and Canada, policy-makers involved in the reforms said they were reading "the mood of the nation". During the past decade this same mood has spread throughout the international community, with significant gun law reforms passed or proposed in dozens of parliaments.
Gun law reform now is similar to domestic violence reform in the 1980s, when country after country realised their policies were antiquated and indefensible. South Africa, Britain, Nicaragua, Montenegro, Germany, Cambodia, Mauritius and Brazil have recently toughened their gun laws. In Belgium, Paraguay, Liberia, Guatemala, Burundi, Portugal, Senegal, Macedonia and Argentina (among others) the reforms are under way.
Particularly striking is the case of Brazil, which has one of the highest rates of gun violence, with nearly 40,000 gun deaths in 2003. That year the gun law was tightened, with spectacular results. Gun deaths dropped for the first time after 13 years of rising continuously; by the end of 2004 the rate had fallen by 8per cent, which translated into more than 3200 lives saved.
The gun control revolution has also reached the UN, where a process to reduce the proliferation and misuse of small arms kicked off in 2001. The UN process is developing global norms to regulate the world's estimated 650 million guns and has produced an international agreement on the marking and tracing of weapons. We expect further progress from the five-year review conference to be held this June in New York.
These UN conferences are attended by government officials, non-governmental organisations supporting tougher firearm regulation and the National Rifle Association of America.
One of the most powerful lobby groups on Capitol Hill in Washington, the NRA appears to be no less influential on the US delegation at the UN. Even very modest declarations on small arms are opposed by the US. For example, a resolution expressing concern about the effect of weapons proliferation on humanitarian activities and development was passed with 177 votes in favour and one (the US) against.
The NRA has characterised this small arms process as a mission "to confiscate civilian firearms worldwide and impose on Americans the lesser, inferior, global standard of freedom". The UN and my own organisation, the International Action Network on Small Arms, are known as "the enemies of freedom".
According to NRA board member (and former congressman) Bob Barr: "That's really their ultimate agenda: to bring the United States down from the pinnacle of freedom to simply being another one of these socialist states." This last is a reference to Britain, Australia and Canada, countries dubbed by the NRA as "formerly free nations".
Such ranting by American gun loons may seem to be a long way removed from Australia, unless you remember our own Gympie-based version screaming on television in May 1996: "The only currency that you can purchase freedom back with is blood!"
Then and now, whether in Queensland, Tasmania, Texas or elsewhere, we have paranoid, hate-filled people living in our societies. All the more reason to have strong controls on guns.
Rebecca Peters is the director of the International Action Network on Small Arms. She led Australia's National Coalition for Gun Control from 1992 to 1997.
That's actually a flattering picture. Here is another one, which obviously reflects the real Rebecca.
You don't have to be registered as a lobbying group to testify before Congress. Congress determines who testifies before them. Having to register to "lobby" is just a precursor to abominations like the Campaign Finance Reform (aka "Incumbent Protection Act"), a clear violation of at least two provisions of the First Amendendment, freedom of speech and right to petition the government.
In part because that's how the law was challenged by that NRA funded appeal. It was not challenged as the infringement on the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment that it is.
Probably the best that could be done at the time, but the NRA did seem to back away from direct Second Amendment challenges, at least until not too long before the Emerson case.
It only goes to 2005.
The question that I tend to ask myself when presented such a statement is..."How many times in that 24 year period has he voted to deny our freedom?"
According to my (I'm a member) gun rights group, Specter has voted with us 55% of the time. Many of those votes are 'safe' votes, meaning that his vote 'with us' didn't effect the final outcome because it would have passed without his vote.
Thanks for the link. I gave up after ten minutes of looking.
and... 
Today's Email:
Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. Arlen Specter was rated an "A" in 2004
I'll bet he's still better than the rat who opposed him. It was also a possible handout for his vote against the
AWB and the gunshow "Loophole".
He's actually a very accomplished vote counter. He (from what I'm told) doesn't vote until he knows how the vote is going to go. He sounds like he's A] waffling or B] being open to all views before he makes a decision, but he is really just providing cover for however he ends up voting.
One of the local talk show hosts spoke of Specter getting snookered by Chucky Schumer. As much as I despise Specter, I realize that he isn't stupid. He is clever enough to make it look that way, but the 2nd hearing on this nominee is exactly what Specter wanted and he made it look like Chucky outsmarted him. He comes away clean even though he stabbed this guy -- and the GOP -- in the back again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.