Judging from the results of a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, a wide spectrum of Americans of both parties has reached consensus on the need for specific, common-sense actions to reduce the death toll taken by guns without intruding on Second Amendment rights granted under the Constitution.
The question is, how much power does an angry, paranoid and politically aggressive minority still wield over gun policy in this country? I suspect that we’re going to find that it’s an awful lot. The NRA’s grip on Washington is so strong that we can’t even get a director confirmed to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the agency tasked with enforcing federal gun laws. The ATF has gone leaderless since 2006, because under President Bush and now President Obama, Senate Republicans have refused to even allow a vote on the nomination.
You want another example? The ATF is forbidden by federal law to create a computer database allowing its agents to trace ownership of guns used in a crime. The search has to be done manually, in a time-eating process of phone call after phone call, and sifting through boxes of paper records. That’s because in its infinite paranoia, the NRA insists that a computerized system would violate the Second Amendment by making it easier for the government to go door to door, confiscating the 180 million weapons estimated to be in private hands.
Seriously, they think that’s going to happen.
According to the ABC/WaPo poll, most Americans don’t put much credence in that fantasy. It found that 71 percent of Americans support creation of a national gun database. That includes 61 percent of Republicans.
In addition, 65 percent of Americans — including 59 percent of Republicans — say they support a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Seventy-six percent would require a background check before a person is allowed to purchase ammunition, a figure that includes 69 percent of Republicans.
That strong bipartisan consensus breaks down only on the issue of a ban on assault weapons. Overall, 58 percent of Americans and 54 percent of independents would support such a ban, but only 45 percent of Republicans would do so.
But the most telling data in the poll involves the 44 percent of those surveyed who live in a home where guns are kept. Of that subset, 86 percent would support closing the “gun-show” loophole on background checks. Seventy-six percent of gun owners endorse a background check for ammo sales; 62 percent would back a national firearms database, and 55 percent support a ban on large-capacity magazines.
Such numbers confirm that gun owners, as a rule, are far more reasonable about common-sense approaches to gun safety than is the extremist organization that purports to represent their interests. But in the end, I’m not confident that will matter much.
– Jay Bookman
1,281 comments Add your comment
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 15th, 2013
11:17 am
Them dang squirrels run so fast I need an assault weapon to get dinner on the table!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
11:18 am
Wolverines! Thought I would get that out of the way for our Red Dawn “patriots” who repeatedly fail to answer the question of the right of the individual to determine “tyranny” and assert it as a defense.
larry
January 15th, 2013
11:20 am
You are right about the NRA being wacky. On the one month anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting, they introduce a video game for kids ages 4+.
As far as i am concerned, they lost credibility a long time ago.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
11:20 am
There’s only one way to break the stranglehold of the radicals in the NRA and that’s for reasonable members to leave in droves and cut the amount of money available to the radicals.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
11:21 am
Did anyone catch how the NRA made a video game app that features firing a gun? And for a fee you can “upgrade” to a better assault rifle.
Granny Godzilla
January 15th, 2013
11:23 am
” Most gun owners far more reasonable that the NRA”
Abso-freaking-lutely
However, the NRA don’t need no stinkin’ members as long as they have their stick fingers
in the pockets of the gun and ammo manufacturers.
We know what the NRA is….and we can pretty much see their price.
NRA and the fire arms industries…pimps and hoes
Fly-On-The-Wall
January 15th, 2013
11:24 am
Doggone – I agree or more of US join them and force them to change.
Granny Godzilla
January 15th, 2013
11:24 am
make that “sticky” fingers
Fly-On-The-Wall
January 15th, 2013
11:25 am
This really all about gun SALES and not gun rights. The NRA is just another business lobby group, they just have the ability to hid behind the 2nd amendment.
Moderate Line
January 15th, 2013
11:25 am
With most issues I believe the truth lies between the extremes. Switzerland, Finland and Sweden(nowhere approaching the US) for example have very high number of guns with a very low homicide rate. I have to ask what are they doing that we are not doing because simply making it harder to buy a gun is not going to eliminate the number of guns plus every time one of these tragedies hit gun sales go through the roof. I personally do not own any guns so gun control doesn’t bother me at all. However, any gun control measures implemented probably would not have any affect for several years do to the large amount of guns on the street today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
11:27 am
“Doggone – I agree or more of US join them and force them to change”
I think it’s too late for that. Given the numbers in the polls cited by Jay, there should already be enough push to change…but as long as they have the money, they won’t change. This is a case where “starve the beast” is going to be the only thing that works.
Jm
January 15th, 2013
11:27 am
Sadly, gun reform is unlikely in a sane an intelligent fashion.
Obama: I have binders full of old white men
Adam
January 15th, 2013
11:28 am
Moderate Line: I have to ask what are they doing that we are not doing because simply making it harder to buy a gun is not going to eliminate the number of guns plus every time one of these tragedies hit gun sales go through the roof.
Well, for one thing, their guns are strictly controlled and/or periodic training is required for ownership and use. Some even have implemented mental health checks as part of it.
What are they doing? They are treating guns differently than we do in our culture.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
11:29 am
Jm: Obama: I have binders full of old white men
And 8 out of 22 cabinet members as women.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
11:31 am
For those who do not know the difference between a .22 and a .223, here is a photo of a .223
http://front.moveon.org/one-photograph-two-bullets-and-26-reasons-we-need-to-take-action-for-newtown-connecticut
massachusetts refugee
January 15th, 2013
11:33 am
hey jay, is your editor on strike? that post formatting (and the headline) looks like something from my nephew’s high school…
Jm
January 15th, 2013
11:33 am
““The last time Congress approved an increase in the debt ceiling in August 2011, the federal government came perilously close to being in a situation where, in the words of the Treasury Secretary, it would be unable ‘to meet our commitments securely,’” Fitch said.
Even if the debt ceiling is raised, the agency warned it would “likely” downgrade U.S. credit unless lawmakers’ passed a “credible medium-term deficit reduction plan that would be consistent with sustaining the economic recovery.””
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/fitch-warns-on-us-rating-as-debt-ceiling-looms-86203.html#ixzz2I3wYoC78
Looks like the deficit is the problem, not so much the Republicans.
larry
January 15th, 2013
11:34 am
Switzerland, Finland and Sweden(nowhere approaching the US) for example have very high number of guns with a very low homicide rate
Dont each of those countries have a draft where young men, after their service, keep their assult rifle, but if they want to get rid of them, they only can sell to the government?
MANGLER
January 15th, 2013
11:35 am
You’re not allowed to have certain things. I don’t see too many people upset that they can’t go to Boeing and buy a loaded F15, even if they had the money. It’s a military grade weapon. So are AK’s. Yet try to say you shouldn’t have THAT in your house and people lose their minds. Wanting something because it’s cool in your mind to have does not make it OK to have.
You want hand guns for defense at home or hunting rifles to (you guessed it) hunt? Fine. You want something that fires hundreds of bullets at high speed before it needs to be reloaded? Not fine. I don’t care how much training you’ve had. If you are not actively deployed serving in the armed forces, then you don’t need weapons like that. The people that do have weapons like that are why the police force has to have weapons like that.
Jm
January 15th, 2013
11:35 am
Adam. Way to count people who are leaving.
Like Hillary and Hilda Solis.
Democrat math.
Eyeroll.
Georgia
January 15th, 2013
11:35 am
I joined the NRA when I was ten. I remember being on the firing range indoors with my sister next to me. We were in the sitting postion firing at a 50 foot target with .22 rifles with V sights. Suddenly my sister’s rifle jammed. and she began to try to unjam it. I remember seeing the barrel pointed at my head and the rifle went off. Missed me by a hair. I looked over at the instructor supervising and he had his back turned. He missed the whole thing. I learned. Oh did I learn…. about gun safety being an oxymoron, (a word I coined in 1962 but failed to copywrite). That hard won lesson has kept me and everyone around me safe for a half century of hunting. I watch people like a hawk out there when I’m hunting with them. Nobody gets away with nothing. (trademark, service mark, rabbits foot, cats paw, no vice versas etc infinity).
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
11:40 am
For those who do not know the difference between a .22 and a .223, here is a photo of a .223
That representation of a 223 beside a 22 rimfire cartridge is about the stupidest misrepresentation I have seen in a long time. Put my .300 Win Mag hunting cartridge beside that .223 and it will look like a pip squeek round. Why do the anti-gun folks have to resort to misrepresentations of this sort? I suppose that’s how poll numbers like the ones Jay cites get made. Ignorance.
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
11:40 am
“62 percent would back a national firearms database”
How would this work for guns currently in circulation? Some ATF swat team gonna search my home for guns? Or would I be asked to volunteer my inventory info?
Ringggggggg.
Hello?
ATF here. You got any guns?
Nope. But thanks for asking.
Bwaahahahahahahaha
Shar
January 15th, 2013
11:41 am
Guns should be treated like cars: each should be registered, licensed and insured to avoid uncompensated harm to other people.
Ammunition should be treated like OxyContin: its potential for lethal use means its distribution should be controlled.
The NRA should be treated as a trade organization for gun manufacturers.
Any legislators voting down reasonable gun controls should have their taxpayer-funded security cordon stripped. There is no reason that they should enjoy a free pass on the dangers they so recklessly expose the rest of us to. Let those NRA-whoring buffoons open up THEIR workplace to guns!
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
11:41 am
Republicans are just batting zero on every single issue of importance with the majority. Bummer, huh. Republicans are just out of touch with reality. Then again, that’s nothing new.
Anton Chigurh
January 15th, 2013
11:42 am
THAN in the headline, not that
GT
January 15th, 2013
11:42 am
No one is more about the show than these gun lovers. They probably spend more time modeling guns and military outfits in front of the mirror than commercials are run on television.
Now you mix that with the 21st century politician with the artificial bridge of teeth, dyed hair, Botox face, and gym rat body, which is prime time for a camera and you pretty much, got the same paranoid egotistical gun guy who needs a lot of physiological help.
Now mix that in with the new wave news guy who is Will Ferrell on steroids, just as egotistical and shallow as the flat lined brainwave of Rambo want to bes and you have the perfect recipe for the NRA.
the cat
January 15th, 2013
11:42 am
Georgia-that is a lovely story but not everyone will have had your experience and now practice gun safety.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
11:43 am
MANGLER — “You want hand guns for defense at home or hunting rifles to (you guessed it) hunt? Fine. You want something that fires hundreds of bullets at high speed before it needs to be reloaded? Not fine. I don’t care how much training you’ve had. If you are not actively deployed serving in the armed forces, then you don’t need weapons like that. The people that do have weapons like that are why the police force has to have weapons like that.”
Word.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
11:44 am
Jm: Way to count people who are leaving.
Like Hillary and Hilda Solis.
Democrat math.
Eyeroll.
Oh really? Did you count the current versus leaving members? Or are you just pretending that’s how I counted them?
the cat
January 15th, 2013
11:45 am
Shar-i like your solutions!
In order to get a pack of SUDAFED I had to offer my driver’s license and sign for it. Thanks to Timothy McVeigh. Did I complain? Of course not!
N-GA
January 15th, 2013
11:47 am
The majority no longer matters. It used to be “one citizen, one vote”. Now it is “one dollar, one vote”.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
11:47 am
Put my .300 Win Mag hunting cartridge beside that .223 and it will look like a pip squeek round.
While we’re all impressed by your mighty big, uh, cartridge, why do you think that picture is a misrepresentation? Like the less endowed men say “It’s not how big it is, it’s what it does when it hits ya, baby.”
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
11:47 am
What the heck does a .300 Winchester mag round have to do with a comparison between a .22 long and a .223. Nothing. Now if someone had claimed that the .223 was the same as a .300 then it might be something to get your panties in a wad over.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
11:47 am
Best long term gun solutions:
Licenses required at a federal level for ownership. License passage must include passing a psychological test (NOT filling out a questionnaire) and training required at least once a year.
Include gun safety courses and basic self defense training classes in public schooling, include the standard self defense things such as ingraining a sense of thinking before you act or react, as well as emphasizing this is for SELF DEFENSE ONLY, including when you use a gun. Include disarming people of their guns in the self defense courses. This can be a part of physical education.
Georgia
January 15th, 2013
11:48 am
I sold a car once to a guy with his hand blown clean off. He said that he made his own ammo and had a shed filled with gun powder. One day lightening hit and kaboom, (copyright). His son had just left the shed too. Damn near thing. I have relatives who make their own ammo in their basement. I told them about the lightening thing and they told me that they didn’t have enough gun powder to do any real damage if it did go off. Okayyyyyy. (trademark)
How many AJC employees are here right now blogging as if they were the disenfranchised (from the AJC) rabble? If asked, it’s the law you have to identify yourself as a paid stooge in an open public forum. (patent, rabbit’s foot, etc) Comeon, fess up, confederates. Mercenary commenters are skewing the sentiment on this board, and it’s not right. Readers are unaware of it, and thus those readers are being misled about the truth about people’s feeling on gun control. That’s why nothing ever gets resolved, because everything is a fixed con game by those who are fearful of losing their influence. Pathetic, and no way to run a newspaper. (trademark, copyright, patent, cats paw etc infinity):>{
Quagmire
January 15th, 2013
11:49 am
Now, how am I gonna shoot Bigfoot without my high power rife(with 9,000,000 ammo magazine clip)? Everybody knows Bigfoot is real, just asked that police office that shot one a couple of years ago……………..oh wait.
No, it’s these violent video games that’s causing all of the violence. Oh, wait, they make billions of dollars selling violent games. I got it, let’s introduce our own video game(NRA). The NRA, where it’s all about the money, sorry, I mean gun rights!!!!!!!!
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
11:49 am
SUDAFED! That stuff works. And it’s cheap, at WalMart. At least the generic version is.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
11:50 am
Godless, apparently you are ignorant of your fellow conned posting claims on prior threads that the Bushmaster is only a .22 not a .223.
But go ahead and continue to dazzle us all with your ignorance.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
11:50 am
F. SInkiewicz — “How would this work for guns currently in circulation? Some ATF swat team gonna search my home for guns? Or would I be asked to volunteer my inventory info?”
If you have a CC permit, it could just be cancelled while you make up your mind whether or not to comply with the law.
And even though it’s illegal to maintain a DB of firearm owners, it’s not illegal to maintain a DB of people who have had instant background checks run on them at gun shops, and I bet the government already has such a list with Fishy’s name on it.
We could just pop those folks onto the no-fly list and see how they like it there.
TBone
January 15th, 2013
11:51 am
You are right. I know that I am much more reasonable. I have picked up eight new weapons since last month and thousands of rounds of ammunition. My collection is now quite impressive.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
11:53 am
JAY,
If you were a kid at the Sandy Hook school, how would this measure make you safer?
the cat
January 15th, 2013
11:53 am
Georgia-WTF? Did your tin hat fall off?
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
11:53 am
And Jay, did you really mean to put “that” in your headline? Looks weird to me, but then again despite Georgia’s strange paranoia nobody is paying me to write here.
mbtc
January 15th, 2013
11:54 am
Re: Shar: Right on, brother or sister.
Re:jm: It’s so sweet of you to care about women’s issues like that. You must also be for equal pay, family leave, and reproductive issues. Mmmmwwaa! Call me maybe.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
11:54 am
My collection is now quite impressive
When you lack brains, dazzle them with your “collection”.
resno2
January 15th, 2013
11:54 am
I’m not a blind follower of the NRA, and think they wield too much power, but I find it interesting that when Wayne LaPierre made the suggestion of considering allowing guns in schools he was thought to be out of his mind by the media, but now that Babs Boxer (D) Calif. has mentioned it as a possibility, everyone is quiet. I guess the (D) makes any idea a good idea.
nelson
January 15th, 2013
11:55 am
All true Americans should disarm, turn in your arsenal. It is one of the 10 Commandments,[Thou shall not kill] that includes other animals like deer, they are not hurting you. Return to a peace loving, law abiding citizenry. Now I know some of you feel defenseless without your arsenal. Be confident, self assertive, depend on your wits to get out of tight situations. Walk on the sunny side of the street, be optimistic and forward lookng, put down that arsenal.
You are feeling better already. Am I right?
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
11:55 am
While we’re at it, let’s start pulling back some of the 1st amendment rights too. Perhaps we can start with Jay’s propensity to only tell the part of a story that fits his agenda. Gone. Then we can prosecute any bloggers who post untruths such as “Bush planned 9/11, blew up the levies, etc.” Jail.
What do you think, libs?
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
11:56 am
I remember laughing out loud when that coward LaPierre said the gun nuts uber alles gang was “prepared to offer meaningful contributions”.
The upshot?
Teachers, school superintendents, mayors and police chiefs in Connecticut overwhelmingly rejected his idiotic non-response…
Karma for the violence lovers would be a “stray” RPG or shoulder-launched missile fired by some uninfinged person bearing arms…
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
11:56 am
TBone
January 15th, 2013
11:51 am
Wouldn’t the optical inch sufficed? Scroll down for the video.
http://www.thegreenhead.com/2007/02/philips-norelco-bodygroom-gain-that-extra-optical-inch.php
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
11:56 am
“How would this work for guns currently in circulation?’
Suggestion: NO AFT calls, but you can’t legally sell or transfer a privately owned weapon to anyone other that a licenced dealer. Put some heavy-duty teeth into the law to discourage black-marketeering. It wouldn’t eliminate the problem, but it would help. Figure out a way in which firearms could be legally inherited, if the legatee would be otherwise legal to purchase. Firearms confiscated for any reason are destroyed, not returned to the street.
BTW. I own and use a firearm.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
11:57 am
I picked up hundreds of shares in different stocks along with thousands of dollars in dividends and capital gains in the last few months.
My collection is quite impressive too.
Oscar
January 15th, 2013
11:57 am
Bckground check on all gun sale. Liability for gun owner for use of their guns.
Steve-USA
January 15th, 2013
11:58 am
Jm – “Obama: I have binders full of old white men”
LOL That was funny.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
11:58 am
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
11:50 am
Hmmm. We have 310 million guns in circulation…with the current run on gun shops, that number may shoot up a fair bit….that’s a lot of oversight.
HDD3
January 15th, 2013
11:59 am
This issue points out liberal hypocrisy. Prior to the recent mass murders, where was your outrage over inner city gun violence? There have been more young people killed by guns in cities than all the headline grabbing mass killings combined. These proposed laws will do little to curb the deaths of inner city youth since most are hand gun related. Black people need to wake up and stop blindly supporting Democrats. I am not saying switching to the Republicans is the answer since they also have hypocrisy issues. What I am saying is we need to be independent so no party can take our support for granted. Stop falling for the silly liberal argument that all conservatives are racist. Some are but so are many Democrats. They just hide it well by giving us welfare scraps while laughing behind our backs as we fall for another liberal imitating Martin Luther King in a Black Church during election season.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
12:00 pm
What the heck does a .300 Winchester mag round have to do with a comparison between a .22 long and a .223. Nothing.
Taxpayer,
I think the poster that made that comparison Would agree with you.
I’m n ot sure but I think he means there was no reason for the other poster to compare the .22 with the .223 either. Niether is relavent IMO.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
12:01 pm
Karma for the violence lovers would be a “stray” RPG or shoulder-launched missile fired by some uninfinged person bearing arms…
Karma for that guy in North Georgia was a bullet in the head. I wonder if someone stole his most valued guns or something.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:01 pm
Moderate Line:
What you said makes way to much sense. Unfortunately most people on this blog are complete left wing loons who simply don’t understand common sense….
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:02 pm
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
11:56 am
The private sales and of course illegal purchases scare me. It seems the act of governing private sales is impossible. A law (see immigration) that can’t be seriously implemented means very little..
Oscar
January 15th, 2013
12:02 pm
Trace guns used in crimes back to the registered owners and hold them liabl. That would help stop transfers to unqualified people.
getalife
January 15th, 2013
12:02 pm
The cons that said our President will take their guns should stand up and admit they were dead wrong.
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
12:03 pm
but now that Babs Boxer (D) Calif. has mentioned it as a possibility,
Hadn’t heard that, but it’s still a stupid idea.
Mr_B (teacher)
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:03 pm
Can someone explain to me exactly how this makes the kids who survived Sandy Hook safer?
This is simply knee jerk political theatre…pushing a solution with no relevance to the problem..
Oscar
January 15th, 2013
12:04 pm
Ray – that law you mentioned can be enforced. Takes a little time and money, that’s all.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:04 pm
How much will Oblama’s plan help to curb gun violence in his hometown of Chicago?
resno2
January 15th, 2013
12:04 pm
besides adding more government jobs, what purpose could registering, or requiring a backround check on ammunition purchases, possibly serve?
Liberal Nightmare
January 15th, 2013
12:05 pm
……and to psuedo-journalist Cookman shows he can’t even use grammar check…………..
Oscar
January 15th, 2013
12:05 pm
Babs is just one person. Majority of Americans disagree with her. Not going to happen.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:05 pm
To take the guns is impractical and the scare tactics are as ridiculous as throwing granny over the cliff…just a bunch of paranoid drama queens on both counts.
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:05 pm
why do you think that picture is a misrepresentation?
The clear implication of the ad was that the 22 rimfire was a “hunting” cartridge and the big bad .223 was a child massacring cartridge. Outright misrepresentation because most hunting cartridges are way bigger than a .223.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
12:05 pm
S. Ray — “Hmmm. We have 310 million guns in circulation…with the current run on gun shops, that number may shoot up a fair bit….that’s a lot of oversight.”
As I said, just pop ‘em on the no-fly list and cancel any CC permits they might have.
When they’re ready to come clean, then have them fill out a form with their inventory and swear to/affirm on a Federal affidavit that those are the only weapons they have. At that point, withholding information becomes a Federal offense.
resno2
January 15th, 2013
12:06 pm
Mr_B: why?
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
12:06 pm
Stevie Ray: We regulate private sales of all kinds of things: cars ,drugs, alcohol,pornography, etc. It’s not impossible, it just takes the political will to do it.
Now, back to work.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
12:06 pm
Stevie, do you ever read anything and get information or even look at past threads where all of this has been discussed previously) before posting one of your silly distorted-commentary-posed-as-a-ridiculous-question posts?
getalife
January 15th, 2013
12:06 pm
The majority wants our President to act so he will act.Period.
You cons are marginalized but keep talking crazy so you stay that way.
Oscar
January 15th, 2013
12:06 pm
Writers don’t write the headlines that go over their pieces. Some editor does that.
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 15th, 2013
12:07 pm
My goodness but we have some serious paranoia going on here. Expecting a zombie attack or the UN troops invading? Which is it?
Georgia, its painful to realize that you’re in the minority ain’t it?
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
12:08 pm
“it’s not illegal to maintain a DB of people who have had instant background checks run on them at gun shops, and I bet the government already has such a list with Fishy’s name on it.”
Not quite. From the FBI:
“Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day.”
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:08 pm
HDD3: Prior to the recent mass murders, where was your outrage over inner city gun violence?
Are you f***ing kidding me?
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:09 pm
JHM,
then you don’t need weapons like that.
You don’t need to sit at a keyboard and spew your ill-informed opinions on a political blog all day, but we allow it in a free society.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:10 pm
Conservative “Does not practice actual Christianity” Christian: How much will Oblama’s plan help to curb gun violence in his hometown of Chicago?
Who’s “Oblama”? Is that the same person as He Who Must Not Be Blamed?
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:10 pm
Man, Jay posted that one on the run. More formatting errors and typo’s than usual.
Hey Jay, if you make it this low, check you title, the link at the end and where your name is in the post.
good info though.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:12 pm
You don’t need to sit at a keyboard and spew your ill-informed opinions on a political blog all day, but we allow it in a free society.
But we don’t allow you to yell fire in a crowded theater, say whatever you want to your boss without getting fired, or use certain words or show certain things on network television.
Likewise, you also aren’t allowed to have an F-16 fighter jet or surface to air missiles.
Your rights under the first and second amendment are not unlimited, even in a free society.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
12:12 pm
Outright misrepresentation because most hunting cartridges are way bigger than a .223.
It’s not a misrepresentation, if somebody doesn’t know squat about weapons/calibers they might not understand why a .223 is that much different than a common .22 that a friend uses for plinking.
Sad to say, but I’ve heard that argument from dishonest gun nuts.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:12 pm
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:04 pm
How much will Oblama’s plan help to curb gun violence in his hometown of Chicago?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you really this stupid, mindless, and easily lead? Have you birthers now given up that Obama was born in Kenya and your newest lie is that he was born in CHICAGO? And now he is somehow responsible for everything that has happened there since it’s founding in 1834? REALLY?
How dumb are you?
indigo
January 15th, 2013
12:12 pm
Jay, the “infinite paranoia” shown by the NRA is nothing more than an act to convince the mindless that the Government wants to go “door to door, confiscating the 180 million weapons estimated to be in public hands”
Posts from cons here show just how hugely sucessful the NRA is in this
brainwashing.
Naturally, the one and only true objective of the NRA is to keep huge profits comming in for their gun manufacturing clients.
Jm
January 15th, 2013
12:13 pm
Steve USA
Yeah
Some people can’t take a joke though
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
12:13 pm
F. Sinkiewicz — “Not quite. From the FBI”
Well, we will just have to change that law, now won’t we?
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:14 pm
And once again we have the so called Christian spamming lies using Christ. Just damn that annoys the hell out of me. Can’t he keep his lies confined to church?
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:14 pm
Godless, apparently you are ignorant of your fellow conned posting claims on prior threads that the Bushmaster is only a .22 not a .223.
But go ahead and continue to dazzle us all with your ignorance.
Well a .223 caliber Bushmaster is the same caliber as a .22 rimfire, Einstein. The cartridge and the bullet weight are different, but they are the same caliber.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:14 pm
“Man, Jay posted that one on the run. More formatting errors and typo’s than usual.”
It’s happened before, where Jay got in a hurry and posted a draft edition. He’ll correct it eventually.
Repro
January 15th, 2013
12:15 pm
New York just passed a common sense gun control law. But listening to all the howling from the gun nuts, you’d think that we all live in a society where we are being regularly attacked in our homes by the “bad guys”, and if it weren’t for our personal arsenals, we’d all be dead by now.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
12:16 pm
G. Heathen — “then you don’t need weapons like that.”
FYI, that was someone else’s post. I simply reposted it and agreed with it.
“You don’t need to sit at a keyboard”
Logic Fail: Heathen. I asserted no such need.
“and spew your ill-informed opinions on a political blog all day”
When you spot allegedly ‘ill-informed’ coming from me, you let me know, son. I’ll be glad to take you on.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:17 pm
Jm
January 15th, 2013
11:27 am
Obama: I have binders full of old white men
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LOL that was funny. (I’m reading the blog from bottom to top).
Golf Clap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmjHT5GpAYQ
straitroad
January 15th, 2013
12:17 pm
Old laws don’t matter to criminals and any new laws or orders from Obama won’t mean anything to them either. Jay, why do you think another restriction on those of us who believe in the rule of law will matter one ioda to the criminal element? Liberals have been soft on crime for years and now want to lecture everyone on how to curb violence. The reason you get so much resistance from gun owners is because they know your true intentions.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:19 pm
godless: Well a .223 caliber Bushmaster is the same caliber as a .22 rimfire, Einstein. The cartridge and the bullet weight are different, but they are the same caliber.
Which contributes only mud to the conversation, as that point is neither here nor there in the big picture.
indigo
January 15th, 2013
12:19 pm
straitroad – “they know your true intentions”
And those are?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:20 pm
straitroad: Old laws don’t matter to criminals and any new laws or orders from Obama won’t mean anything to them either.
So we should eliminate murder, stealing, and speed limit laws.
Who’s with me?!?!?!!
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:20 pm
It’s not a misrepresentation, if somebody doesn’t know squat about weapons/calibers they might not understand why a .223 is that much different than a common .22 that a friend uses for plinking.
Go back to the link that Keep posted. It says:
“The ammunition on the right is a .233 (sic) bullet, the same used to destroy the young bodies of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary School. This ammunition isn’t meant for hunting, it’s meant for warfare.”
Now what impression do you think they are trying to make?
mae brown
January 15th, 2013
12:20 pm
Exactly my opinion….Most intelligent folks see the need for balanced,nuanced descussion and approach to the problem.The paranoia of the NRA will stall and gut and delay and lie while refusing to educate themselves to the solutions offered w/out input on their part.No is all they seem to know…Such a shame misguided people will delay this necessary action.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
12:20 pm
Godless, you forgot to point out that both are bullets, have metal content and all sorts of other similarities that do not matter.
Wow dazzling. 
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
If I’m not mistaken, it’s currently illegal for the Feds to maintain a database of citizens who own guns and is deemed to be unconstitutional. So, how is this “background checks for private sales” going to work? How will uncle Sam know if I sell my shotgun to my hunting buddy?
And which of the recent mass killings would this silliness have prevented? NONE!!!
Toss the fat kids another cookie to shut them up….
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
Godless, you forgot to point out that both are bullets, have metal content and all sorts of other similarities that do not matter.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
12:06 pm
First of all, the fact that you read my posts with that type of judgement is interesting…i’m flattered to be certain.
Secondly, I have seen no real solid responses to how exactly these tactics make our kids safer….perhaps in all of your brilliance, you can answer with a sentence or two???
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:14 pm
Fred…classic!
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
“Jay, why do you think another restriction on those of us who believe in the rule of law will matter one ioda to the criminal element?”
Nobody else will say it…but *I* will. Such laws are meant to reassure those disgusted and frightened by events like Newtown. To calm such people down, you have to make them think something is being done to control the problem. Most of them will never notice that such laws CAN’T control the problem…until another horror happens.
getalife
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
When are you cons going to fix your failed party?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:22 pm
RB: it’s currently illegal for the Feds to maintain a database of citizens who own guns and is deemed to be unconstitutional.
I am genuinely curious: Which Supreme Court case set that precedent?
straitroad
January 15th, 2013
12:23 pm
indigo
January 15th, 2013
12:19 pm
I believe the majority on the left would eliminate 2nd amendment rights.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:23 pm
Doggone: Except that laws CAN reduce the incidences and body counts if done right. Not eliminate, but reduce.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:24 pm
straitroad: I believe the majority on the left would eliminate 2nd amendment rights.
Considering just how many people you and others (Fred) think are on “the left” your statement cannot possibly be true.
weetamoe
January 15th, 2013
12:24 pm
I know very few gun owners who admit to having guns in the home. Were you ever truthful when your pediatrician asked?
The 2nd amendment had and has nothing to do with hunting. The gun lobby is the NSSA.
Paranoia? Rounding up people and forcing them to leave their homes (native Americans); sending them to concentration camps( Japanese Americans); illegal medical experiments Black syphilitics promised medical treatment but given dummy meds under guise of *free government medical care*;
arbitrary search and confiscation of guns post Katrina; Waco; Mr Nakoula still languishing in solitary.
And the treatment of Dave Gregory whose dramatic brandishing of a large capacity magazine clearly violated the law vs that of Aaron Swartz who dared share MIT’s stash of scholarly articles with those who could not afford to read them (some of which are in the public domain). Just a few possible reasons for that silly paranoia cause *it can’t happen here,* yeah?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 15th, 2013
12:24 pm
Here you go Godless… go nuts!
As mentioned above, rimfire is an older technology than centerfire. The .22LR cartridge was introduced in 1887, while the .223 cartridge was designed in 1964, specifically for use in the M-16 rifle.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/05/03/guest-post-22-lr-vs-223-rem
Moderate Line
January 15th, 2013
12:25 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
11:28 am
Moderate Line: I have to ask what are they doing that we are not doing because simply making it harder to buy a gun is not going to eliminate the number of guns plus every time one of these tragedies hit gun sales go through the roof.
Well, for one thing, their guns are strictly controlled and/or periodic training is required for ownership and use. Some even have implemented mental health checks as part of it.
What are they doing? They are treating guns differently than we do in our culture.
++++
I assume they are doing something that we are not. My question relates what specifically they are doing. I would agree with the education and mental health part but when you say they are strictly controlled that is a very general statement. We already have laws that the mental ill can not obtain a gun. I am more interested in what they do specifically not general statements that they control it more.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
12:25 pm
When you spot allegedly ‘ill-informed’ coming from me, you let me know, son. I’ll be glad to take you on.
JHM,I hope he takes you up on that! I’m going to make some popcorn cause I know this is going to good.
straitroad
January 15th, 2013
12:25 pm
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
Reassurance is not a valid reason to restrict law abiding citizens.
weetamoe
January 15th, 2013
12:26 pm
Also under paranoia–execution of American citizen without due process. That would be al Awlaki.
bookman parrot
January 15th, 2013
12:26 pm
when is gov’t and libs going to push for limits on the number of times you can use the toilet (albeit in an effort to save the earth – not to wield power and control LOL).
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
12:27 pm
Well a .223 caliber Bushmaster is the same caliber as a .22 rimfire, Einstein. The cartridge and the bullet weight are different, but they are the same caliber.
Oh good lord, please don’t wander into one of those stupid “the US isn’t a democracy it’s a REPUBLIC” kinda hair-splitting arguments.
The point is the .223 and weapons made for that cartridge aren’t anything like a .22 dad used for varmints. If you’re fighting that simple point you should stop and think how that makes gun owners look—-like you’re trying to obscure fact with a bunch of side tangents.
There’s honest attempts at education and then there’s Neal Boortz type yammering, if you want to engage in the latter you’re not doing anyone a favor.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:27 pm
We already have laws that the mental ill can not obtain a gun.
No, we have laws that the ADJUDICATED mentally ill cannot get a gun. If the violently mentally ill never see a courtroom, they can still get a gun.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:27 pm
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:21 pm
Wow, I guess we are in the minority with our ignorant thoughts eh? Passing a gun control law and expecting it to have one iota of impact on more shootings is like expecting a knee replacement to treat a heart attack..
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:27 pm
“Except that laws CAN reduce the incidences and body counts if done right. Not eliminate, but reduce”
Not proven. Maybe not provable. The problem I have with them is the false sense of security they will generate.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:28 pm
straitroad: Reassurance is not a valid reason to restrict law abiding citizens.
Law abiding citizens can still have handguns and hunting rifles, and hunting and self defense are still legal. So is ownership of weapons that you can defend yourself with and hunt with.
So you really haven’t been restricted at all, if you’re truly a law abiding citizen.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:29 pm
Doggone: Not proven. Maybe not provable.
We won’t know for sure until the ban on study is lifted.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:29 pm
“Reassurance is not a valid reason to restrict law abiding citizens”
Why address this to me? I never said, or implied, that it was.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:29 pm
I got invited to the inauguration again……….
bookman parrot
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
BHO, Bookman, and the easily influenced still ignore the fact that criminals and crazy people are not going to adhere to the rules.
So in effect their/your efforts will not stop unfortunate carnage in the future one little bit, which is truly sad to say… it will just erode individual freedoms and help bring in more gov’t control… slowly but surely …
getalife
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
If you have a family member with mental issues, use a little common sense and get your guns out of your house.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:27 pm
Can you imagine the bonanza the ACLU would have if the mentally ill were required to undergo tests to prove they are in fact mentally ill? It would take 20 years for all the experts to agree on a definition…
Those unfit to stand trial to generally get a pass on lethal injections..
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
Stevie Ray: Passing a gun control law and expecting it to have one iota of impact on more shootings is backed up by the fact many other countries have done this and seen exactly that result.
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
Keep is dodging and obfuscating, again, so I made my point.
BTW, JHM, sorry I misquoted you, wasn’t watching the punctuation closely.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:31 pm
FRED
How much you gotta donate?
straitroad
January 15th, 2013
12:31 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:28 pm
Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:32 pm
Stevie Ray: Can you imagine the bonanza the ACLU would have if the mentally ill were required to undergo tests to prove they are in fact mentally ill? It would take 20 years for all the experts to agree on a definition…
It needs to be clear that the mentally ill person actually presents a danger to others by having weapons. And as I mentioned, other countries have a better system for this because they also don’t immediately stigmatize every single mental illness as being the same as paranoid schizophrenia.
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
12:32 pm
Good commentary, Jay. I agree. The NRA is one example of the radical forces (read, lobbyists) that control DC and shape our legislation…or lack thereof. I’m not a member, will not become one. The really unfortunate part is because of their radical agenda, constructive progress is inhibited and we get knee jerk reactions (from both sides) about banning this and banning that. I agree with background checks for firearm and ammo purchase. On the other hand, as previously explained, closing the gun show loophole accomplishing little, if anything…and, potentially infringes on the rights of responsible, law abiding citizens. And, we still don’t have an answer on how to limit gun ownership to “sane” people (at the risk of whipping a dead horse).
Jefferson
January 15th, 2013
12:32 pm
Banning guns is part of social evolution, it will happen.
Moderate Line
January 15th, 2013
12:33 pm
weetamoe
January 15th, 2013
12:24 pm
I know very few gun owners who admit to having guns in the home. Were you ever truthful when your pediatrician asked?
The 2nd amendment had and has nothing to do with hunting. The gun lobby is the NSSA.
Paranoia? Rounding up people and forcing them to leave their homes (native Americans); sending them to concentration camps( Japanese Americans); illegal medical experiments Black syphilitics promised medical treatment but given dummy meds under guise of *free government medical care*;
++++++++++
Give an example where the second amendment actually help prevent something and not where it failed and I might see your point. In all these cases the government was violating other rights that these people had. I have a hard time believing if government is willing to break other rights that having the right to own a gun is going to stop the government from violating other rights.
straitroad
January 15th, 2013
12:33 pm
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
12:29 pm
You are correct, sorry about that.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
12:34 pm
Nobody wants to take shotguns and deer rifles from hunters.
Those aren’t the problem anyway.
The cheap Saturday Night Special and these assault weapons are the problem.
BHO, Bookman, and the easily influenced still ignore the fact that criminals and crazy people are not going to adhere to the rules.
Criminals adhere to the rules sometimes. We force them to and put them in prison.
Strict laws were put into place in the early 80’s to help stop Drunk Driving.
Since then DUI fatalities have been cut in half.
Will tough laws stop every shooting. No
But if they cut the Newton and Columbines in half im all for it.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:34 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:30 pm
Where and how exactly? You are suggesting that making it a wee bit more difficult to get a gun will prevent a recurrence? I’m not buying. Even in countries that don’t have our violent culture, you get killings…
I don’t see any of this making any kid safer or improving the odds of another shooting….anyone can get a gun one way or another. That won’t change….
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
12:35 pm
Now what impression do you think they are trying to make?
That the .223 is used by our (and many other) military forces when they want to kill somebody. Which is absolutely correct. If a .22 did the same thing our infantry would be carrying them, it would sure be a hell of a lot cheaper.
The .223 is standard military use BECAUSE of what it does to the human body, plain and simple.
Paulo977
January 15th, 2013
12:36 pm
Fred..” Have you birthers now given up that Obama was born in Kenya and your newest lie is that he was born in CHICAGO? And now he is somehow responsible for everything that has happened there since it’s founding in 1834? REALLY?”
__________________________________________________________
Do you think they’ll get it? Don’t forget these are those who support the idiots in congress!!!
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:37 pm
The point is the .223 and weapons made for that cartridge aren’t anything like a .22 dad used for varmints. If you’re fighting that simple point you should stop and think how that makes gun owners look—-like you’re trying to obscure fact with a bunch of side tangents.
The point which you are trying so hard to avoid, is that ignorance about firearms serves no good purpose, no matter which side of the debate you are on. Moveon is clearly pursuing a political agenda based on a misrepresentation. That misrepresentation being that a little old .22 rimfire is a hunting round and that the .223 centerfire cartridge is for killing children. They say so in the print of the ad.
I don’t think being informed about firearms and trying to help others be informed, rather than mis-informed sheds a bad light on gunowners.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
12:37 pm
having the right to own a gun is going to stop the government from violating other rights
The constitution doesn’t say you have the right to own a gun.
It says arms. Big difference.
At the time it was written at best you could get off three shots a minute and those guns were wildly inaccurate. Plus they were worried the British might be back any moment.
Not in any way relevant to today’s world.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:38 pm
straitroad: Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.
Neither does “defending yourself from the U.S. government created by the founding fathers.”
Face it. If you rise up against the U.S. government, that is treason and you are ignoring all laws and documents created by it. You are a criminal for doing so, and therefore the second amendment doesn’t apply to you anyway.
Secondly, hunting is legal and so is self defense, as I have said. Murder is not. And in order to defend yourself, you can do so effectively even without any guns at all in most cases. It is highly unlikely that so many people will break into your home and shoot you unless you’re bringing that kind of attention to yourself due to illegal activities in the first place, which makes you a CRIMINAL already.
So go ahead and keep breaking those laws, “law abiding citizen.”
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:38 pm
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:31 pm
FRED
How much you gotta donate?
++++++++++++++++++++++
i dunno. It’s not the criteria and I don’t know what is. I THINK i gave 100 bucks. A friend of ours was the committee chair person for the Southeast (or something like that) for his first election and her husband is now Ambassador to Singapore and they didn’t get one last time. I asked her about it thinking it was just something they sent out to anyone who gave them cash and she said nope.
LOL the only other time I contacted the election committee was when I was ragging them out about NOT sending me a bumper sticker. Who knows, maybe in 100 years it may be worth something to have an original…………..
I thought about going but I really hate crowds and there is no way I could get close enough to see or hear anything. It would be nice to do once though, kind of like going to a World Series or a Superbowl…….. (been to the Olympics).
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:39 pm
Stevie Ray: Where and how exactly? You are suggesting that making it a wee bit more difficult to get a gun will prevent a recurrence?
No, it will reduce occurrences. As shown by any nation that has any sort of gun ban, however limited in scope. Take your pick.
Paulo977
January 15th, 2013
12:40 pm
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:29 pm
I got invited to the inauguration again…
_________________________________________
So did I ….BUT they did not send a tcket!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha Ha
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:40 pm
godless: I don’t think being informed about firearms and trying to help others be informed, rather than mis-informed sheds a bad light on gunowners.
Gun safety and self defense education, in school. Let’s do it.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
12:40 pm
bookman parrot: “BHO, Bookman, and the easily influenced still ignore the fact that criminals and crazy people are not going to adhere to the rules”
It’s not a question of voluntary “adherence” to rules you tool, it’s a question of a person who is deranged being subject to a system of checks and controls. That’s a large part of what law is. It’s involuntary.
“So in effect their/your efforts will not stop unfortunate carnage in the future one little bit”
A system, properly designed, could most definitely drastically reduce gun carnage of the Newtown-Columbine type.
Just ask yourself, why don’t deranged kids blow up their schools with rocket launchers too?
Could it be because they are harder for them to get? Of course it is. That is the only reason, since it is clear that the likes of Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Seung-Wi Cho would have been all too happy to use them, or any other weapon that was more powerful than the guns they used, for their massacres, to even greater effect, had they only been available to them. The only reason they’re using guns at all and not say bombs and major explosives is that the former are by comparison vastly easier to obtain and to implement.
So despite the fact that any effort will be imperfect, and probably a long time in seeing results, that does not change the fact that a successful effort can still be made to extend that same difficulty of procurement that makes massive explosions at schools to assault weapons.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:41 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
12:34 pm
Cutting such events in half…so say we put in NY new law across the country. It won’t stop a determined individual from getting what he needs to do the job. Also, I guess if a definition of mental illness is agreed upon (likely a suit will move up the ladder), the mentally ill don’t understand laws but for a price, would have no problem getting a gun…BTW, are we sure that this definition of mental illness would apply to the columbine kids or the Newtown culprit?
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:41 pm
I’m not worried about them taking MY guns. If they ask me if I have any, I’ll lie.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
Even in countries that don’t have our violent culture, you get killings…
This is laughable. Guess what. All over the world there is violence. They all watch violent Hollywood movies.
Japan which has an extremely violent culture and history had exactly 11 gun related homicides last year. In the US it was 9,146
Its the guns stupid.
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
The .223 is standard military use BECAUSE of what it does to the human body, plain and simple.
And before the .223, the standard military round was the 30-06, probably the most popular deer-hunting round in use today. Slower in velocity than the .223 but makes a bigger hole.
When loaded with a FMJ bullet, the .223 is actually considered to be a more humane round to shoot someone with than a deer bullet.
saywhat?
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
11:55 am
While we’re at it, let’s start pulling back some of the 1st amendment rights too. Perhaps we can start with Jay’s propensity to only tell the part of a story that fits his agenda. Gone. Then we can prosecute any bloggers who post untruths such as “Bush planned 9/11, blew up the levies, etc.” Jail.
What do you think, libs?
——————————————
Based on your postings here, I think you might be the first one of us thrown in jail. As for curtailing 1st amendment rights, I will be in support of that the day some crazy guy walks into an elementary school and shouts at the kids until 26 of them are dead.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
Stevie Ray: BTW, are we sure that this definition of mental illness would apply to the columbine kids or the Newtown culprit?
Without study on their motivations, outward signs, and so on, we won’t be able to, no. If we are forbidden from making such a study, then we can’t ever hope to find the info we need for prediction.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
Paulo977
January 15th, 2013
12:40 pm
So did I ….BUT they did not send a tcket!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha Ha
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Did you get the invitation along with the thing asking you to volunteer to do something that said “This is not a ticket?”
I got that TOO, but I also got an official one as well (with the ticket). I’m going to frame it with the one from 2008.
Paladin
January 15th, 2013
12:43 pm
That linked blog above is incorrect. M16s and similar military weapons are chambered for 5.56 NATO round. It is similar to .223, but different enough that putting 5.56 in a .223 rifle just might get you killed.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:45 pm
As for curtailing 1st amendment rights, I will be in support of that the day some crazy guy walks into an elementary school and shouts at the kids until 26 of them are dead.
THIS
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:46 pm
Welcome to the Occupation @12:40 pm: Good points.
Adam @ 12:40 (musta been a good minute lol): Good idea. Shame they discontinued drivers education but we could add it as well.
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
12:46 pm
We can certainly believe an ABC/ WaPo poll on the public’s attitude concerning gun control.
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
12:46 pm
“Nobody else will say it…but *I* will. Such laws are meant to reassure those disgusted and frightened by events like Newtown. To calm such people down, you have to make them think something is being done to control the problem. Most of them will never notice that such laws CAN’T control the problem…until another horror happens.”
So, we’re basically just tossing the whiny fat kid another cookie to shut him up.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
12:46 pm
“The ATF is forbidden by federal law to create a computer database allowing its agents to trace ownership of guns used in a crime. The search has to be done manually, in a time-eating process of phone call after phone call, and sifting through boxes of paper records. That’s because in its infinite paranoia, the NRA ”
Another example: NRA pushed and got a provision in the Defense Authorization Act forbidding military commanders who think a soldier might be at risk of suicide from asking if he has a gun. Can’t do it. Service chiefs have asked for that provision to be removed. NRA objects. Evidently, even though military deaths by suicide are rising even though combat operations are drawing down
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/14/4545869/2012-military-suicides-hit-record.html#storylink=misearch
the NRA thinks a few hundred or thousand soldiers committing suicide with a gun is just a cost of doing business, no big deal, if it gets its political aims accomplished.
They are reprehensible.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:47 pm
Fred: Shame they discontinued drivers education but we could add it as well.
Yeah drivers ed needs to be back if they got rid of it. Seriously. GOOD driver’s ed. Defensive driving required, logging hours, even.
King of Planet Kolob
January 15th, 2013
12:48 pm
I am befuddled why those who oppose magazine capacity limits abide by it when they go to hunt. When I go hunting I am restricted to 3 rounds in the gun, so we can give some of the games a chance to escape to be hunted another day. We should limit magazine capacity the same way to give some people a chance to escape mass shooting. The only reason to oppose background check is to allow people with shady backgrounds to buy guns. By Wayne LaPeirre’s logic, Keith Ratcliff was the bad guy with a gun, or else he would have stopped them with his arsenal.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:48 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:39 pm
I think you would agree that those countries with existing weapon bans are not a valid comparison to the violent culture where we reside. I’d love to get rid of all guns…”they are made for killing..aint no good for nothing else…” Just not practical of course. I’m not against the any legislation that has any chance of making it more difficult to access weapons..
The issue is how we protect our kids at school and those in high occupancy places like malls. We can make it more difficult to get the guns but if the intent is strong enough, bad things will happen.
The only way to really make our kids safer is technology that eliminates the ability of such folks to even breach the perimeter of any school. The technology is out there…it is clearly a more responsible approach than this political attempt to change our violent and paranoid culture..
The other half of your brain.
January 15th, 2013
12:48 pm
What industries spend the most on lobbying?
According to OpenSecrets.org, the following data was recorded by the Senate Office of Public Records. The top 10 industries for 2009 were:
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products – $199,323,702
Insurance – $122,065,251
Oil & Gas – $120,669,855
Electric Utilities – $108,163,536
Business Associations – $92,696,817
Computers/Internet – $88,847,937
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing – $84,363,782
TV/Movies/Music – $77,861,927
Hospitals/Nursing Homes – $77,465,842
Education – $73,913,389
There are well over 10,000 lobbyists in Washington, the NRA being one of them. It’s damn near impossible to stop the money.
Folks, money is what it is all about. People on here keep bashing the right about guns, guess what! the left sure get their share also.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:49 pm
Fred ™
How dumb are you?
Obviously the stupidity lies with you. I asked a simple question. How will Oblama’s plan to ban assault rifles have an effect in urban area’s…. Its a simple question… Just waiting it out for a lib to answer instead of attack the questioner…..
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:50 pm
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
12:46 pm
So let’s move forward with any means to minimize access to guns…when next tragedy strikes, whats the next plan? Do you try to convince parents it will be prevented next time as we now have all guns accounted for?
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:50 pm
There is no low that right wing weirdo’s won’t stoop to:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-155033813.html
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:50 pm
I think you would agree that those countries with existing weapon bans are not a valid comparison to the violent culture where we reside. I’d love to get rid of all guns…”they are made for killing..aint no good for nothing else…” Just not practical of course. I’m not against the any legislation that has any chance of making it more difficult to access weapons..
Australia has a good example. There is no wholesale ban on guns, but there is a limit to amount you can buy in a single purchase, amount you can buy over time, total amount you can buy, etc. There are also measures in place to help ensure that when you apply you’re not a crazy person. You have to have reputable references to your character. So guns are hard to get there, but not impossible, and their gun crime rate plummeted.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
12:51 pm
The point which you are trying so hard to avoid, is that ignorance about firearms serves no good purpose, no matter which side of the debate you are on.
And the point that you are trying to avoid is that you didn’t call out those who made the direct comparison with the .22 and the .223.
It has happened on every thread that Jay has done on this subject. Someone will come on and say the .223 round is just a .22.
Sure, the diameter is the same, but the diameter is not the only thing about a round of ammunition.
It’s these kinds of lies by omission that make it harder for liberal gun owners to push back against further restrictions.
I don’t want to have to go through a background check just to buy ammunition for my legally owned hand guns.
As long as I am a law abiding citizen, I don’t have to justify my purchase to anyone, just like golfers don’t have to justify their need for a new box of Titleist ProV1x.
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
12:52 pm
Its the guns stupid.
The next time a gun pops out of the closet and shoots someone, I will join the crusade to ban every last one of them.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:53 pm
Stevie Ray: So let’s move forward with any means to minimize access to guns…when next tragedy strikes, whats the next plan?
There will be other occurrences but there will be less of them over time if we follow common sense prescriptions and do education and information campaigns over time. Like how we dealt with drunk driving on an all encompassing scale.
Trolls Bane
January 15th, 2013
12:54 pm
An inconvienent stat : In 2009 there were only 3.7 gun related homicides per 100,000 people and there were twice as many (6.1 per 100,000) suicides … see this link Firearm death rate by country.
Al Galore
January 15th, 2013
12:54 pm
500 gun murders in Chicago and these Democratic goons want to give advice to the honest people in America!
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
12:54 pm
“You’re not allowed to have certain things. I don’t see too many people upset that they can’t go to Boeing and buy a loaded F15, even if they had the money. It’s a military grade weapon. So are AK’s. Yet try to say you shouldn’t have THAT in your house and people lose their minds. Wanting something because it’s cool in your mind to have does not make it OK to have.”
I think it all depends upon what the 2nd Amendment is construed to mean. It should be patently obvious to anyone with better-than-elementary-school reading skills that it does NOT pertain to hunting. So anyone – including a president with a JD in constitutional law – who, in discussing it mentions hunting either 1) doesn’t know how to read or 2) is being intellectually dishonest. It does, however, pertain to defense against a threat to freedom and liberty posed by 1) the federal government or 2) a foreign government. Self defense, if it was intended to be also comprehended by this amendment is at best only implied.
Now, any intelligent and educated person who seeks to interpret the Constitution apart from the ample – indeed, the super-abundance of (relative to other historical documents) – supplemental documentary evidence (such as transcript of ratification debates, letters, published writings and so on), it simply being intellectually dishonest. The Constitution means, first and foremost, what it was intended and understood to mean by its authors and ratifiers. One can always wish to make it “plastic” and bend its meaning to one’s desires – but that is no more than “twisting” it to say what you want to say (just as the Bible has been twisted to justify all sorts of things).
If, as I believe, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms and form militias against, for one thing, a tyrannical federal government, then ownership of weapons like an AR-15 should be legal on PRINCIPLE alone. Keeping such weapons out of the hands of irresponsible and evil people thus becomes the focus of gun laws, not the banning of certain weapons.
What is curious in all of this, of course, is that many people seem frantic to address the “gun problem” now after another tragic mass killing. But hardly anyone seems to care about all of the inner city (many of whom are black) youth being killed by guns illegally possessed – including the president. If banning AR-15s is the “solution” to mass killings (and, of course, it is not), then what is the “solution” to, say, Chicago’s appalling murder rate (where law abiding citizens have been subject to some of the country’s toughest gun laws – some of which were overturned in 2010 by Heller)?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:54 pm
godless: The next time a gun pops out of the closet and shoots someone, I will join the crusade to ban every last one of them.
Well cars don’t kill people, people operating cars kill people. So let’s get rid of all speed limit signs and car safety measures since cars don’t kill people.
Same. Exact. Logic. Fail.
RB from Gwinnett
January 15th, 2013
12:55 pm
Here you go, Adam. From Wikipedia…
“In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.[1]”
“The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (a) being:
No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.”
indigo
January 15th, 2013
12:55 pm
None of you cons seems willing to say what you truly seem to fear.
If I understand you correctly, you fear:
1. The Government will nullify the 2nd ammendment and then take away all your guns.
2. Then, jack-booted troops will come into every city and town and impose a harsh Obama Socialism.
Correct?
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
12:55 pm
“No one needs semi automatic weapons” – uh – there is one exception to this premise. Recent debate “Why would anyone need a gun that fires more than six shots?” Reply ” For seven home invaders of course “. Selah. By the way when you get all the illegal assault weapons out of the hands of the drug dealers and street gangs give me a call. Criminals are going to get theirs illegally – don’t want no stinking back ground check do they?
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:55 pm
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:49 pm
Fred ™
How dumb are you?
Obviously the stupidity lies with you. I asked a simple question. How will Oblama’s plan to ban assault rifles have an effect in urban area’s…. Its a simple question… Just waiting it out for a lib to answer instead of attack the questioner…..
++++++++++++++++++++++
I was you would quit perverting my religion with your lies. You have done it again. You didn’t ask a “simple question: How will Oblama’s plan to ban assault rifles have an effect in urban area’s” you CLEARLY STATED:
How much will Oblama’s plan help to curb gun violence in his hometown of Chicago?
Which is a bald faced lie. Jesus would also be SO proud of the way you talk about our President. I remember reading all in the bible the cute little names he called the Romans and Pontius Pilot and others. Your perversion of MY religion sets a fine example for folks. It’s no wonder they think all Christians are liars and nutcases, look at what you give them.
Please, tell ANOTHER lie. Change your words again and say you didn’t say them. It must be sad to go through life having to lie because your ideas are so poorly thought out……..
Mick
January 15th, 2013
12:56 pm
rb
Your cookies are getting a bit stale, got anything else in the pantry???
Uh Huh....We Are Gunning for Change
January 15th, 2013
12:56 pm
We need a CHANGE.
IF not NOW…WHEN? WHEN?
When it is YOUR CHILD?
LET US NOT FORGET: The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims:
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
Uncle Mittie
January 15th, 2013
12:56 pm
Guns are people too, my friend.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:57 pm
Towncrier: It should be patently obvious to anyone with better-than-elementary-school reading skills that it does NOT pertain to hunting. So anyone – including a president with a JD in constitutional law – who, in discussing it mentions hunting either 1) doesn’t know how to read or 2) is being intellectually dishonest
Or they could be making the point that hunting is legal and murder is not, and therefore guns designed for hunting and not for killing people more efficiently should not be on the table as being restricted or confiscated.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
the NRA thinks a few hundred or thousand soldiers committing suicide with a gun is just a cost of doing business
Got a link for that?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
Why are new gun laws necessary? Don’t we already have hundreds of them on the books already? I’d like an answer from any lib on here please….
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
JAY – gun owners far more reasonable than the NRA – and I can say the same thing for the Dems and Obama. Close off the borders to criminals bringing in assault weapons illegally. Now – that would be reasonable.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
Toss the fat kids another cookie to shut them up….
I don’t know which is funnier. Hearing Fatboy Rush use this line or having you repeat it ad nauseum while claiming you don’t listen to Rush……..
Adam
January 15th, 2013
12:59 pm
RB: Since you have shown that due to the second amendment, people who own firearms cannot be recorded as having firearms, then surely this means that due to the first amendment, recording anyone’s words should also not be allowed, correct?
Or not. Looks like the first amendment is more restricted than the second amendment. Thanks for pointing that out.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
12:59 pm
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
12:50 pm
First, do you really need to drop cash to go to inauguration? I think he’s already more than tipped his hand..he is gonna use that pulpit to lay blame for all ills on the GOP…nothing new. His only real objective of tax thingy was to the the GOP to “swallow their humiliation pure..” He already threatened this so I expect a well thought out blizzard of partisan words.
Also, I’m jealous that the Christian hasn’t called me stupid…be proud…very proud.
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
January 15th, 2013
1:00 pm
500 gun murders in Chicago and these Democratic goons want to give advice to the honest people in America!
EPIC FACE PALM!!
Conservatives,
If it’s “in the best interest of the country” to have ID/background checks to prevent voter fraud, why is it not “in the best interest of the country” to have ID/background checks in order to be able to buy ammunition?
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:00 pm
“IF not NOW…WHEN? WHEN?”
Thank you for proving my point that the laws being proposed are to reassure the frightened. I did notice that you don’t actually give any ideas as to WHAT you want changed. It appears you just want to not feel afraid. But beware a false sense of security.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:00 pm
What I think everyone on this blog needs to consider:
1) Right now those evil black “assault weapons” are in the crosshairs along with “high capacity” magazines. Let’s say we do what bammy wants and every AR15/AK47 is rounded up and melted down along with all of the mags that go with these. You are now reduced to shotguns, some which hold 9 rounds, and handguns.
2)Manufacturers will adopt and make mags to hold 7 rounds.
3)New laws in place…no “assault weapons or high capacity mags” and all of liberaldom is thrilled.
4)Another mass shooting occurs….this time the shooter uses only those weapons that were legal under bammy’s restrictions. 45 people are shot and killed.
5) How long before there is a call to confiscate these “legal weapons”?
Do you see the slippery slope bammy and the dimlbis want us to be on?
If you don’t like the Second Amendment, there is a process by which the Constitution can be changed. Muster the politicial will, if you can, and change the Constitution that way….the only legal way.
If you can’t do that, then leave all of those legal gun owners alone.
Chriis Matthews
January 15th, 2013
1:00 pm
Our Nation’s founders new that one day we might have people in charge who would take away our freedoms ( Obama) and give government more power…we were giving gun rights to protect ourselves from that government!
Granny Godzilla
January 15th, 2013
1:01 pm
NRA Won’t Back Down From Supporting Law That Increases Military Suicides
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/11/07/362689/nra-military-suicides/
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
1:01 pm
As long as I am a law abiding citizen, I don’t have to justify my purchase to anyone, just like golfers don’t have to justify their need for a new box of Titleist ProV1x.
Well stated,.
In the first couple of days after the CT shooting someone was on here saying noone “needed” a bullet larger than a .22. I pointed out that the Bushmaster used in CT was a .22 caliber rifle.
Picking nits? Yes but it’s not like we don’t do that here.
I have not seen anyone try to make the argument that the .223 Remington or 5.56×45mm NATO round is equal in lethality to a .22 rimfire.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:01 pm
Also RB it should be noted that that is a Congressional action, not a Supreme Court case. I asked if the Supreme Court had found it to be unconstitutional to keep a record. You have no provided such a case. You provided, instead, a law that forbids it. That doesn’t mean that prior to that law or since that it is unconstitutional to have such a record.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:02 pm
MANGLER
January 15th, 2013
11:35 am
You’re not allowed to have certain things. I don’t see too many people upset that they can’t go to Boeing and buy a loaded F15, even if they had the money. It’s a military grade weapon. So are AK’s. Yet try to say you shouldn’t have THAT in your house and people lose their minds. Wanting something because it’s cool in your mind to have does not make it OK to have.
So are certain pistols….wanna ban those also?
Erwin's cat
January 15th, 2013
1:02 pm
Adam – Except that laws CAN reduce the incidences and body counts if done right. Not eliminate, but reduce.
what is it like 1%-2% of gun crimes and deaths are caused by these assault rifles and i cap mags….but we’ll feel so much safer….you’re gonna reduce these incidents to .09%-1.5%?
NOBODYYOUKNOW
January 15th, 2013
1:02 pm
I,m very conservative and in most cases will vote Repub. However come on folks why in the world does someone want a high velocity military weapon? I’m sure there are some who collect these weapons for a hobby. But there are some who may want to collect bombs for a hobby. There has to be reasonable thinking on this. I have NEVER been so sad as when I saw the report on those beautiful innocent school kids shot because of some nut. The first thing I did after watching that was to go and pick up my grandchildren, hug them and tell them how much I loved them. If anything like that were to happen to them (GOD FORBID) I just couldn’t handle it.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
1:02 pm
America’s counterfeit conservatives are going to advocate on this issue what they do on virtually every major issue.
Do absolutely nothing and pretend that the problem doesn’t exist…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:03 pm
Why are new gun laws necessary? Don’t we already have hundreds of them on the books already? I’d like an answer from any lib on here please….
We don’t, but the misrepresentation by the NRA and others here make it more and more difficult top make that argument.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
1:04 pm
That linked blog above is incorrect. M16s and similar military weapons are chambered for 5.56 NATO round. It is similar to .223, but different enough that putting 5.56 in a .223 rifle just might get you killed.
True, but if you’re loading a weapon using a blog as a guide Darwin’s Law is your destiny in some form anyhow.
Uh Huh....We Are Gunning for Change
January 15th, 2013
1:04 pm
@Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
Why are new gun laws necessary? Don’t we already have hundreds of them on the books already? I’d like an answer from any lib on here please….
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Being a “CHRISTIAN” you should now WHY we need new gun laws.
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.
LET US NOT FORGET: The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims:
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
That is why we need NEW GUN LAWS.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
1:04 pm
I am not against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the insane and children. There are already laws on the books to enforce that. Start by actually ENFORCING the law. When is Obama going to start enforcing the laws on the books instead of picking and choosing what HE wants to enforce? He put his hand on the Bible and swore under oath to enforce the laws on the books – OBAMA LIED.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:04 pm
We can certainly believe an ABC/ WaPo poll on the public’s attitude concerning gun control.
Id believe them over a Fox News poll. How did they do predicting the election ?
resno2
January 15th, 2013
1:05 pm
Fred, where was it said that Chicago was obama’s birthplace? It said hometown, which is accurate. What’s the problem? And where is the bald faced lie?
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:05 pm
indigo
“None of you cons seems willing to say what you truly seem to fear.
If I understand you correctly, you fear:
1. The Government will nullify the 2nd ammendment and then take away all your guns.
2. Then, jack-booted troops will come into every city and town and impose a harsh Obama Socialism.
Correct?”
Pretty much, that seems to be what all their fears boil down to.
PT Barnum had it pretty much right, didn’t he?
Tom Middleton
January 15th, 2013
1:05 pm
Worked with a lovely woman once named Maria, Jay, whose boyfriend moved in with her and her children, and when he did, he brought his gun.
She told him he could stay but the gun had to go; and when he told her he needed it for protection, she walked over, picked it up, and fired it at him twice.
He must have been in love because he decided to stay anyway. But needless to say, the gun left the house the next day. I mean, talk about getting your man card!
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
1:06 pm
Well cars don’t kill people, people operating cars kill people. So let’s get rid of all speed limit signs and car safety measures since cars don’t kill people.
Same. Exact. Logic. Fail.
Did someone post, “It’s the cars stupid.” ?
Your logic fails.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:06 pm
Towncrier — “If, as I believe, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms and form militias against, for one thing, a tyrannical federal government, then ownership of weapons like an AR-15 should be legal on PRINCIPLE alone.”
That’s a nice piece of reasoning, but given that Congress possesses the power to *call out, control and regulate* the militia (this being the same militia as that noted in the 2A), I think you’d have a hard time defending that position. When one also considers that advocating or conspiring to overthrow the government of the US by force is a Federal felony, I think your construction falls flat on its face. It’s rather hard to argue that there’s a Constitutional right to do something that’s a felony at the same time.
Erwin's cat
January 15th, 2013
1:06 pm
rightwingex – Wanting something because it’s cool in your mind to have does not make it OK to have.
I want one to defend from my neighbors (from the zombie apocalypse) who already have one
Don Abernethy
January 15th, 2013
1:07 pm
Jay, you seem to be an expert on guns. I assume you have a gun permit and a number of guns and that you are a hunter. I also assume you got training with guns while you were in the military. Most of the other liberals who are for gun control are just “desk jockeys” who have never owned a gun and don’t have a clue on how to use them. Obama is one of those “desk jockey’s”.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:07 pm
I have not seen anyone try to make the argument that the .223 Remington or 5.56×45mm NATO round is equal in lethality to a .22 rimfire.
But the Bushmaster is anything but JUST a .22
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:07 pm
“Being a “CHRISTIAN” you should now WHY we need new gun laws”
And what laws would YOU reccommend that would END such atrocities?
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
1:07 pm
Have a nice day! Smiley Face (patent pending)
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
1:08 pm
The new law passed in New York states that if you have a high capacity magazine you have one year to get rid of it.
How will this be enforced?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:08 pm
R. W. Extreme — “So are certain pistols….wanna ban those also?”
FWIW, I’m all for banning concealable handguns made from materials that don’t show up on x-ray.
When some little genius figures out how to make a ceramic or carbon-fiber or nylon handgun that is capable of seriously wounding or killing a person, you bet I’m going to be in favor of banning them from public ownership.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
1:09 pm
“Or they could be making the point that hunting is legal and murder is not, and therefore guns designed for hunting and not for killing people more efficiently should not be on the table as being restricted or confiscated.”
There is no explicitly guaranteed right to bear arms for hunting. Period. If such a right exists, it is an “unenumerated” one – guaranteed only and for so long as the SCOTUS says it is (should it one day decide the question). So it is pointless to mention hunting in a discussion of constitutional gun rights. If Obama doesn’t know that, he’s not all that smart. If he does know it, then he’s just playing politics and being (as I said) intellectually dishonest.
As to restrictions or “confiscation” (do you even hear yourself when you use that word?), refer to the bulk of my previous post.
King of Planet Kolob
January 15th, 2013
1:09 pm
.22 and .223 are the same except for the length of the slug, the black powder behind the firepower and the type of rifle discharging the round.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:09 pm
Erwin: what is it like 1%-2% of gun crimes and deaths are caused by these assault rifles and i cap mags….but we’ll feel so much safer….you’re gonna reduce these incidents to .09%-1.5%?
You know what? You’re right. We are absolutely helpless to stop gun violence. Therefore, we should create bigger and better weapons and make them easier to get.
Yup, makes perfect sense.
In all seriousness, a reduction of gun violence on the scale that other nations have had is admirable and enviable. We should aspire to reduce all kinds of violence, but especially violence that is more likely to result in intentional death.
How much of your statistics include intentional versus accidental death?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:09 pm
Fred ™
I was you would quit perverting my religion with your lies. You have done it again. You didn’t ask a “simple question: How will Oblama’s plan to ban assault rifles have an effect in urban area’s” you CLEARLY STATED:
How much will Oblama’s plan help to curb gun violence in his hometown of Chicago?
Which is a bald faced lie. Jesus would also be SO proud of the way you talk about our President. I remember reading all in the bible the cute little names he called the Romans and Pontius Pilot and others. Your perversion of MY religion sets a fine example for folks. It’s no wonder they think all Christians are liars and nutcases, look at what you give them.
Please, tell ANOTHER lie. Change your words again and say you didn’t say them. It must be sad to go through life having to lie because your ideas are so poorly thought out……..
Wow Fred no only is your response riddled with numerous grammatical errors it simply makes no sense… Please go back to bed…..
Steve-USA
January 15th, 2013
1:11 pm
I am all for limiting assault rifles and number of rounds but that is not going to eliminate mass murders. These people are mentally ill and are determined to cause carnage. Put an armed guard in a school (never mind some student taking the gun away from a retired aging cop) and then the shooter strikes as they get on the bus at school, put multiple armed guards there and the shooter will strike at the kids waiting for the bus on their street. If that doesn’t work they will attack a Chuck – E – Cheese, local park, soccer field, etc. The gun on every corner theory will never be practical and just teaches kids that you are not safe unless there is armed guns around.
“education and information campaigns” will have no effect on these mentally ill shooters. All the money spent on armed guards would be better spent on mental health facilities.
JMHO
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:11 pm
godless: You are proposing that we do not limit access for PEOPLE to have to guns, because guns do not fire themselves. That is a failure in logic. Limiting access to guns is one of the ways to help reduce the number of PEOPLE who use them in homicides.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
1:12 pm
Id believe them over a Fox News poll. How did they do predicting the election ?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I can still see the look on old Piggy Rove’s face vis a vis Ohio…
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
1:12 pm
resno2
January 15th, 2013
1:05 pm
Fred, where was it said that Chicago was obama’s birthplace? It said hometown, which is accurate. What’s the problem? And where is the bald faced lie?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So why does he go to HAWAII for vacation? His HOMETOWN…………..
Just another FOXBOT/Talkradio distortion of truth. A LIE. Another attempt to smear Obama that has FAILED.
Why do you Republicans have to lie so much? If he was so bad then the truth would be enough……..
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:13 pm
Uh Huh….We Are Gunning for Change:
Being a “CHRISTIAN” you should now WHY we need new gun laws.
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.
LET US NOT FORGET: The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims:
So we should ban cars to then if I use your reasoning. Guns are not just used for killing. Are you that dense or perhaps your just confused??? Christians believe in GOD and country. Its unfortunate that most of you left wing loons only believe in the latter…..
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:14 pm
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-charlton-heston-my-cold-dead-hands
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:14 pm
Morality: I am not against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the insane and children. There are already laws on the books to enforce that. Start by actually ENFORCING the law. When is Obama going to start enforcing the laws on the books instead of picking and choosing what HE wants to enforce?
Part of the gun commission recommendations are exactly that, which the President has the latitude to act without Congress on. Will you oppose those actions meant to enforce the existing law more strictly if they come from Obama’s executive powers?
And, once that is all done, are you going to say that’s ALL that needs to be done? Are you going to give him any credit for doing it, since right now you’re clamoring for it?
20 to 1 odds that you turn around and act like he’s overstepping his authority when he does EXACTLY what you suggest.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:14 pm
“We are absolutely helpless to stop gun violence. Therefore, we should create bigger and better weapons and make them easier to get.”
And once again that ever-present slippery slope makes it’s appearance.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:14 pm
what is it like 1%-2% of gun crimes and deaths are caused by these assault rifles and i cap mags….but we’ll feel so much safer….you’re gonna reduce these incidents to .09%-1.5%?
Its a start kitty.
The Saturday Night Specials can go next.
Fred ™
January 15th, 2013
1:15 pm
Wow Fred no only is your response riddled with numerous grammatical errors it simply makes no sense… Please go back to bed…..
And yours is picture perfect? THAT is the best you can do? A grammatically incorrect response about my tyops?
Too funny. But typical. Southern Baptist right? First Baptist of……….. Snellville?
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:15 pm
I notice none of the “guns don’t kill; regulations don’t work; we don’t need to do anything; Obama hates the Constitution and wants to take all my guns” crowd on here has somehow avoided addressing one of Jay’s main points: that their group is in the distinct minority and the majority of Americans support the measures they oppose.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:16 pm
Doggone: And what laws would YOU reccommend that would END such atrocities?
Saying we need to END the atrocities and that no law that does not have 100% success at ENDing the atrocities should even be considered is QUITTER TALK.
It;s also right along the same logic path as “We need common sens gun control laws” being the same thing as “OMG CONFISCATION!!!!”
Or that because the stimulus didn’t completely fix every economic ill in the world that means it never should have been done in the first place and is a 100% failure.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:16 pm
So we should ban cars to then if I use your reasoning. Guns are not just used for killing
What else are they used for ?
Absolutely ridiculous argument.
BTW you have to register your car. Why not your guns ????
Erwin's cat
January 15th, 2013
1:17 pm
In all seriousness, a reduction of gun violence on the scale that other nations have had is admirable and enviable
Russia has 1/10 the guns and 4 times the murder rate…admirable and enviable
you don’t need guns to kill..
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:17 pm
I asked a simple question and yet to find and coherent answer.
Why do we need new gun laws when we already have hundreds on the books that aren’t being enforced?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:18 pm
Doggone: That’s not slippery slope. It’s a hyperbolic representation of arguments made by gun nut conservatives.
How about this one, which is an ACTUAL argument: “We are helpless to stop gun violence. Therefore, we should arm teachers and have armed guards in schools.”
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:19 pm
“rowd on here has somehow avoided addressing one of Jay’s main points: that their group is in the distinct minority and the majority of Americans support the measures they oppose”
We’re too stupid to understand their “logic”?
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
1:20 pm
Fred, what do you have against us Baptists?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:20 pm
Erwin: Russia has 1/10 the guns and 4 times the murder rate…admirable and enviable
you don’t need guns to kill..
And note that I said a reduction in GUN VIOLENCE is admirable and enviable. Changing the actual murder rate take a culture shift. Changing the rate at which those murders happen by gun doesn’t only take a culture shift. Again, see other nations for proof. That murders still happen does not diminish my point.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:21 pm
“Saying we need to END the atrocities and that no law that does not have 100% success at ENDing the atrocities should even be considered is QUITTER TALK.”
I already know YOUR opinion, I was asking for the opinion of the person whom quoted.
cyril
January 15th, 2013
1:21 pm
If I were Prez for the day, there are 2 things that I would do for gun control. I’m sure there are a lot of others that I would do if able, but these seem doable to me.
1) Accept that the 2nd Amendment allows gun ownership (which I think Obama does), but then realize it does not necessarily require that access to bullets be provided. So I would ban the bullets for assault rifles. Make them available only for shooting at a firing range and not allowed off the premises. There is no valid reason to own such a weapon, but if you must, then it should be allowed only in a controlled environment.
2) I’d institute a clip “recycling” program, similar to the old glass coke bottles from when I was a kid. Any given household would be able to have X number of ammo clips. They could then buy more ammo only by recycling their old clip. This would help prevent someone from developing a massive arsenal of ammo.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:21 pm
Russia has 1/10 the guns and 4 times the murder rate…admirable and enviable
you don’t need guns to kill..
But it sure makes it easier.
Come at me with a knife and I’m going to kick your kitty tail.
With a gun its too easy.
Compared to the other western countries with strict gun laws.
They dont have near the problem we do.
You lose.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:21 pm
Christian Conservative: Why do we need new gun laws when we already have hundreds on the books that aren’t being enforced?
Because even if we enforce all the gun laws with extreme prejudice, there are still legal loopholes that are very easy to use to legally obtain weapons, and enforcement of murder laws always happens after the fact.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:22 pm
C. Conservative — “Why do we need new gun laws when we already have hundreds on the books that aren’t being enforced?”
Because given the realities of budget and manpower limitations, many of those already-extant gun laws can’t possibly BE enforced in the way that they’re written.
Which leaves us a choice:
1) Continue in the same way
2) Increase budget and manpower for law enforcement, particularly with respect to gun laws
3) Pass newer laws to supersede the old ones; ideally laws that require less resources and manpower to enforce
I’m guessing that you don’t want #2, so that leaves us #1 and #3. Clearly #1 is unsatisfactory, which leaves us with only #3 — unless, perhaps, you have another option for folks to consider?
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
1:23 pm
I’m back after a Jay-imposed day-long exile.
I see that td is not here; if he were, I would apologize to him, specifically, for losing my temper yesterday.
However, I owe the rest of the regulars here a similar apology, and I hope you’ll accept it, along with my promise to steadfastly avoid name calling and personal insults in the future.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:23 pm
cyril: I’d institute a clip “recycling” program
Cue the It’s not a clip it’s a MAGAZINE!!!” semantic mud in the water argument.
Wilbur
January 15th, 2013
1:23 pm
Since the liberals are ok giving up our constitutional rights for no real improvement in security or safety, maybe they will be ok with registering their friends and associates with the government since bad company is a driver of crime. May be they will be ok only going to state approved churches since some churches might teach unhelpful doctrine. Maybe they will be ok with getting their language approved in advance so that they don’t run afoul of some one’s feelings and thereby create violence.
A crazy man shot up a school. It’s not a reason to deprive a hundred million Americans of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Seizing our rights by executive order is the action of a tyrant..
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
1:23 pm
Why do we need new gun laws when we already have hundreds on the books that aren’t being enforced?
Can you name one of these “hundreds” of laws that isn’t being enforced? There’s plenty of laws that don’t have a 100% or even a 50% enforcement rate, like ones against identity theft. That doesn’t mean additional laws to prevent that crime are worthless.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:24 pm
Uh Huh….We Are Gunning for Change
January 15th, 2013
1:04 pm
@Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
12:58 pm
Why are new gun laws necessary? Don’t we already have hundreds of them on the books already? I’d like an answer from any lib on here please….
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Being a “CHRISTIAN” you should now WHY we need new gun laws.
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.
LET US NOT FORGET: The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims:
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
20 children, 6 teachers dead
That is why we need NEW GUN LAWS
Connecticut has gun laws….didn’t stop a deranged killer…..and here’s a news flash. No law will ever stop a deranged killer.
Erwin's cat
January 15th, 2013
1:24 pm
That murders still happen does not diminish my point.
you have a point?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:24 pm
JHM: Don’t kid yourself. What they want is “Continue in the same way.” Because… Well BECAUSE!
Because to keep the status quo is conservative, consequences be damned.
resno2
January 15th, 2013
1:24 pm
Fred. Does he not own a home in Chicago? Was he not a Senator FROM Chicago? Did he not actually live in Chicago before he moved to DC? When did he last live in Hawaii? Does he own a home there? Where is the lie? And where/what is the attempted smear?
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:24 pm
“enforcement of murder laws always happens after the fact”
Think about what you just said. How do you enforce a law against murder…when no murder has been committed?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:25 pm
cyril — “2) I’d institute a clip “recycling” program, similar to the old glass coke bottles from when I was a kid. Any given household would be able to have X number of ammo clips. They could then buy more ammo only by recycling their old clip. This would help prevent someone from developing a massive arsenal of ammo.”
Perhaps you’re thinking about ammo *boxes?*
Usually, for a weapon requiring a clip or magazine, one or two are included with the weapon at purchase. You don’t receive more mags when you purchase ammunition.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:25 pm
You don’t need guns to kill. Wow. Really. You mean you could use a car or a hammer or even a ladder. Fine. Take away the guns and give the former gun owners one care, one hammer and one ladder and let them storm the schools.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:25 pm
Erwin: you have a point?
Yes and I’m not surprised you
missedpretended to miss it.Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:26 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
What else are they used for ? Protection, Target practice, sporting clay’s, marksmanship, training,
I think your logic is ridiculous
BTW you have to register your car. Why not your guns ????
Legal gun purchases are already registered. You think we’ll be able to get criminals to register their guns too?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:26 pm
Doggone: Think about what you just said. How do you enforce a law against murder…when no murder has been committed?
You don’t, and you missed my point. I was providing an explanation as to why simply allowing current laws to be enforced, such as those relating to murder, isn’t enough.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:26 pm
Gun Homicides 2012
Australia 30
Canada 173
Denmark 15
France 35
Ireland 21
Japan 11
U.S. 9,146
Wanna know the difference between all those developed non third world countries and us ?
THEY HAVE STRICT GUN LAWS
Class Dismissed.
Trolls Bane
January 15th, 2013
1:27 pm
Some rather inconveient facts :
The US has the most firearms per capita ( 88 per 100 people). However, our homicide rate where guns were used is 3.7 per 100,000. Almost twice as many people committed suicide using a firearm at 6.1 per 100,000 as murders. See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Additionally, according to wikipedia, the intentional homicide rate per year for the US is 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants — see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate. This is virtually the same as countries such as Cuba, Belarus, and Thailand.
So, can someone please explain, how the US being the most heavily armed nation doesn’t have more people getting murdered with guns than say Brazil with 8 guns per 100 residents?
Please keep in mind, a valid comparision is homicide rate per 100,000 and not the total number killed.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:27 pm
Adam — “JHM: Don’t kid yourself. What they want is “Continue in the same way.” Because… Well BECAUSE!”
Hey, if that’s what he wants, fine. Let’s just see him admit it.
Otherwise, if he says he wants improvements, then it’s either new laws or more resources. I bet I know which one he’d pick.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:27 pm
Cheesy Grits
[[ So we should ban cars to then if I use your reasoning. Guns are not just used for killing
What else are they used for ?]]
Wounding.
They’re used for wounding.
Which is why these mighty defenders need 30-round clips.
hey there, stands, welcome back!
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:27 pm
What else are they used for ? Protection, Target practice, sporting clay’s, marksmanship, training,
In other words.
Simulated killing
Gotcha
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
1:27 pm
You want another example? The ATF is forbidden by federal law to create a computer database allowing its agents to trace ownership of guns used in a crime. The search has to be done manually, in a time-eating process of phone call after phone call, and sifting through boxes of paper records. That’s because in its infinite paranoia, the NRA insists that a computerized system would violate the Second Amendment by making it easier for the government to go door to door, confiscating the 180 million weapons estimated to be in private hands.
Such legal proscriptions do not occur in a vacuum, nor are they solely the fault of the NRA. We have a representative government that is supposed to do the bidding of the people. The people, clearly, do not believe such proscriptions are valid, and it is shameful that any Congress or Administration allowed such things to exist in the first place.
But, it’s never too late to do the right thing.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:28 pm
TaxPayer: You mean you could use a car or a hammer or even a ladder. Fine. Take away the guns and give the former gun owners one care, one hammer and one ladder and let them storm the schools.
Analogies sort of fall apart when given this test, don’t they?
Name me ONE long distance efficient lethal and legal weapon that isn’t a gun. GO.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:28 pm
rightwingextreme:
That is why we need NEW GUN LAWS
Connecticut has gun laws….didn’t stop a deranged killer…..and here’s a news flash. No law will ever stop a deranged killer.
The libs won’t be able to understand this because they, themselves are deranged..
GT
January 15th, 2013
1:29 pm
Seems to me that the right should be as acceptable to alternative life styles as they are to guns. Why can’t we just learn to live together, you have your weirdness and they have theirs. You both are in a vast minority and you both turn the majority off about an equal amount. What the gay’s need is a stronger lobby, and it could be first cousins to the NRA.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
1:29 pm
“I was providing an explanation as to why simply allowing current laws to be enforced, such as those relating to murder, isn’t enough.”
And again I ask you to THINK about what you’ve said. Anything you can say about current laws is going to apply to ANY law passed in the future. Laws that are against ANYTHING are not intended, or expected, to prevent such actions. They are to define the punishments that can be used when someone breaks them. That’s ALL they can do.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:29 pm
Okay. I suppose we can allow gun owners to commit suicide with their own guns and not charge them with anything so long as their guns and ammo are secured after the fact.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:29 pm
However, I owe the rest of the regulars here a similar apology, and I hope you’ll accept it, along with my promise to steadfastly avoid name calling and personal insults in the future.
What you did was not that egregious. Just bad timing on your part after Jay issued a generic yellow card to the entire blog. Any other time, I imagine he would’ve just pulled your post and yellow carded you specifically.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:30 pm
Legal gun purchases are already registered. You think we’ll be able to get criminals to register their guns too?
Since most guns used in crimes are purchased legally.
Yeah probably.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:30 pm
Trolls Bane: So, can someone please explain, how the US being the most heavily armed nation doesn’t have more people getting murdered with guns than say Brazil with 8 guns per 100 residents?
A good question, but we’re not attempting to solve the problem of murder overall by addressing the gun problem. If you want to address murder, you have to look deeper. And you have to fund research on the subject. And you have to fund whatever proposals that would work that come out of that research.
But the point is that we should not take the fact that murder still happens as a reason to allow people to perform murders more easily.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:31 pm
“Most gun owners far more reasonable that the NRA”
Jay, you need to seriously hire a proofreader. You’re about as bad as Cynthia Tucker used to be.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:31 pm
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:05 pm
indigo
“None of you cons seems willing to say what you truly seem to fear.
If I understand you correctly, you fear:
1. The Government will nullify the 2nd ammendment and then take away all your guns.
2. Then, jack-booted troops will come into every city and town and impose a harsh Obama Socialism.
Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.
Ask the Indians(native Americans)…..
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany….
Ask the Poles when occupied by Nazi Germany….
Ask the folks in the former Soviet Union….
Ask the folks in North Korea…..
Ask the folks in Cuba…..
Ask the folks in Cambodia…..
Ask the folks in a the Sudan….
Ask the folks in Mali….
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:32 pm
Since the liberals are ok giving up our constitutional rights for no real improvement in security or safety…
Not intended to be a factual statement.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:32 pm
And I’m still good with letting the gun owners have their hundred round magazines for their cars and hammers and aluminum ladders. No hundred round magazines for fiberglass or wooden ladders though because they will jam every time.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:32 pm
Christian Conservative: No law will ever stop a deranged killer.
Unproven tripe. Implied causation at best to back this up. There is no way to prove or disprove that a murder spree did or did not happen because of law or lack of law.
What we CAN show is that reducing gun availability ON A NATIONAL LEVEL (border controls, people) reduces crimes committed by guns.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:32 pm
Connecticut has gun laws….didn’t stop a deranged killer…..and here’s a news flash. No law will ever stop a deranged killer.
The libs won’t be able to understand this because they, themselves are deranged..
No its you that doesn’t get it.
And you never will sadly.
Gun laws wont stop every violent act.
Just like tough DUI laws dont stop every DUI fatality.
But they cut them in half.
Cant we at least try to do that.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:34 pm
I’m sorry, sir, but if your carry-on bag won’t fit in the overhead compartment, we will have to check it for you.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16526584-18-human-heads-shipped-from-rome-held-up-at-chicago-airport?lite
What’s the chance they’ll end up at that place in Alabama where they sell off unclaimed luggage?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:34 pm
“But they cut them in half.”
Guess you haven’t heard of Chicago.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:34 pm
The sickening thing is Oblama is going to trot out children to try and push his anti-gun agenda……
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:34 pm
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany….
Ask the Poles when occupied by Nazi Germany….
Ask Godwin’s Law.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:35 pm
Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.
Ask the Indians(native Americans)…..
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany….
Ask the Poles when occupied by Nazi Germany….
Ask the folks in the former Soviet Union….
Ask the folks in North Korea…..
Ask the folks in Cuba…..
Ask the folks in Cambodia…..
Ask the folks in a the Sudan….
Ask the folks in Mali….
Take cover dude. The black helicopters are on the way.
Get your tin foil hats ready !!!!
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:35 pm
And to make matters even worse, President Obama is not even planning on financing the construction of a death star. How are we supposed to take out hostile alien planets without it!
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
1:35 pm
It’s not a reason to deprive a hundred million Americans of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Seizing our rights by executive order is the action of a tyrant.
Habeus corpus, Mr. Bush?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:35 pm
“support a ban on assault weapons”
1: WHAT IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON?
2: We had a ban in the 90s and it did not curb gun crimes.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
Hi back atcha, Paul.
About something godless heathen posted earlier to wit:
That representation of a 223 beside a 22 rimfire cartridge is about the stupidest misrepresentation I have seen in a long time.
I agree that the text accompanying the pic was dumb. If one’s objective were, as KUTGF had stated, to merely display the difference between those two cartridges, it’d make more sense to provide some other picture (or, perhaps, to simply link the photo and skip the descriptive text.)
However:
The clear implication of the ad was that the 22 rimfire was a “hunting” cartridge
I might be picking nits, but that was not an “ad”, it was a simple copy/paste from someone’s Facebook entry, posted to a moveon.org page.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.
Ask the Indians(native Americans)…..
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany….
Ask the Poles when occupied by Nazi Germany….
Ask the folks in the former Soviet Union….
Ask the folks in North Korea…..
Ask the folks in Cuba…..
Ask the folks in Cambodia…..
Ask the folks in a the Sudan….
Ask the folks in Mali….
Many of the groups you cite had guns at the time. Even the Jews in Germany, against the laws of the time (which were instituted pre-Hitler, btw) had guns and fought back in one particular instance. Nearly all died.
See, what you don’t get is CRIMINALS (or in this case totalitarian regimes) don’t CARE whether you have guns or not, they’re coming after you whether it’s difficult or not. And they will win.
Native Americans had guns too. Not when we first got here, but around the 1800s they were as heavily armed as any regular U.S. citizen. They still got whalloped.
Want me to go through some more history for you, or have you had enough?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
Guess you haven’t heard of Chicago.
drudgey has.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:35 pm
Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.
Ask the Indians(native Americans)…..
Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany….
Ask the Poles when occupied by Nazi Germany….
Ask the folks in the former Soviet Union….
Ask the folks in North Korea…..
Ask the folks in Cuba…..
Ask the folks in Cambodia…..
Ask the folks in a the Sudan….
Ask the folks in Mali….
Take cover dude. The black helicopters are on the way.
Get your tin foil hats ready !!!!
Easy for you to say as we live in the relative comfort and safety of the United States. You move to one of the aforementioned countries and you would beg for a means to fight back.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
The sickening thing is Oblama is going to trot out children to try and push his anti-gun agenda……
The really sickening thing is you will let more of them die
Instead of doing something
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
The sickening thing is Oblama is going to trot out children to try and push his anti-gun agenda……
He wouldn’t really show their bullet ridden corpses, would he.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:37 pm
Kamchak
So have all the dead people in Chicago.
Try again.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:37 pm
Adam:
What we CAN show is that reducing gun availability ON A NATIONAL LEVEL (border controls, people) reduces crimes committed by guns.
Not true. Look at Switzerland, Finland and Sweden….
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:37 pm
“The really sickening thing is you will let more of them die”
Not meant to be a factual statement.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
1:37 pm
Name me ONE long distance efficient lethal and legal weapon that isn’t a gun. GO.
That scruffy dude on The Walking Dead does pretty good with a crossbow. I wouldn’t want to be a zombie near him.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:38 pm
Guess you haven’t heard of Chicago.
Yes, Chicago, where you can drive out 15 minutes and buy a gun and bring it back and no one will inspect your belongings on entry or exit.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:38 pm
C. Grits, quoting someone else: “Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.”
I suspect that HAD the AJAs (Americans of Japanese Ancestry) decided to “fight back” in 1942, a bunch of brave Uhmurkin Patriots would have taken it on themselves to shoot every person of Asian descent they could find.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:39 pm
Aquagirl: Pretty sure a crossbow is illegal. Also of note, it’s impossible to conceal and there is no such thing as a magazine for it. A lot less efficient.
Sagegirl
January 15th, 2013
1:39 pm
Sandy Hook was a tragedy. But there’s more that needs to be considered. Everyday 87 people die in gun related incidents. That’s 600 people a week. 30,000 a year. Domestic violence, robbery, car jacking, home invasion, disputes among friends are, and retaliation… just a handful of reasons where guns are involved. Guns have been the answer for generations. There’s 300 M guns in our country. People have access. It’s too easy to pull the trigger. It’s a societal problem.
There’s also the fine line between sane and insane. Someone who is sane and legal and owns a gun on Monday may not be as sane on Tuesday. It happens that quick. People snap. So do they snap and get a gun or do they get a gun and then snap?
We can only guess.
.
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
1:39 pm
A new survey from Pew finds that, by a 2-1 margin, Americans support putting armed guards in the nation’s schools. 64% support the proposal, first floated by the NRA, against just 32% who oppose it. Even this proposal, though, has a partisan tinge to it. 62% of Democrats support the idea, but Independents are slightly less favorable, at just 59% support. 73% of Republicans, however, support the policy.
Adam, you’ve constantly harped on this issue….so, are 64% of America AND 62% of Democrats wrong? Personally, I hate that our great country has gotten to the point that this is part of the conversation…
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 15th, 2013
1:39 pm
Well, ain’t nothing wrong with using some common sense about firearms. I mean, I got a 4-year-old in the trailer and it might be bad news if he got hold of one of my machine guns or the anti-tank weapon. So I carry around the bolts for the machine guns and the firing thing-a-magig for the anti-tank weapon. Maybe when he’s a couple years older I can let him try them out, but for right now I ain’t taking no chances.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:39 pm
1: WHAT IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON?
Only conservatives (deliberately) don’t know the answer to this one. They think they win by bringing up semantics.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:39 pm
Enter your comments here
td
January 15th, 2013
1:39 pm
You progressives are such idiots and do not have a clue about guns. I hunt with a 30.06 and have a 20 round clip. My 30.06 looks nothing like the bushmaster and is therefore not on any current list to be banned. The 30.06 is way more lethal then the .223 round and is more accurate at a longer distance.
This whole argument about what weapons to ban is nothing more then a feel good argument again just like raising taxes on the rich did nothing to reduce our deficit problem was a feel good measure for the poor. It is sad how you progressive fall for this BS.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:40 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:36 pm
The sickening thing is Oblama is going to trot out children to try and push his anti-gun agenda……
The really sickening thing is you will let more of them die
Instead of doing something
When dimlibs start caring about the unborn child who is truely defenseless person, then I’ll believe dimlibs give a rat’s behind about child safety. Planned Parenthood admitted to murdering 300,000+ unborn childern this year.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:40 pm
Adam — “there is no such thing as a magazine for it”
Au contraire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow
Mamouian
January 15th, 2013
1:40 pm
This guy Adam… He seems to live here and know everything. Wow, impressive…
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:40 pm
rightwingextreme
You know, you really don’t do much for the ‘my group really is sane’ argument when you post
“Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.”
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:40 pm
“where you can drive out 15 minutes and buy a gun ”
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Looks like another ignorant poster who knows NOTHING about Illinois law.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:41 pm
“Only conservatives (deliberately) don’t know the answer to this one. ”
And libs can’t answer the question.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:41 pm
DIA — “A new survey from Pew finds that, by a 2-1 margin, Americans support putting armed guards in the nation’s schools.”
Provided somebody else pays for it?
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:41 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:38 pm
C. Grits, quoting someone else: “Gee, i don’t know…ask the Japanese Americans in 1942 what a government can do when you don’t have a means to fight back.”
I suspect that HAD the AJAs (Americans of Japanese Ancestry) decided to “fight back” in 1942, a bunch of brave Uhmurkin Patriots would have taken it on themselves to shoot every person of Asian descent they could find.
Nice dodge on the point.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:42 pm
A new survey from Pew finds that, by a 2-1 margin, Americans support putting armed guards in the nation’s schools. 64% support the proposal
An even greater majority supports an assault weapons ban.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:42 pm
Christian Conservative: Not true. Look at Switzerland, Finland and Sweden….
All those countries do is show that gun availability that is tightly controlled can ALSO have a reduction in gun crimes. But it does NOT show that “reducing gun availability reduces gun violence” is untrue. You have committed a formal logical fallacy.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:42 pm
“Planned Parenthood admitted to murdering 300,000+ unborn childern this year.”
They don’t count because libs don’t think they’re real human beings.
td
January 15th, 2013
1:42 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:39 pm
1: WHAT IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON?
Only conservatives (deliberately) don’t know the answer to this one. They think they win by bringing up semantics.
Please explain it to us? Like I said below my semi auto 30.06 is more lethal then the AR-15 and it is not even being discussed.
Seriously Folks
January 15th, 2013
1:42 pm
Sooo…the Second Amendment is sacred and canNOT be infringed upon…because our fore-fathers were worried about government tyranny… I have said this before…CONTEXT…yes, our Constitution is an amazing document, but it was written in a time when we were under constant threat of being a very short lived experiment and imminent threat from abroad and at home. Also, I seem to remember that there was a mass “confiscation” of armaments after the Civil War (or as most of you refer to as “The War of Northern Aggression”)…
So my question to those “constitutional scholars” on here…are you prepared to tell every African American and female in this country that their “second amendment right” is not valid?? I mean, seriously..you all refer to it in its original form, but you DO realize the CONTEXT was in a time when people who make up over 50% of our current population (women) and 40% (minorities) were considered second class citizens without a vote or voice…
Given the “passion” of some of the posters, I would shudder to think your stances on extending those rights for womens suffrage, civil rights movements…oh wait..nevermind…all it will take is a blog on “gay marriage” for you to show how “inclusive” you like your constitution!!!!
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
1:43 pm
Not true. Look at Switzerland, Finland and Sweden….
Let’s look at Switzerland (and Israel.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/
The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.
For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.
Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.
The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.
Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:43 pm
“An even greater majority supports an assault weapons ban.”
What’s an assault weapon?
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
1:43 pm
“That’s a nice piece of reasoning, but given that Congress possesses the power to *call out, control and regulate* the militia (this being the same militia as that noted in the 2A), I think you’d have a hard time defending that position.”
At the time of the writing and ratification of the 2nd Amendment, the militia in view is a state militia (as evidenced by the very language of the amendment itself). Indeed, until the 20th century, the bulk of the US military was comprised of state militias.
“When one also considers that advocating or conspiring to overthrow the government of the US by force is a Federal felony, I think your construction falls flat on its face. It’s rather hard to argue that there’s a Constitutional right to do something that’s a felony at the same time.”
I can only refer you to the Declaration of Independence. What the same people who drafted and ratified the Constitution did was conspire and fight to overthrow the British government. Are you arguing that these same men would claim such an act was no longer permissible, that they had turned into hypocrites? Secondly, are you saying that the many statements we have pertaining to the right to bear arms for defense of one’s person and possessions and against tyranny by our “founding fathers” have no bearing on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:43 pm
Pretty sure a crossbow is illegal.
Owning one is not illegal, but there are certainly restrictions for their use in hunting, generally along the lines of being disabled.
In Ga. there are no restrictions beginning in 2003.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:43 pm
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:42 pm
“Planned Parenthood admitted to murdering 300,000+ unborn childern this year.”
They don’t count because libs don’t think they’re real human beings.
Very true….and they can’t be used as props in a photo opp like bammy’s gonna use tomorrow.
td
January 15th, 2013
1:43 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:42 pm
A new survey from Pew finds that, by a 2-1 margin, Americans support putting armed guards in the nation’s schools. 64% support the proposal
An even greater majority supports an assault weapons ban.
What is an assault weapon?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:43 pm
Adam
Because even if we enforce all the gun laws with extreme prejudice, there are still legal loopholes that are very easy to use to legally obtain weapons, and enforcement of murder laws always happens after the fact.
What loopholes? Please if your going to make a statement explain yourself. Just because you say loophole certainly don’t mean its true.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
1:43 pm
Aquagirl: Pretty sure a crossbow is illegal.
Well $#!^, there go my plans for the Zombie Apocalypse.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:44 pm
Statistically speaking you are far safer with no guns in your house.
But you could never convince the NRA nuts of that.
More guns = More gun violence
Its pretty simple.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:44 pm
“Please explain it to us? Like I said below my semi auto 30.06 is more lethal then the AR-15 and it is not even being discussed.”
WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!
There is NO such thing as an assault weapon. It’s another “phrase” like “war on women.”
ANY gun can be considered an assault weapon.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
1:44 pm
Armed guards at every single school in this republic is so preposterous, it is beyond amazing that ostensibly intelligent adults have even suggested it.
Why?
What is the logical conclusion?
Armed guards at every place of business, commerce, entertainment, house of worship, organization, government building, park, transportation station and everywhere else where people could possibly be at danger for a lunatic with a huge arsenal.
Look, I know you American Nazis want a police state, but this ain’t the answer. It is terrible joke…
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:45 pm
Use Spellcheck please: WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Looks like another ignorant poster who knows NOTHING about Illinois law.
1) Show me any other person who was ignorant of Illinois law here
2) Go ahead and educate me? Or are you just blowing smoke out your ass? What Illinois State law are you talking about?
And libs can’t answer the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.
Cue the “Wikipedia can’t be used because I SAY SO” WAAAAAHMBULANCE moving of the goal posts at warp nine, but what you CANNOT say anymore is that I couldn’t answer the question.
Checkmate.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:45 pm
“More guns = More gun violence”
Blame Hollywood and video games.
ugafan13
January 15th, 2013
1:45 pm
Go to a gun show and buy from a dealer and you will go through a background check. Private sales on the other hand require no check. By the way more murders are committed with hammers and bats than guns. NY just made criminals out of their citizens for owning a mag that holds more than 7 rounds. Where does it stop? I have no objection to background checks and requiring all sales to go through an FFL holder.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:46 pm
“Planned Parenthood admitted to murdering 300,000+ unborn childern this year”
aaannnnddd… the attempt at being a Roman Catholic theologian comes up again…..
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
1:46 pm
While there would be exceptions in the Moonbat ranks, make no mistake the goal of their coalition is to ban guns. Jay and others here may not join that position, but if the Liberal machine could take all the guns, they would.
The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Statements from the Left on not banning hunting guns are a red herring. We do not need anymore gun laws or bypassing the Constitution with executive orders. A gun is an inantimate object.
Obama is a snake. Don’t ever doubt it. Don’t believe what he says, watch what he does. He’s also the lowest form of scum as President I have seen in my 66 years surpassing the lying Bill Clinton Have doubts about that – show me one other who has stooped to the level of involving children in trying to sell the trampling of the Constitution?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:46 pm
This whole argument about what weapons to ban is nothing more then a feel good argument…
Robert and Mary Schindler say, “What?”
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:46 pm
R. W. Extreme — “Nice dodge on the point.”
Nice lack of historical knowledge on your part.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:46 pm
“Show me any other person who was ignorant of Illinois law here”
YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDUCATE YOURSELF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:46 pm
There were armed guards at Columbine.
This whole more guns makes you safer is one of the dumbest arguments on record.
If guns made you safe America would be the safest place on Earth.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:47 pm
“an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms.”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:47 pm
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:46 pm
“Planned Parenthood admitted to murdering 300,000+ unborn childern this year”
aaannnnddd… the attempt at being a Roman Catholic theologian comes up again…..
aaannndddd you would be so wrong. Just a plain ol’ Christian.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:47 pm
Christian Conservative: What loopholes? Please if your going to make a statement explain yourself. Just because you say loophole certainly don’t mean its true.
Private sellers are not required to do background checks. Firearms manufacturers are still allowed to build and sell assault rifles. People are still allowed to purchase them legally and then sell or give them to anyone else privately, according to a loophole in the law that says they are required to intend NOT to do that, but can change their minds nanoseconds after acquiring the weapon, and can’t be prosecuted.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
1:48 pm
“All those countries do is show that gun availability that is tightly controlled can ALSO have a reduction in gun crimes. But it does NOT show that “reducing gun availability reduces gun violence” is untrue. ”
Let’s not “cherry pick” our evidence. I think Brazil, for instance, demonstrates how gun control fails.
moonbat betty
January 15th, 2013
1:48 pm
We need to get medieval on their ass.
In addition to controls on assault riffles, any perp in possession of illegal weapons shall have their hands lopped off with dull hedge clippers on msnbc.
If we get enough hands off the streets, they can no longer do any harm.
sfd,
I was sad to see Jay ban you and I forgive you. Thanks for being a man and jumping on the grenade for “the cause”.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:48 pm
Adam doesn’t know anything about Illinois law so he goes and finds a fake definition of an assault weapon.
Hilarious.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
1:48 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:46 pm
R. W. Extreme — “Nice dodge on the point.”
Nice lack of historical knowledge on your part.
ok..i’ll play….where am i bereft of historical knowledge on this point?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:48 pm
Use Spellcheck please: Blame Hollywood and video games.
Will you blame the NRA shooting game app too?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yuck it up, child
I answered your asinine question.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:49 pm
moonbat betty
Most people who commit violent crimes are democrat voters. Why else would Hillary want felons to vote?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:49 pm
Use spellcheck please: Adam doesn’t know anything about Illinois law so he goes and finds a fake definition of an assault weapon.
Neither do you. Or you would have cited the state law that proves me wrong.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:49 pm
“Will you blame the NRA shooting game app too?’
No, because more people watch violent movies than download that app.
Try again.
moonbat betty
January 15th, 2013
1:49 pm
DEPORT GUNS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS NOW!!!
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
1:49 pm
Blame Hollywood and video games.
Wrong.
Blame the people who are addicted to them and gleefully spend zillions of dollars a year on that glorified violence and filth
If there was no market for them, they would not be so gargantuanly popular. The reality is that people are easily manipulated and Madison Avenue knows it and capitalizes on it.
People need to quit looking for bogeymen and look in the mirror.
Oscar
January 15th, 2013
1:50 pm
Don’t see anything illegal about requiring gun manufactureres and dealers from keeping lists of serial numbers of guns and names of purchasers and making those lists available to law enforcement personel.
Or the law forbiding the state or feds from keeping a data base could be changed
Sounds like it’s time for one of those thinges to be done
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:50 pm
A con shoulder fires (in a very remote and unpopulated region) his newly constructed fully automatic 0.700 caliber elephant rifle with 50-round magazine. In what position is the con after 10 seconds, 30 seconds and one minute? What did he hit as opposed to what the bullets hit during each time interval? Please submit a YouTube video in support of your claims to ajc.com in care of Jay for our viewing pleasure.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:50 pm
Most people who commit violent crimes are democrat voters.
Eric Robert Rudolph says, “What?”
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:50 pm
Use spellcheck please: Most people who commit violent crimes are democrat voters
Prove it.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
1:50 pm
I used to spend a fair amount of time with Swiss folks (business.) I’d been told that, basically, while the govt. did arm a lot of its citizens (due to their membership in a kind of army reserve), that the govt. — quoting a former colleague — “knew where every bullet was kept.”
The relevant wiki page seems to back this up–emphasis mine:
Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.[11]
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:50 pm
“Neither do you.”
I posted a wiki page of Illinois gun laws. Not my problem if you’re illiterate.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:51 pm
Towncrier: I think Brazil, for instance, demonstrates how gun control fails.
Have you examined what they did differently than the other nations?
Erwin's cat
January 15th, 2013
1:51 pm
Just like tough DUI laws dont stop every DUI fatality.
But they cut them in half.
No they didn’t. traffic fatalities as a whole was cut in half over the same period.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:51 pm
“If guns made you safe America would be the safest place on Earth.”
That was great, Cheesy Grits.
moonbat betty
January 15th, 2013
1:51 pm
“Blame the people who are addicted to them and gleefully spend zillions of dollars a year on that glorified violence and filth”
Absolutely,
Unbelievable parents use this crap as a baby sitter.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:51 pm
“Blame the people who are addicted to them and gleefully spend zillions of dollars a year on that glorified violence and filth”
yeah, Hollywood.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:51 pm
Adam
All those countries do is show that gun availability that is tightly controlled can ALSO have a reduction in gun crimes. But it does NOT show that “reducing gun availability reduces gun violence” is untrue. You have committed a formal logical fallacy.
No it shows that if the general public realizes that most folks are packing then violent crime will certainly drop. Think about this sport. Would you take a stroll in the woods if you know that bears may be there?
You have committed a form logical idiocy.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
1:52 pm
By the way more murders are committed with hammers and bats than guns.
Why do people with UGA in their handle have to embarrass the university so badly? I really wish UGA would start suing these people for misrepresentation of having a brain.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:52 pm
“People need to quit looking for bogeymen and look in the mirror.’
I agree with that.
td
January 15th, 2013
1:52 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:47 pm
What is a assault rifle? Tell me why my semi auto 30.06 is not an assault rifle and a AR-15 is?
moonbat betty
January 15th, 2013
1:53 pm
“If guns made you safe America would be the safest place on Earth.”
or you could also turn around and say:
If guns were outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
1:53 pm
rightwingextreme
“aaannndddd you would be so wrong. Just a plain ol’ Christian.”
So… you ready to test how consistent your views are compared to say, the consistency of the Roman Catholic church, on this matter?
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:53 pm
No, because more people watch violent movies than download that app.
People watch violent Hollywood movies in Japan too
Funny though they dont have a problem
Its not movies. Its the guns
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
1:53 pm
I was sad to see Jay ban you
Thanks. But–I think we can all agree he was correct to do so.
He’d just posted “cease all personal insults” and then I went and posted a personal insult.
(It hardly mattered that I didn’t see Jay’s post prior to my hitting “submit”–ignorance is no excuse.)
Oscar
January 15th, 2013
1:53 pm
Don’t know that psychotic killers vote much
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
1:53 pm
I really wish UGA would start suing these people for misrepresentation of having a brain.
Word.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:53 pm
Use spellcheck please: Yes and nothing in the Illinois law says that a person cannot exit Chicago, go 15 minutes out, legally purchase a firearm, and then illegally transport it back because there is no enforcement stopping them. Which is the exact point I was making. So it looks like you’re the one who is ignorant of Illinois state law.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
1:53 pm
I’m wondering what folks are going to make of Oblama using children as props for his gun control push… He did it for Obamacare… The public is still souring over that….
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:53 pm
“I really wish UGA would start suing these people for misrepresentation of having a brain.”
?
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
1:54 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:39 pm
1: WHAT IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON?
Only conservatives (deliberately) don’t know the answer to this one. They think they win by bringing up semantics.
When you can’t or refuse to answer the question, yes. How is NY defining an assault weapon as one that has a pistol grip, bi-pod or bayonnet mount going to keep anyone safe?
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
1:54 pm
Sockpuppet meat you are so gutless, you will always blame someone else. – the hated gubment, Hollywood, the schools, your mommy and daddy.
YOU and I are the problem.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:55 pm
“Yes and nothing in the Illinois law says that a person cannot exit Chicago, go 15 minutes out,”
You have to have a FOID card to buy a gun in Illinois. To buy one, you go through an extensive background check, can not have a criminal record etc.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:55 pm
“Sockpuppet meat you are so gutless, you will always blame someone else. ”
You mean like when your side blames the NRA for criminals who buy/steal guns illegally?
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
1:56 pm
“So, can someone please explain, how the US being the most heavily armed nation doesn’t have more people getting murdered with guns than say Brazil with 8 guns per 100 residents?”
I don’t think you will receive an explanation here. It is, as you say, an “inconvenient fact” (as you see with Adam’s deflection).
moonbat betty
January 15th, 2013
1:56 pm
define “arms”
am I allowed to bare my pythons?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:56 pm
When you can’t or refuse to answer the question, yes. How is NY defining an assault weapon as one that has a pistol grip, bi-pod or bayonnet mount going to keep anyone safe?
1) I answered the question
2) That is a new question, and moving the goal posts
3) The ANSWER to your question (which you may have just skipped in preference for knee-jerk reaction to my number 2 point) is that guns of those types will become less available. Partly because millions of potential customers will not be buying.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
1:56 pm
I’m wondering what folks are going to make of Oblama using children as props for his gun control push…
Alot less than your type doing nothing and dooming more of them to die.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:57 pm
Towncrier
Adam deflects because he doesn’t know Illinois law. You can NOT go 15 mins outside the city and buy a gun.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
1:57 pm
Make my day.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:57 pm
Towncrier — “At the time of the writing and ratification of the 2nd Amendment, the militia in view is a state militia (as evidenced by the very language of the amendment itself).”
Disagree. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to call out, regulate and provide for the militia. That’d be the same militia mentioned in the 2A, unless you have a cogent argument to the contrary.
“I can only refer you to the Declaration of Independence. What the same people who drafted and ratified the Constitution did was conspire and fight to overthrow the British government.”
All very well, but you appear to be arguing that the American Constitution grants a right to overthrow the *American* government, not the *British* colonial government.
“Are you arguing that these same men would claim such an act was no longer permissible, that they had turned into hypocrites?”
Not at all. I’m pointing out that the Founders didn’t see any *right* to armed revolution, at least one that they ever addressed as a Constitutional one. They spoke of it many times as being a *duty,* and there are isolated instances of it being referred to as a “right,” but never in a Constitutional manner or in any kind of explicit, documented way. Again, it seems illogical for us to have a “right” to do something that’s a felony. If we had a right to it, then wouldn’t David Koresh’s followers have a hell of a case against the federal government? How about Tim McVeigh?
“Secondly, are you saying that the many statements we have pertaining to the right to bear arms for defense of one’s person and possessions and against tyranny by our “founding fathers” have no bearing on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?”
I’m saying that the 2A speaks to membership in a duly constituted and regulated *militia.* And as far as personal ownership of firearms is concerned, I don’t believe the 2A was written or intended to support such a right. Such a right appears in at least two *state* constitutions or statements of rights (VA and PA) during the Colonial period, so if the Founders had wanted such a Federal right, then IMO they’d have put it in there. FWIW, I think the best one can logically do is to argue that personal ownership of firearms is an *unenumerated* right, and/or that states could explicitly grant it themselves. I don’t have any problem with the right being elaborated upon in either of those ways, and as you know, I’m a gun owner myself.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
1:57 pm
“I answered the question”
No you didn’t.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:58 pm
With all the people asking what an assault rifle is or what an assault weapon is, I assume they are not gun owners. I also assume they are repeating a semantic question on cue from some right wing talk radio or other “news” source. Too many saying it verbatim.
Scooter
January 15th, 2013
1:58 pm
Nothing like being lectured about gun control by an administration that supported Operation Fast and Furious.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
1:58 pm
“Have you examined what they did differently than the other nations?”
Have you? The burden of proof is upon YOU, my friend – since YOU are the one who wants to ban guns and trample upon a long standing right of “the people”.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:59 pm
Use spellcheck please: “I answered the question”
No you didn’t.
Yes I did, for everyone to see. You may not like the ANSWER, but it was an ANSWER, nonetheless.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:00 pm
Adam:
Private sellers are not required to do background checks. How is it possible for any law to prevent this. Do you honestly think someone will be willing to go to all the trouble of filling out tax papers and all the other ridiculous regulations that would go along with this? So I, as an individual should have to get a background check for a friend I’ve known my whole life so you libs will sleep better at night.
Firearms manufacturers are still allowed to build and sell assault rifles. This is called Capitalism.
People are still allowed to purchase them legally and then sell or give them to anyone else privately, according to a loophole in the law that says they are required to intend NOT to do that, but can change their minds nanoseconds after acquiring the weapon, and can’t be prosecuted. Refer back to question #1…..
Jay
January 15th, 2013
2:00 pm
BTW, I apologize for the semi-garbled post, which has been fixed. I’ve been working on a column for tomorrow’s dead-tree edition of the AJC, and didn’t notice that I had left some of my notes on the post. We don’t have editors for these blogs, which can bite you on the rear at times.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:00 pm
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
1:39 pm
I agree with guards but they can be counted on to perhaps address class skippers and oversee fire drills but have not proven to be effective in preventing anything of magnitude.
How on earth can anyone compare controls on drunk drivers to controls on gun ownership? I know Jay did but IMO his comparison exhibited no relevance. The numbers aren’t comparable…drunk drivers to gun owners, the medium is not comparable, and one is an intentional act versus versus an altered unintentional consequence.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:00 pm
Go ahead guys, keep asking question after question after I answer your first questions, as though you are actually accomplishing something. Spin your wheels
Go hamsters, GO! Make sure to pick up your per-blog-post paycheck so you can pay momma for renting out her basement. 
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
2:01 pm
Someone wants to ban guns! Really! Wow! No wonder the conned are so conned.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:01 pm
“Yes I did, for everyone to see. You may not like the ANSWER, but it was an ANSWER, nonetheless.
No you didn’t. You deflected to a wiki article about fake assault weapons. Nothing about Illinois law and what it says.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:02 pm
Christian Conservative: Private sellers are not required to do background checks. How is it possible for any law to prevent this. Do you honestly think someone will be willing to go to all the trouble of filling out tax papers and all the other ridiculous regulations that would go along with this?
Hence: gun registration upon non-private seller purchase.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:02 pm
R. W. Extreme — “ok..i’ll play….where am i bereft of historical knowledge on this point?”
Many Americans at the time *wanted* the AJAs locked up or deported, and were suspicious of the loyalties of AJAs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Non-military_advocates_for_exclusion.2C_removal.2C_and_detention
Given that kind of sentiment against the AJAs, what do you HONESTLY think would have happened if they had engaged in some sort of organized, armed resistance?
IMO, it would have been the AJAs against the US military and every other American with a firearm.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:02 pm
“We don’t have editors for these blogs, which can bite you on the rear at times.”
You have a degree in Journalism which requires you to know how to edit your own papers. Not sure why you’d have to have an editor for “THAT and THAN.”
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:03 pm
ADAM,
Being the smartest guy in the room stirs up jealousies..I know exactly how you feel. Commoners think its easy being us…we both know that is a montrous fallacy..:-)
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
2:03 pm
YOU are the one who wants to ban guns and trample upon a long standing right of “the people”.
Hysterical pro-gun people are half the reason gun control is looking like a good idea.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:03 pm
Poor Jay…. Even his most ardent supporters are no longer engaged…. I remember back before the election he would have pages of comments. Of course only from the handful of libs here in Georgia though….
td
January 15th, 2013
2:03 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:57 pm
The quote below is from the actual founder that wrote the 2nd Amendment. Do you think he knew what his intent was?
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…
—George Mason
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:04 pm
Handguns kill far more people than assault rifles. Why not ban them????
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:04 pm
Use spellcheck please: You deflected to a wiki article about fake assault weapons. Nothing about Illinois law and what it says.
Here is your question:
1: WHAT IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON?
Note the suspicious LACK of anything related to Illinois law in the question.
And no, the article isn’t about “fake” weapons. It’s a definition. Just like you asked for. You don’t have to LIKE it, but it’s an answer to your question. Which, as I just pointed out, has nothing to do with what any state or other law says. Your question was pretty open ended. Better luck next time.
Check mate again, buddy.
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
2:04 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:56 pm
Adam, remove the pistol grip, bi-fold and bayonnet mount (the actual bayonnet is already illegal, I think) and you still have the gun! Grips, rests and mounts don’t kill people. Just because it looks “intimidating” doesn’t make it more or less dangerous. I’ve never looked down the barrel of an AR or any other weapon, but, I’m pretty damn sure I’d be intimidated regardless of whether it had a scope, laser sight or any other accessory.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
2:05 pm
Seriously Folks
January 15th, 2013
1:42 pm
Sooo…the Second Amendment is sacred and canNOT be infringed upon…because our fore-fathers were worried about government tyranny… I have said this before…CONTEXT…yes, our Constitution is an amazing document, but it was written in a time when we were under constant threat of being a very short lived experiment and imminent threat from abroad and at home.
I could make that argument that we are still under constant threat from abroad and especially at home……
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:05 pm
Stevie Ray: Being the smartest guy in the room stirs up jealousies..I know exactly how you feel. Commoners think its easy being us…we both know that is a montrous fallacy..:-)
Hehe I got a kick out of that, thanks Stevie.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 15th, 2013
2:07 pm
really wish UGA would start suing these people for misrepresentation of having a brain.
Well, sort of reminds me of the story about the genius that went to see a head doctor about being so lonely. He explained to the doc that his IQ was so high most people wouldn’t talk to him. He was lonely all the time. The doc says, “I have great news for you. I’ve just invented a machine that will lower IQ. But I have to warn you that you can’t reverse the effects.”
So the genius thinks about it awhile and tells the doc he wants to be hooked up to get his IQ lowered so that he can be normal.
The doc hooks him up and turns on the machine. The needle starts at 190 and starts going down real slow. Just then a fight breaks out in the waiting room and the doc rushes out to break it up. Then he realizes he’s plumb forgot about the patient hooked to the machine. He rushes back in and the needle is hovering around 2.
He slaps the patient and says “For God’s sake, speak to me!”
The patient says, “Go You Hairy Dawgs!”
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
Adam:
Christian Conservative: Private sellers are not required to do background checks. How is it possible for any law to prevent this. Do you honestly think someone will be willing to go to all the trouble of filling out tax papers and all the other ridiculous regulations that would go along with this?
Hence: gun registration upon non-private seller purchase.
Hence: Would this have stopped the Sandy Hook Massacre?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
“Note the suspicious LACK of anything related to Illinois law in the question.”
Poor Adam, he deflects once again.
td
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:00 pm
Go ahead guys, keep asking question after question after I answer your first questions, as though you are actually accomplishing something. Spin your wheels
So in other words you can not tell us why my Semi auto 30.06 is not as assault weapon but the AR-15 is then my 30-06 has the same capacity and is more lethal.
Seriously Folks
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
CC…”So I, as an individual should have to get a background check for a friend I’ve known my whole life so you libs will sleep better at night.”….
So, I, as an individual who knows to “dudes” who love each other should have to have your blessing so they can have a life together, so you cons can sleep better at night knowing the “radical gay agenda” wont come and “change” you or your kids??
see how this “individualism” crap you Cons spew kinda goes both ways (sorry to all those bisexual people out there that may have just been offended!!!)
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
DownInAlbany: I’ve never looked down the barrel of an AR or any other weapon, but, I’m pretty damn sure I’d be intimidated regardless of whether it had a scope, laser sight or any other accessory.
And that’s because you’re a sane person who lives within the bounds of most law and has a sense of self preservation.
Sane does not equal being able to make good arguments, however.
The point of the law there was not because those things look more intimidating. It is because they make it easier to kill. They also make it more efficient to kill, and that’s another reason magazines are limited in the same law.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:09 pm
Adam claimed that you can just walk into any store in Illinois, 15 mins outside, and buy a gun. Adam doesn’t know what Illinois law says so he deflects attention away when confronted.
Please tell me what Illinois law says about gun purchases.
moonbat betty
January 15th, 2013
2:09 pm
“Handguns kill far more people than assault rifles. Why not ban them????”
Those will be next.
Isn’t New York going to ban clips over 7 rounds?
How did they come up with “7″?
Is that the threshold of being considered a mass murder?
Hell, why didn’t they just set the limit to single shot if they want to limit fire power…
See where some of these gun control nuts are headed?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:10 pm
Christian Conservative: Hence: Would this have stopped the Sandy Hook Massacre?
1) Is the Sandy Hook Massacre the only massacre with guns to have ever taken place?
2) Misuse of the word hence
3) Not by itself
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:10 pm
Seriously Folks:
So now your talking a homo’s? Go figure….
lovelyliz
January 15th, 2013
2:10 pm
The NRA are lobbyists for the gun manufacturers for whom they care much more about than the needs and opinions of gun owners
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:11 pm
Use spellcheck please: Adam claimed that you can just walk into any store in Illinois, 15 mins outside, and buy a gun.
That’s not what I said. Go back and learn how to comprehend.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:11 pm
Adam:
You didn’t answer my question…
Hence: gun registration upon non-private seller purchase.
td
January 15th, 2013
2:12 pm
The ATF and the FBI killed more children at Waco then were killed at Sandy Hook.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:12 pm
Adam:
So I’ll answer for you. Hell no it wouldn’t have stopped it…..
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:12 pm
Adam wrote: Yes, Chicago, where you can drive out 15 minutes and buy a gun and bring it back and no one will inspect your belongings on entry or exit.
So Adam, I confronted you over that statement and you have yet to show proof that you can go outside of Chicago in Illinois and just BUY a gun.
check. mate.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:12 pm
“That’s not what I said. Go back and learn how to comprehend.”
“Yes, Chicago, where you can drive out 15 minutes and buy a gun and bring it back and no one will inspect your belongings on entry or exit.”
So what did I miss?
Seriously Folks
January 15th, 2013
2:12 pm
CC – Tell you what, you want government out of your Gun Drawer, then keep them out of peoples drawers!!! simple enough…
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
td — “The quote below is from the actual founder that wrote the 2nd Amendment. Do you think he knew what his intent was?”
Inapplicable. Pennsylvania was, as I said, one of the *two* colonies/states that *explicitly* enshrined a PERSONAL right to own firearms at the state level. Mason’s opinion clearly informs the Pennsylvania law.
Again, back when I was teaching Con Law, students who caught on fastest were the ones who figured out that arguing that firearm ownership could be incorporated as a right at the *state* level or that it could be argued as an *unenumerated* right were more fruitful lines of argument. Arguing that the 2A says this — no, it doesn’t — yes it does — no it doesn’t — gets us nowhere.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
well, since the zealots won’t address the points in Jay’s column, how about a direct question?
Anybody here opposed to changing the law that prohibits ATF from compiling a database of ownership of guns used in crimes?
If so, why?
And…. anyone here opposed to limiting or eliminating ammo sales thru the internet? If so, why?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
“The ATF and the FBI killed more children at Waco then were killed at Sandy Hook.”
B
O
O
M
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
Adam:
Still waiting…..
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:14 pm
Christian Conservative: You didn’t answer my question…
Yes I did, in my point number 3. Which you hastily ignored, as I expected.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:14 pm
“If so, why?”
Because said info can/will be released to the general public and criminals will know whose house to break into and get guns.
Thanks for playing.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
“Still waiting….”
As am I.
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
Kamcheck I really wish UGA would start suing these people for misrepresentation of having a brain.
Word
Can I get an AMEN Brother!
Paul
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
lovelyliz
“The NRA are lobbyists for the gun manufacturers for whom they care much more about than the needs and opinions of gun owners”
Yeah, but many of the zealots we hear from don’t recognize they’re being used as pawns. And a collective cash cow.
indigo
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
rightwingextreme – 1:47
What about all the thousands of spontaneous abortions(miscarriages)that occur every week?
Who is responsible for all those murders?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
Seriously Folks:
You have serious problems sport… Now go back to bed with your same sex partner or get on board with what this debate is all about…
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
Spellcheck — “So what did I miss?”
You said “store.” Adam didn’t.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
Use spellcheck please: Yes, Chicago, where you can drive out 15 minutes and buy a gun and bring it back and no one will inspect your belongings on entry or exit.
If you read an comprehend, you will notice I did not say that the person wouldn’t have to wait and didn’t have to have a license and didn’t have to go through a background check.
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
2:16 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
The point of the law there was not because those things look more intimidating. It is because they make it easier to kill. They also make it more efficient to kill, and that’s another reason magazines are limited in the same law.
I could maybe see the pistol grip making it more efficient, but, a bayonnet mount or bifold? Maybe the bifold….if you are the shooter on the grassy knoll
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:16 pm
“You said “store.” Adam didn’t.
So what was Adam suggesting? Where “15 mins outside of Chicago” was he talking about?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:16 pm
Adam:
Poor fellow…. Nothing you mentioned would have stopped what happened at Sandy Hook. So what exactly is the point in passing new laws???
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:17 pm
“If you read an comprehend, you will notice I did not say that the person wouldn’t have to wait and didn’t have to have a license and didn’t have to go through a background check.”
Dude, you can buy guns illegally ANYWHERE in the USA. Geez, be more specific in your comments.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:17 pm
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:11 pm
Adam:
You didn’t answer my question…
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
Adam:
Still waiting…..
You sure are impatient. And you seem to have missed that I answered your question:
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:10 pm
3) Not by itself
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
2:18 pm
Kamcheck I really wish UGA would start suing these people for misrepresentation of having a brain.
Credit where credit is due: Aquagirl made the original assertion.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:18 pm
Remember when the federal government tried to outlaw alcohol?
How’d that work out?
td
January 15th, 2013
2:19 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
“Again, back when I was teaching Con Law, students who caught on fastest were the ones who figured out that arguing that firearm ownership could be incorporated as a right at the *state* level or that it could be argued as an *unenumerated* right were more fruitful lines of argument. Arguing that the 2A says this — no, it doesn’t — yes it does — no it doesn’t — gets us nowhere”
It appears that Heller has made it pretty clear that your (most progressive law school profs) were wrong in interpreting the 2nd Amendment. Since Heller there has been quiet a few lower court opinions that have expanded Heller and made it even clearer that our founders intent was that 2nd Amendment was a clear personal right and not a right of the state.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:19 pm
Every time the federal government “outlaws” something it never works.
Prostitution, guns, drugs, etc….
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:20 pm
Hammers don’t kill people. People kill people.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:20 pm
Adam:
Honestly Adam when will you fruits realize that any supposed new gun laws Oblama will propose does nothing to curtail crime. Do you really think criminals care about any of this? I’m sure they would be on board for a full bore gun ban.. That way we would be all sitting ducks….. new laws will only affect law abiding citizens. Libs really don’t care it seems….
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:21 pm
Conservative Christian: Nothing you mentioned would have stopped what happened at Sandy Hook.
Stricter gun control laws regarding assault weapons (see earlier posts for definitions) and mental health checks, and requiring background checks regardless of purchasee, and having a public awareness campaign and having mental health availability for all and so on, together, would have prevented it.
Along with the mall shooting that happened 2 days prior.
Or the Aurora shooting that happened.
Or the Columbine shooting.
Or the CA school shooting that happened last week.
etc etc. on and on regarding all the ones you seem to forget.
Go ahead and try to parcel out each individual component as though I suggested any one of them working alone would have worked. Spin your wheels
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:21 pm
Spellcheck — “So what was Adam suggesting? Where “15 mins outside of Chicago” was he talking about?”
You’re going to have to get with him on that. I’ve only been to Chicago twice; both times for business meetings in swanky hotels. I did not note the presence of any firearms merchants in the areas where I happened to be.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:21 pm
td
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
I’m struggling to understand why anyone who opines on this topic needs advanced education in what guns can kill multiples of humans or other living creatures all in the frame of a few seconds…
Too bad we can’t get rid of handguns….I must be an anomoly as I don’t see the need for guns or the need to kill anything. My home is adequately protected by perimeter lighting and…well locks on the door. Its the most effective means of prevention….
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:22 pm
Use spellcheck please: Every time the federal government “outlaws” something it never works.
Prostitution, guns, drugs, etc….
Murder, stealing, speeding….
What’s your point?
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
2:22 pm
In related and sickening news: “the gub’mints gonna grab my GUNS” conspiracy theorists are harassing a man who took in children after the Sandy Hook shooting.
Loons.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-155033813.html
indigo
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Drugs don’t kill people. People kill people.
Alchohol doesn’t kill people. People kill people.
Tobacco doesn’t kill people. People kill people.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
For example, the Govt. should stop this war on tobacco! I’ts my RIGHT to keep and smoke as much as I want, anywhere I want. And, it’s my right to have any drugs I want, as much as I want. And, if the Govt. intefers in any way with my drug buying, they are VIOLATING my constitutional rights.
Guns, drugs, tobacco, I have a constitutional RIGHT to buy as much and as many as I can afford.
Of course, if a logical and legal argument can be made against unlimited drug posession, maybe we should have enforced gun laws too.
Seriously Folks
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
CC – Cute. Sorry dude, but neither gay nor ignorant. The headline is about how most owners are reasonable..most of your posts are about 2nd amendment not stopping anything..and how its a “slippery slope” leading to government taking all the guns or how none of this would have stopped anything..
judging by your handle, your proclaim to be a “christian conservative” and hence want as little bit of the government in your life, correct??
I find it astounding however, that folks like you have no problems screaming “government take over” and conspiracies about guns…but when it comes to abortion or telling who can marry, then its all about “stopping them.” individuals rights be damned!
so tell me, “Christian” conservative, who has the “serious problem” sport?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Adam:
3) Not by itself
How about not at all? Since you and people like you are exploiting the Sandy Hook Massacre for passing new gun laws shouldn’t they be specifically designed to prevent such a tragedy? Not just something pulled out of thin air simply because you don’t like it…..
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Christian Conservative: Do you really think criminals care about any of this?
A criminal is, by definition, someone who breaks the law. Saying that we shouldn’t have a law because criminals break laws is therefore a tautological, and therefore useless, argument.
Unless you are against living in a law based society. Then it might be useful to make your point to support that goal.
TBone
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Guns are really bad … when the scumbags have ‘em and you don’t. If you don’t want to take measures of personal protection that is your call but don’t make that call for me and my family.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:24 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:21 pm
Sorry, I see none of those tactics a practical or effective. Another thing to bear in mind is that the odds of any school being assualted in any given day is so remote it’s not likely credibly calculated.
Only high probability tactic is to keep the bad guys out or otherwise deter them to other targets…sad but true..
td
January 15th, 2013
2:24 pm
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:21 pm
If the 2nd Amendment was only about hunting or protection then maybe you might have a point but you my friend should do a little research as to the original intent of the amendment.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:25 pm
“You’re going to have to get with him on that. ”
And he won’t answer it. Just deflections.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:25 pm
Christian Conservative: How about not at all? Since you and people like you are exploiting the Sandy Hook Massacre for passing new gun laws shouldn’t they be specifically designed to prevent such a tragedy? Not just something pulled out of thin air simply because you don’t like it…..
How many kids would Adam Lanza have killed, and how many bullets would be in each kid, if he didn’t have the Bushmaster? All other things equal.
You don’t have to answer, it’s rhetorical. But it illustrates the point of how that component would have helped, and you add the rest of what I suggested and there is a much greater chance of prevention.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:25 pm
“What’s your point?”
If you don’t know what my point was then you really have reading comprehension problems. My point was in the sentence that I wrote. You really are struggling.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:26 pm
Adam:
Columbine happened during an assault weapons ban…. What about all the handgun murders in Chicago? Shouldn’t we ban handguns to prevent this?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:26 pm
” Every time the federal government “outlaws” something it never works.”
The point is in the point, Adam.
Granny Godzilla
January 15th, 2013
2:26 pm
Chrisitan Conservative…
If cars are as dangerous as guns, what th ehell does one need a gun for?
Run that deer down big fella!
Regnad Kcin
January 15th, 2013
2:26 pm
“Guns are really bad … when the scumbags have ‘em and you don’t. If you don’t want to take measures of personal protection that is your call but don’t make that call for me and my family.’
Fine – just carry liablility insurance so if YOUR gun does damage to MY family, you’re covered. Any problem with that? You do it with your car, which is also likely to do damage.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:27 pm
Laws are great for keep law abiding citizens in check. Not so much for the criminals.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:27 pm
Use spellcheck please: “You’re going to have to get with him on that. ”
And he won’t answer it. Just deflections.
You never asked about what I meant. You just assumed.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:28 pm
Adam:
How many people would Timothy McVeigh have killed, and how many holes would be in each person, if he didn’t have access to explosive material? All other things equal.
“You” don’t have to answer, it’s rhetorical. But it illustrates the point of how that component would have helped, and you add the rest of what I suggested and there is a much greater chance of prevention.
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 15th, 2013
2:28 pm
Sorry Aquagirl, I should have credited you for that but was too lazy to go back and find the original.
td, the difference between your 30-06 and an AR-15. One is for hunting and one is for killing people. Both can be used in areas that they were not intended but then again so can anything else. I get the feeling that you did not need the reinforcement of your manhood when you bought the 30-06 but I am positive that the two people I know personally that own AR-15s are so insecure and lacking in self confidence that they feel much more manly now that they own a “real” assault weapon so they can defend themselves when the Obama led UN troops start arriving.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:28 pm
“You never asked about what I meant.”
So could you please elaborate on what you wrote?
td
January 15th, 2013
2:29 pm
indigo
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Drugs don’t kill people. People kill people.
Alchohol doesn’t kill people. People kill people.
Tobacco doesn’t kill people. People kill people.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
For example, the Govt. should stop this war on tobacco! I’ts my RIGHT to keep and smoke as much as I want, anywhere I want. And, it’s my right to have any drugs I want, as much as I want. And, if the Govt. intefers in any way with my drug buying, they are VIOLATING my constitutional rights.
Guns, drugs, tobacco, I have a constitutional RIGHT to buy as much and as many as I can afford.
The right to own guns is the only Constitutional right you have, The others are not protected by the Constitution.
As far as I am concerned, you can smoke as much as you want, drink as much as you want or eat as much as you want as ling as I do not have to pay for the results of your behavior.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:29 pm
Adam:
How many kids would Adam Lanza have killed, and how many bullets would be in each kid, if he didn’t have the Bushmaster? All other things equal.
You don’t have to answer, it’s rhetorical. But it illustrates the point of how that component would have helped, and you add the rest of what I suggested and there is a much greater chance of prevention.
By the way the same argument could be used for alcohol. If we banned it how many lives could we save?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:29 pm
“If cars are as dangerous as guns, what th ehell does one need a gun for?”
Ask the military, policemen, bodyguards etc.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:29 pm
Use spellcheck please: If you don’t know what my point was then you really have reading comprehension problems
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!
Look at this child’s attempt to turn words back around. What a joke!
Your point is moot. Having laws is about living in a law based society. If you’re really going to make the argument that 100% prevention is the only reason to have a law, then you have basically said no laws should exist.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:30 pm
” If we banned it how many lives could we save?”
Ask Al Capone.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:30 pm
TBone
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Couldn’t disagree with that…you should be allowed to continue the 240 year or so freedom like others. Just seems that some of the reasons for having guns get a bit dramatic. And I will never be of the opinion that any of the laws being contemplated now will be able to remotely prevent any mass shootings we have witnessed..
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
2:30 pm
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:26 pm
Adam:
Columbine happened during an assault weapons ban…. What about all the handgun murders in Chicago? Shouldn’t we ban handguns to prevent this?
If Feinstien, Cuomo and Obama had their way that is exactly what would happen…..except they would retain armed body guards for themselves.
Remember the dimlib mantra: Laws for thee, but not for me!
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
2:30 pm
Sorry Aquagirl, I should have credited you for that but was too lazy to go back and find the original.
Oh, so you’re a UGA grad too?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:30 pm
I’m personally for an all out gun ban period! What do you libs think about that?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:31 pm
“Look at this child’s attempt to turn words back around.
Ok, so I’m dealing with pure ignorance here. People who have to resort to saying things like “look at this childs blah blah blah” are not smart people.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:31 pm
Christian Conservative: “You” don’t have to answer, it’s rhetorical. But it illustrates the point of how that component would have helped, and you add the rest of what I suggested and there is a much greater chance of prevention.
Exactly. And you know what? Now people can’t do that anymore because the buying of the materials the way McVeigh did is heavily regulated. Had the law been in place beforehand, he wouldn’t have had the explosives.
So thanks for helping me make my point
Krystal'sBalls
January 15th, 2013
2:31 pm
NRA – great firearms safety and related courses. Does it represent or me though or line up with my philosophy? Absolutely not.
I gladly tossed out a membership application and donation request a couple weeks ago. I do not subscribe to the idea of my President being some tyrant who is attempting to install some sort of dictatorship and deliberately place the country in turmoil for some sinister purpose. We were closer to that in the last administration than this one could ever dream of reaching, though it was not so even in that case. Extreme paranoia and agendas just do not do it for me personally…from any direction.
I believe in what I believe, and that is that I place me and my family’s safety above all things. As such I don’t need anyone who wishes to be upset that I own whatever legal firearm I purchased with MY money to do so. By the same token, I don’t need a crackpot mentality from the other side that refuses to employ any level of logic and reason once the realm of ridiculousness has been entered. I will forever be an individual in that (and many) regards.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
2:32 pm
Jay – How are NEW gun laws going to keep CRIMINALS from obtaining guns? Criminals don’t buy guns where they have to get a back ground check. That’s just common sense.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:32 pm
td — “It appears that Heller has made it pretty clear that your (most progressive law school profs) were wrong in interpreting the 2nd Amendment.”
One, who said anything about profs?
Two, Heller came some years after I completed my graduate studies.
Three, the aim of the class was to help students *reason out* a coherent, logical argument for their positions, not to take a position favored by any particular political groups. So long as a student’s argument and reasoning held together as a coherent package, then the student received a good grade.
“Since Heller there has been quiet a few lower court opinions that have expanded Heller and made it even clearer that our founders intent was that 2nd Amendment was a clear personal right and not a right of the state.”
IMO, it’s worth pointing out that the majority in Heller had to *ignore* the language of the 2A in order to arrive at its decision. One wonders if some ‘judicial activism’ was taking place on the right side of the bench. At any rate, FWIW, my position is congruent with that of the dissenters in the 5-4 decision:
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenting_opinions
td
January 15th, 2013
2:33 pm
Robert Lee – Cogito ergo zoom
January 15th, 2013
2:28 pm
Sorry Aquagirl, I should have credited you for that but was too lazy to go back and find the original.
td, the difference between your 30-06 and an AR-15. One is for hunting and one is for killing people. Both can be used in areas that they were not intended but then again so can anything else. I get the feeling that you did not need the reinforcement of your manhood when you bought the 30-06 but I am positive that the two people I know personally that own AR-15s are so insecure and lacking in self confidence that they feel much more manly now that they own a “real” assault weapon so they can defend themselves when the Obama led UN troops start arriving.
It is legal to hunt with the AR-15 in at least a dozen states. The 30.06 was originally a military caliber gun prior to the M-16.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:33 pm
” McVeigh did is heavily regulated. ”
Libs gotta hold on to McVeigh and Rudolph because well, that’s all they have as examples.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:33 pm
Adam:
Exactly. And you know what? Now people can’t do that anymore because the buying of the materials the way McVeigh did is heavily regulated. Had the law been in place beforehand, he wouldn’t have had the explosives.
So thanks for helping me make my point
Not true… You may think so but all you need is a chemical applicators license and you can get enough material in a matter of months. Thanks for proving my point that libs who live in their mothers basement have no clue what goes on in the real world……
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
2:34 pm
“All very well, but you appear to be arguing that the American Constitution grants a right to overthrow the *American* government, not the *British* colonial government.”
I am saying that our founding fathers knew full well that they had revolted against what was at the time, THEIR government and would therefore hardly be in the position to condemn any such revolt against their newly formed government should it turn out to be equally oppressive. Otherwise, we can only conclude they were willful hypocrites.
“Not at all. I’m pointing out that the Founders didn’t see any *right* to armed revolution, at least one that they ever addressed as a Constitutional one.”
I believe there is an enumerated right to defense against tyranny, not to armed revolution per se. I have an enumerated right to speak freely – at any time and in almost any manner I wish, prompted or unprompted. I do NOT have a right to defend myself against harm when no harm is being perpetrated. See the difference I am making?
“Again, it seems illogical for us to have a “right” to do something that’s a felony. If we had a right to it, then wouldn’t David Koresh’s followers have a hell of a case against the federal government? How about Tim McVeigh?”
It is illogical. It is a felony to shot someone dead without justifiable cause. It is NOT a felony to shot someone dead in self defense. I don’t think either Koresh or McVeigh can be said to have been “justified” in their actions. That should be very clear from an examination of the evidence.
“I’m saying that the 2A speaks to membership in a duly constituted and regulated *militia.* And as far as personal ownership of firearms is concerned, I don’t believe the 2A was written or intended to support such a right.”
And I believe it is much more reasonable (given all of the supplementary historical evidence we have) to interpret the reference to a militia as but one (perhaps the most important) grounds or reasons for the right of individuals to bear arms. I think my point the other day about the bulk of the Constitution being drafted by ONE man explains, in part, the puzzling ambiguity we find in that document. No man expresses himself perfectly in words and Madison is no exception. What really puzzles me is that, given the number of really fine prose writers of the time, hardly anyone seems to have taken more than a passive role in “revising” Madison’s original text. Often all we find is his original words pared down, but not substantially revised. I find that very odd when people like Thomas Jefferson were right at hand. My suspicion is that this document was kind of Madison’s “baby” and most everyone let him “run” with it (particularly as far as phrasing things goes) – but that is my own thought at this point.
“Such a right appears in at least two *state* constitutions or statements of rights (VA and PA) during the Colonial period, so if the Founders had wanted such a Federal right, then IMO they’d have put it in there.”
Maybe they were satisfied that Madison’s text clearly implied that. It is hard to imagine them thinking it meant nothing of the sort and still ratifying the Constitution.
“FWIW, I think the best one can logically do is to argue that personal ownership of firearms is an *unenumerated* right, and/or that states could explicitly grant it themselves. I don’t have any problem with the right being elaborated upon in either of those ways, and as you know, I’m a gun owner myself.”
Well, that is of course the “end run” I guess everyone banks upon when it comes to rights. It is clearly an unenumerated right (having been practiced before and since the founding of our country).
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:34 pm
Use spellcheck please: So could you please elaborate on what you wrote?
One can purchase a gun from a source outside of Chicago, while going through a waiting period, requiring both a background check and a permit, if still in the state of Illinois, at a place where guns are sold. Then, once acquired, that person can bring it back into Chicago, which is against the law, but no one will stop him and search him unless he is suspicious on the road for other reasons or breaking other driving laws, and he is seen to be doing so by someone else. In this way, it is pretty easy for someone to simply get a gun into Chicago. In contrast with trying to get one into Japan, a separate nation with border controls, for instance.
Do I need to elaborate further?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:35 pm
Its really sad that dems/libs could care less about the average person and protecting them…
getalife
January 15th, 2013
2:35 pm
I like to unload clips as fast as I can to demolish the target.
It is fun
Shine
January 15th, 2013
2:35 pm
In the case of guns, religion,race, etc, the tyranny of the majority doesnt trump the Constitution. I agree with the NRA that the White House plans on guns are unacceptable and most liberal dems are outta their fricking minds.
Seriously Folks
January 15th, 2013
2:35 pm
CC – another thing. What is your solution? Or do you have one? I mean since ANY new restriction is an infringement, are we to just say, “nothing to see here” just another crazy person who got a hold of gun…”enforce” the laws..just make sure the agency that is responsible is without direction, has no means to enforce the laws and stays off my property
because the NRA and other “gun rights ” folks said that after Sandy Hook…but they also added, “GO BUY MORE GUNS BEFORE OBAMA TAKES THEM!!!!”….and all of Pavolov’s dogs hustled out, spend MILLIONS and slept in peace…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
2:35 pm
People who have to resort to saying things like “look at this childs blah blah blah”…
And how many times have you been banned from here under your various noms-de-blog for doing the exact same thing?
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:36 pm
What seems to be the beef with UGA grads? Heck I graduated at a time when a pulse was all that was necessary to get admittance. Oddly enough I actually have grads from much more impressive educational pedegree working for me..hope they don’t figure it out soon.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:37 pm
Christian Conservative: You may think so but all you need is a chemical applicators license and you can get enough material in a matter of months.
Yeah, right. “All you need” as though that makes it easy. How many people have done this since McVeigh? Again you make my point for me. It is indeed heavily regulated. Think it’s so easy? Try it!
Thanks for proving my point that libs who live in their mothers basement have no clue what goes on in the real world……
Seeing as I do not live in my mother’s basement (psychological projection text book example there) I have proven no such thing.
Checkmate, mate.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:37 pm
“And how many times have you been banned from here under your various noms-de-blog for doing the exact same thing?”
Zero.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:39 pm
“Do I need to elaborate further?”
Handguns were the only guns that you can buy in Illinois that are illegal in Chicago. Now that the SC overturned that ban the city can not impose that law.
Please read up on Illinois/Chicago law before you get called out.
Thanks
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:39 pm
Use spellcheck please: Ok, so I’m dealing with pure ignorance here. People who have to resort to saying things like “look at this childs blah blah blah” are not smart people.
I know you don’t realize it, but you’re displaying ignorance and also a complete lack of ability to form a good argument.
Pretending that you have somehow turned words around when you haven’t even used them properly shows something beyond mere ignorance, however.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:39 pm
Adam, you have to have a FOID card to buy a gun in Illinois. You also left that out.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
2:40 pm
Indigo – Stop with the silly logic already. By the way you do know that Obama has ordered the federal law enforcement not to enforce the federal laws on marijuana don’t you? The gub’ment is to inept to enforce the law, to enforce regulations and to protect us from muggings, murders, violent criminals and home invasions. They are to busy at Krispy Kreme.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:40 pm
“I know you don’t realize it, but you’re displaying ignorance and also a complete lack of ability to form a good argument.
The ignorance of Adam continues. Do you get off on getting into arguments with people on Jay’s blog? You’re really good at it.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
2:41 pm
“Anybody here opposed to changing the law that prohibits ATF from compiling a database of ownership of guns used in crimes?”
I see no reason to track which guns have been used in crimes. Seems reasonable. The database should be like PHI when it comes to ownership, I think (for obvious reasons).
“And…. anyone here opposed to limiting or eliminating ammo sales thru the internet?”
Not me – so long as there remained a competitive selling market in traditional shops (who wants to pay $100 for a single bullet?).
Kamchak - "Socialism" is just a code word for "fear," the monster under you bed ~ Kamchak
January 15th, 2013
2:41 pm
Zero.
Socialism — BOO!
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
2:44 pm
What seems to be the beef with UGA grads? Heck I graduated at a time when a pulse was all that was necessary to get admittance.
It’s not a beef with UGA grads (except for poking fun) I was just noting the correlation between dumb posts and having UGA in one’s handle. Maybe it’s Tech alumni on a disinformation campaign.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:44 pm
Kamchack, I’m not sure what that’s supposed to even mean but if you don’t believe me then ask Jay himself.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:45 pm
Use spellcheck please: Handguns were the only guns that you can buy in Illinois that are illegal in Chicago. Now that the SC overturned that ban the city can not impose that law.
Please read up on Illinois/Chicago law before you get called out.
OHHHH really? Well guess what?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0702/Chicago-passes-revised-gun-law-allowing-handgun-ownership
It prohibits gun shops within city limits
You were saying?
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
2:45 pm
“Hysterical pro-gun people are half the reason gun control is looking like a good idea.”
And people with poor reading comprehension skills are the ones who don’t realize that certain posters (like the one addressed in the quoted post) actually do want to ban guns. Water logged brains? Who knows.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
2:46 pm
Right after you confiscate the weapons from criminals we will talk about gun control. I will be waiting. BACK GROUND CHECK -yes. Gun control as the Dems want it – NO.
Kamchak - "Socialism" is just a code word for "fear," the monster under you bed ~ Kamchak
January 15th, 2013
2:47 pm
Kamchack, I’m not sure what that’s supposed to even mean but if you don’t believe me then ask Jay himself.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:48 pm
Adam, you have to have a FOID card to buy a gun in Illinois. You also left that out.
I did not. I referenced that right here: requiring both a background check and a permit
I ALSO asked if you wanted me to elaborate further, as I knew you would try to pick apart the words I was using.
I am happy to go through as many semantic rabbit holes as you like, until I get bored with your childishness 
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:48 pm
Adam
Yeah, right. “All you need” as though that makes it easy. How many people have done this since McVeigh? Again you make my point for me. It is indeed heavily regulated. Think it’s so easy? Try it!
Thanks for proving my point that libs who live in their mothers basement have no clue what goes on in the real world……
Seeing as I do not live in my mother’s basement (psychological projection text book example there) I have proven no such thing.
Checkmate, mate.
Poor little guy… Told a fact and he simply ignores it….
Living With Open Eyes
January 15th, 2013
2:49 pm
All you people opposed to a database for gun owners – don’t you know that most crooks bought their guns while they were still law abiding citizens. And as far as enforcing registration – just issue a decree giving existing gun owners 90 days to register for the new database, after that charge and convict non-compliant owners with a felony (including losing their “right” to own guns) when caught with a gun not on the registry. This can be easily enforced by game wardens checking hunters, police officers at shooting ranges and by monitoring ammunition sales.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:49 pm
“You were saying?”
SC overrides Chicago law. Not sure why you don’t understand that.
Harry Reid
January 15th, 2013
2:49 pm
Thank God that most murders are comitted by Democrats on Democrats! 500 Democrats murdered in Chicago last year! Your liberal press won’t report the facts!!
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:49 pm
Morality?: Gun control as the Dems want it – NO.
And what do Dems want, according to you? Before going further, please cite your response.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
2:49 pm
Since we’re now up to Page 6, I figured I’d post something incredibly off-topic, but near and dear to a lot of folks here.
Some weeks back we had a discussion about publicly funding football stadiums. I posted a message that said, basically, the game had peaked, that there will be more and more public revulsion over the physical damage done to its players and that, moreover, there’s no “fixing” this incredibly violent game.
A lot of people seemed to think I was nuts. Maybe I was.
anyway, I stumbled upon this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/junior-seau-had-cte/267025/#comment-762595076
…it’s just a comments-thread post wherein the contributor outlines some off-field and on-field changes that the NFL could make, to make the game a lot less nasty.
I’m going to paste the off-field stuff in this post, and the on-field stuff in a subsequent one, just so this doesn’t ramble for too long.
1) Off field changes
– Move to fully guaranteed contracts and expand rosters. Players would be more willing to sit if they know they won’t be cut off/replaced after being injured. And a larger roster would make it easier for a team to keep an injured players on the payroll.
– Full health coverage for players who played more than 3 years or suffered a career-ending injury.
– Robust mental therapy program for players transitioning into retirement (possibly make it a requirement for retired players seeking health care coverage).
– Doctors work for the league, not for the teams. And each doctor has a clear checklist on the sideline that a player must pass if they’re suspected of being concussed.
– Brain function tests at the start and end of every season, which are shared with the players at the start of training camp every year. Make sure their choice is as well-informed as possible.
– If a player suffers a concussion, they’re not allowed to play in the following week. If they suffer a second concussion, they have to skip two games. Any more, they’re forced to sit out the rest of the season.
– Add another bye week to the season, and either end Thursday night games, or schedule them in such a way that teams only play them when coming off of a bye week.
This is pretty mild stuff, actually. more to come…
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
2:50 pm
And continuing from my linked bit @ 2.49:
2) On field changes
– Make every offensive player an eligible receiver. Over the long term, I think this would reduce the size of linemen to TE sized players, and it’d eliminate a lot of the “in the trenches” hit a player takes over his career. It would also make the game more strategically complex, as defenses would have to guess who’s going out to receive and who’s staying to block. It’s a big break from tradition, but ironically, it’d make the sport much more similar to the way that it’s played by ordinary people in backyards around the country.
– Ban the 3-pt and 4-pt stance. Instead of firing into each other in a way where it’s impossible to avoid head-to-head contact, make offensive lineman line up in the way they often do already for pass plays, and make defensive linemen line up more like linebackers. There’d still be head to head contact, but it wouldn’t be as natural and inevitable.
– Experiment with different helmet materials. The history of the sport proves that helmets are needed (players regularly died on the field back before helmets were used), but they should experiment with materials that make leading with the head less likely. Maybe something closer to the leather helmets of old, or like the headgear boxers use when sparring.
(To fantasize for a moment about helmet technology: I don’t think they’ll ever be able to create a helmet to stop concussions, despite what NFL PR tries to tell us. But I’d like to see something that registers the amount of force taken by a player over the course of a game. And once it reaches a certain threshold, a player has to leave the game. Like it slowly turns red the more hits it takes, and once it’s glowing red, the player has to leave the game.)
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:51 pm
Use spellcheck please: SC overrides Chicago law.
Wow. I take it you didn’t even read the article: Let me help you:
The revised gun law effectively puts an end to Chicago’s controversial handgun ban, which was the last of its kind in the United States. On Monday, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that put the handgun ban into jeopardy.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
2:51 pm
Obama can talk gun control when he has an army of well armed security around to protect him and he will of course have tax payer funded armed protection around him for the rest of his life. By the way I do agree with that. However, we don’t have armed tax payer protection around us at all times – usually they are at Krispy Kreme getting the free donuts.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:52 pm
Conservative Christian: Poor little guy… Told a fact and he simply ignores it….
If by “ignores it” you mean “directly addresses each point made in the post.” then yeah, sure. I must have ignored it
Are you seeing this Joe Mama?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:52 pm
Towncrier — “I am saying that our founding fathers knew full well that they had revolted against what was at the time, THEIR government”
And yet they understood that they were not promulgating a document that would have any weight on that particular government.
“and would therefore hardly be in the position to condemn any such revolt against their newly formed government should it turn out to be equally oppressive.”
But lacking explicit standards, how can such a thing be judged? Aren’t we setting ourselves up for a long string of contentious judgment calls where people disagree vehemently?
“Otherwise, we can only conclude they were willful hypocrites.”
Much easier to recognize that no explicit *Constitutional* right of armed revolution exists.
“I believe there is an enumerated right to defense against tyranny, not to armed revolution per se. I have an enumerated right to speak freely – at any time and in almost any manner I wish, prompted or unprompted. I do NOT have a right to defend myself against harm when no harm is being perpetrated. See the difference I am making?”
Are you equating speech to armed revolution? In the face of “tyranny?” Come now.
“It is illogical. It is a felony to shot someone dead without justifiable cause. It is NOT a felony to shot someone dead in self defense. I don’t think either Koresh or McVeigh can be said to have been “justified” in their actions. That should be very clear from an examination of the evidence.”
I agree, but in the absence of clear standards, who are we as individuals to judge another person’s perception of tyranny? Ergo, it is more compact and logical to note the absence of an explicit right to armed revolution.
“And I believe it is much more reasonable (given all of the supplementary historical evidence we have) to interpret the reference to a militia as but one (perhaps the most important) grounds or reasons for the right of individuals to bear arms.”
This was my point from the other day and the point of the dissenters in Heller — there’s no language anywhere in the US Constitution that *explicitly provides* for any such right *distinct* from militia membership. Thus my argument that it would make more sense to argue it as an unenumerated right from that POV.
“Maybe they were satisfied that Madison’s text clearly implied that. It is hard to imagine them thinking it meant nothing of the sort and still ratifying the Constitution.”
I find the “implied” argument exceedingly hard to swallow; its supporters seems to be saying ‘well, if it were in there, they’d mean it, but they still mean it even though it isn’t in there.’ The language is either present or it is not, so from this POV, I think that it’s more efficient to have the right explicitly granted at the state level. POOF, Constitutional arguments largely dispensed with.
“Well, that is of course the “end run” I guess everyone banks upon when it comes to rights. It is clearly an unenumerated right (having been practiced before and since the founding of our country).”
Except in those states where it was specifically granted.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:54 pm
Adam:
I honestly wish that you would get out sometime in the real world. I don’t know if you do live in your mothers basement or perhaps in the heart of Atlanta but you simply have no clue. Passing frivolous laws just so you libs will feel better about yourselves will do nothing to stop senseless murders of innocent people……
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:54 pm
Obama can talk gun control when he has an army of well armed security around to protect him and he will of course have tax payer funded armed protection around him for the rest of his life.
Because the security needs of a regular average citizen that generally stays within local, state, or national limits and has no enemies to speak of is EXACTLY THE SAME as a person who is often cited as “the most powerful man in the world” and is hated by lots of criminals directly every day, as well as several out of country terrorists and so on when he travels abroad.
Living With Open Eyes
January 15th, 2013
2:54 pm
Ever noticed that gun owners want a million laws protecting them from everybody else and no laws protecting everybody else from them?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:54 pm
Adam:
Maybe you live in a van down by the river…. LOL.. JK…
curious
January 15th, 2013
2:55 pm
Since it is fairly obvious no gun control legislation will remove guns from irresponsible hands, does anyone have some suggestions how the murder rate can be reduced, especially among innocents?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:56 pm
Christian Conservative: Passing frivolous laws just so you libs will feel better about yourselves will do nothing to stop senseless murders of innocent people……
But passing a comprehensive set of laws and introducing public awareness campaigns, in addition to several other things I have suggested, all at once, will REDUCE the occurrences of gun violence.
Really. I never said any one law or set of laws would put a 100% full stop to gun violence. Even Japan has 11 gun murders per year.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
2:56 pm
Passing frivolous laws just so you libs will feel better about yourselves will do nothing…
Robert and Mary Schindler say, “What?”
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:56 pm
Christian Conservative: Maybe you live in a van down by the river…. LOL.. JK…
I LOVE that skit hahahahaha!
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:58 pm
“Ever noticed that gun owners want a million laws protecting them from everybody else and no laws protecting everybody else from them?”
No.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
2:59 pm
stands
“Since we’re now up to Page 6, I figured I’d post something incredibly off-topic,”
Well, I figured by Page 6 the gun nuts might actually address the topic.
Even tried laying out a couple simple questions directly related to Jay’s post.
These guys are really good at diversion. Tells me their entire case is baseless.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:59 pm
Looks like that is probably as far as I am willing to go for right now. I might be back later.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:00 pm
Guns are not going to get banned. There are over 80 million people in the USA with guns and even more with illegal guns. There are more states with pro gun stances than those with strict gun laws.
Ain’t gonna happen. Now lets talk about the Falcons game plan against San Fran.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:00 pm
I know the NRA spreads a bunch of money around but could it be that too much credence is given to them, particularly regarding “global” legislation attempts?
Imagine there’s no special interest cash…its easy if you tried, no guns point at us….
Gun owners like all other folks, have right to be represented…but what if no campaign cash was allowed to change hands? And what if lobbyist were limited to $250 spends per deal…
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:01 pm
“Well, I figured by Page 6 the gun nuts might actually address the topic.”
What’s a gun nut?
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
3:02 pm
I don’t wish to be a victim on the front page so I keep me a piece under the front seat of my car at all times. Enter at your own risk – insured by Smith & Wesson.
Halftrack
January 15th, 2013
3:02 pm
“common-sense approaches to gun safety than is the extremist organization that purports to represent their interests.” Why do you pick on the NRA. If ‘liberals” would have some common sense proposals a valid compromise could be possible, but they are as extreme as you think the NRA is. Our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment was set up so that citizens could defend themselves from an abusive Government. The Constitution also grants citizens to overthrow the government when it becomes to intolerable from usurpers and abusers of its founding. Our forefathers had just gotten out from under such abuses and infringement of Freedoms. Please read the Constitution and do not be ancedotal with flip answers.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:03 pm
Adam
But passing a comprehensive set of laws and introducing public awareness campaigns, in addition to several other things I have suggested, all at once, will REDUCE the occurrences of gun violence.
Really. I never said any one law or set of laws would put a 100% full stop to gun violence. Even Japan has 11 gun murders per year.
That’s simple not true and cannot be proved…. You mention Japan and I’ll use Sweden….
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:03 pm
“but what if no campaign cash was allowed to change hands?”
What if there was no campaign cash for ANY politician? Oh wait, libs would be upset.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:04 pm
Another thing they conveniently ignore:
“Most gun owners far more reasonable than the NRA”
Most gun owners disagree with the posers we have here.
I think it must feed into their “I’m in danger so I gotta protect myself against the evil hordes” mentality.
Spellcheck
If you’re going to sit in on an algebra class you should have already taken a basic addition class.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:05 pm
Answer me this libs. Would a criminal be less or more likely to break in your house if they knew you had guns?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:05 pm
“Our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment was set up so that citizens could defend themselves from an abusive Government. ”
And if Obama tries to override that then he’ll be impeached.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:05 pm
If any of you Republicans lose a child due to a gunshot, just remember to come on here and tell us all how there was nothing that any gun control law could have done to reduce the odds of the death, blah, blah, blah.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:05 pm
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:00 pm
Agreed. I’d say to start, we need four quarters of favorable ball control so our defense has a chance of not petering out. Let’s actually try to cover the tight end who is much better than guy last week. Matt Ryan needs to throw the ball away more and quickly…for example, when it is painfully clear the screen is covered up behind the line, he forfeits the play…SACKS.
Kapernick is going to kill us more than likely. If we can keep the other tools Davis, Crabtree and Gore below usual output, that may be enough…
Remember, Seattle took them apart by about 30 points with Kapernick starting…just a few weeks ago. How did they do that?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:05 pm
“If you’re going to sit in on an algebra class you should have already taken a basic addition class.”
Another deflection.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
3:05 pm
Well, I figured by Page 6 the gun nuts might actually address the topic.
The topic is unpleasant–most people, across the political spectrum, support comprehensive firearm regulations that would make it easier to figure out who’s got what kind of firearm, and to restrict ownership of some of the nastier stuff out there.
I would focus on the first part first. If we can gather information more comprehensively, allow agencies to share that information, etc., then we could probably put together more accurate statistical models to determine what sort of restrictions would be more effective.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:06 pm
Stevie Ray
He’s a beast but the Falcons are 3-1 against dual-threat qbs. San Fran is very good.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:06 pm
Would a criminal be less or more likely to break in your house if they knew you had guns?
It may depend on how bad they want the guns. How about that Ratliff fella anyway. One bullet. To the head. All his guns didn’t do him any good.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:07 pm
“If any of you Republicans lose a child due to a gunshot”
The average child is more likely to get bit by a cobra than to be shot.
indigo
January 15th, 2013
3:07 pm
td – 2:29
According to the Supreme Court, our 1st ammendment “freedom of speech” covers the right to burn the American flag.
With that logic, I’m sure the 2nd ammendment also should cover alcohol, drugs(all) and tobacco.
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 15th, 2013
3:07 pm
td, It is legal to hunt with the AR-15 in at least a dozen states. The 30.06 was originally a military caliber gun prior to the M-16.
Duh! I’m not sure what you’re refuting but nothing I said contradicts what you said. Black powder muzzle loaders were once military weapons too, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Aquagirl: Lord NO! I’m a Gator but had a deliquent daughter who went to UGA, unfortunately…….
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:07 pm
Spellcheck
Plainly said: if you want to sit in on a conversation, at least familiarize yourself with the basics and don’t be like the kid in the algebra class who asks “what does that plus sign thingie mean?”
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:08 pm
“Seattle took them apart by about 30 points with Kapernick starting…just a few weeks ago. How did they do that?”
Yeah they did. The Falcons did a fine job of stopping Seattle until the fourth quarter. It does help that we have home field advantage.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:08 pm
I’m just so happy our President is using his time so wisely….
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159830/debt-gov-dysfunction-rise-top-americans-issue-list.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:08 pm
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:05 pm
To me, it’s like trying to get rid of termites no matter how you look at it. If my kids school did more to prevent bad guys from getting even close to the school, I’d rest easy. It’s protection at the ground level…termites will never go away…and just because you wipe out a nest or two, three or four new ones will pop up..all you can do is protect your perimeter.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:08 pm
Paul
I responded to something you wrote earlier but you never responded.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
3:08 pm
Our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment was set up so that citizens could be part of a well regulated militia.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:09 pm
“Would a criminal be less or more likely to break in your house if they knew you had guns?”
And any of the Administration’s proposals would make not not having a gun in your house possible, how, exactly?
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
3:09 pm
The average child is more likely to get bit by a cobra than to be shot.
Where did that chunk of crazy come from?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:10 pm
TaxPayer
Would a criminal be less or more likely to break in your house if they knew you had guns?
It may depend on how bad they want the guns. How about that Ratliff fella anyway. One bullet. To the head. All his guns didn’t do him any good.
It really don’t take a rocket scientist to answer this question……. Its a simple yes or no….
indigo
January 15th, 2013
3:11 pm
Morality – 2:40
I’ve made a number of posts here today.
Exactly what “silly logic” are you refering to?
I don’t remember reading that Obama has ordered the Govt. not to enforce pot laws.
Post please.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:11 pm
The average child is more likely to get bit by a cobra than to be shot.
For every average child there is at least one above average and one below average assuming a normal distribution. Then again, Republicans don’t do math or science so the results are most certain to be skewed, like their polling data.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
3:11 pm
“I agree, but in the absence of clear standards, who are we as individuals to judge another person’s perception of tyranny? Ergo, it is more compact and logical to note the absence of an explicit right to armed revolution.”
Armed revolt is either justified (in certain circumstances) or it is not. If it is not, then the existence of the USA is not justified. If you think “clear standards” are necessary to justify such a revolt, please point me to those published and agreed upon by our founding fathers prior to their revolt (apart form the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”).
Unless you are willing to argue that the Constitution supercedes and negates everything said in the DoI, then I think it is very hard to argue that a right to revolt against tyranny is not implied by the 2nd Amendment.
I have to run, JHM, but thanks for the debate.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:11 pm
Spellcheck 3:08
See my 3:07
But if you’re really so uninformed you don’t even know how to do basic research (on the internet, let alone at a library) go to Google and type in define gun nut.
Sheesh…. can you cross the street by yourself?
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:12 pm
It really don’t take a rocket scientist to answer this question……. Its a simple yes or no….
So, what was Ratliff’s answer.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
3:13 pm
- “We have no enemies out there to speak of.” I’ve got one word that describes you – NAIVE.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:13 pm
Where did that chunk of crazy come from?
Do you have to ask.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:13 pm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/15/local-tv-anchor-who-delivered-blistering-piers-morgan-gun-control-fact-check-tells-theblaze-why-he-did-it/
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:14 pm
Sheesh…. can you cross the street by yourself?
He really shouldn’t given that cars are more deadly than guns.
Jay
January 15th, 2013
3:15 pm
Answer me this libs. Would a criminal be less or more likely to break in your house if they knew you had guns?
Like you, Keith Ratliff probably would have said less likely.
And then there’s this:
“A Republican state senator from New York is blaming a controversial handgun map for the recent burglary of a gun owner’s residence in White Plains. According to Newsday, at least two burglars broke into the home on Saturday evening, as part of an effort to rob the owner’s gun safe. Local police say the were unable to open the safe, and that one of the suspects has already been taken into custody….”
For the record, I thought publishing that map was a stupid stunt by the newspaper.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
3:16 pm
Would a criminal be less or more likely to break in your house if they knew you had guns?
hmm. Reminds me of something “Use spellcheck” posted:
Because said info can/will be released to the general public and criminals will know whose house to break into and get guns.
I guess someone is more likely to break into your house if it’s known there are guns there for the taking? That’s what “use spellcheck” is saying, anyway.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:17 pm
Christian Conservative
Earlier you accused someone here of diverting, yet you post that “Would a criminal be less or more likely to break in your house if they knew you had guns?” and avoid telling us how anything the Administration proposed would make it not possible to have a gun in one’s home?
Or was the comment itself just another diversion from Jay’s points?
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:17 pm
To me, it’s like trying to get rid of termites no matter how you look at it. If my kids school did more to prevent bad guys from getting even close to the school, I’d rest easy.
There’s always home schooling. That is unless you think all taxpayers should be taxed more to cover the added cost of all those security measures rather than letting the gun owners carry any of the burden at all so their 2nd amendment fee-fee’s don’t get hurted.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:18 pm
Jay’s 3:15
Answer is, for some people… more likely!!!
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
3:18 pm
One thing I will admit to not getting.
Why do so many people advertise their gun ownership with NRA logos, “insured by Smith & Wesson” stickers, and suchlike?
I’d think devout 2nd-amendment hawks would prefer to have the element of surprise should someone decide to rob them.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:20 pm
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:09 pm
My question is exactly how would a breaker and enterer know if you had a gun or not? It’s not like every who puts one of those security system signs up when most either don’t have system or don’t use it..
Do you somehow advertise? Sticker on mailbox or all windows..BEWARE I HAVE A GUN…
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:20 pm
“Then again, Republicans don’t do math or science”
Proof please.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:21 pm
“Where did that chunk of crazy come from?”
And comedy goes straight over the heads of the left. They just don’t understand sarcasm.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:21 pm
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:17 pm
You have any idea what the outcome would be if I tried to home school my kids…they would be home fooling..
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:22 pm
“But if you’re really so uninformed you don’t even know how to do basic research (on the internet, let alone at a library) go to Google and type in define gun nut.”
So you can’t answer the question. Also, you totally missed my reply to ANOTHER one of your comments.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
3:22 pm
I’d think devout 2nd-amendment hawks would prefer to have the element of surprise should someone decide to rob them.
I’d think they’d realize how bad those manly-man stickers would look if they ever did have to shoot someone. That is, if they weren’t surrounded by other devout 2nd Amendment hawks who think it would be fantastic to shoot an intruder.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
3:23 pm
BEWARE I HAVE A GUN…
…in my nightstand. And another in my hall closet. You can come and get ‘em after I drive off! Enjoy!
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:23 pm
Stevie Ray 3:20
Christian Conservative asked the question.
My question to him was ” how anything the Administration proposed would make it not possible to have a gun in one’s home?”
Since you weighed in, perhaps you’d like to have a go at it, as CC’s not up to it?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:23 pm
“For the record, I thought publishing that map was a stupid stunt by the newspaper.”
A stunt that could have resulted in someone being killed. Common sense is something the left lacks.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:23 pm
Jay:
You finally woke up from your nap… Welcome…
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:24 pm
Jay
January 15th, 2013
3:15 pm
C’mon Jay…that was well beyond stupid parlor crap by newpapers..I think the concept of judging what is in the public interest to know should not be made by such a conflicted bunch..
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:24 pm
“Or was the comment itself just another diversion from Jay’s points?”
So the AJC can’t afford an editor to edit Jay’s mistakes but Jay can afford a secretary?
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:25 pm
Spellcheck
Sigh…. okay….. I’ll help you cross the street.
From the first hit on that Google search:
“Gun nut
The term “Gun nut” has been used to describe firearms enthusiasts who are deeply involved with the gun culture. It can have different connotations depending on how it is perceived and the intention of the person using it. To some gun owners, it is embraced affectionately, such as in the popular outdoors magazine Field and Stream which has a column called “The Gun Nut”.[10] However to others it is regarded as a pejorative stereotype cast upon gun owners by anti-gun advocates as a means of implying that they are fanatical, exhibit abnormal behavior, or are a threat to the safety of others.[11][12][13][14][15] The term has additionally been used at times by some law enforcement agencies to describe a profile to categorize criminal suspects.[16][17]”
You’ll have to get back across the street all by yourself. Or ask someone to help you.
As a famous gunman once said “A man’s gotta know his limitations.”
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:25 pm
I believe a sign informing would be burglars that your home is protected by a security monitoring service would sway many a burglar. Probably not all though. Especially if the burglar knew that there was a worthwhile stash of expensive weapons in there for the taking.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:25 pm
If Cynthia Tucker hadn’t been fired from the AJC she’d have probably wanted to release data of gun owners.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:26 pm
Paul:
Lets get to the point Paul. Dems want to ban guns. All guns… Lets just be honest… So yes this is part of the conversation…
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:26 pm
“The term “Gun nut” has been used to describe firearms enthusiasts who are deeply involved with the gun culture.”
I prefer the term “gun enthusiast.”
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:26 pm
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:23 pm
Well seeing as how all Ive been doing most of the day is shouting that none of these political worthless efforts will remotely reduce exposure to more shootings, it would be poor form for me to state otherwise…there you have been opined. The Christian often amazes me albeit in puzzling ways.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:27 pm
“Dems want to ban guns. All guns”
Of course they do until they run for re-election.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:27 pm
“Is this where I get me a huntin license?” – John F. Kerry.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
3:27 pm
Indigo – Most of your “logic” is what I call silly logic because it’s – well – silly. That doesn’t mean that I don’t like you. There are a number of laws on the Fed books that Obama has ordered law enforcement (fed) to ignore and “pot” laws are one of them. That has been reported in your AJC more than once. I don’t write it down – sorry. Go to google AJC Obama pot and see what you find. Then rule out the part where Obama admitted to experimenting with illegal drugs like weed and cocaine and others. You will eventually find where he told the fed to ignore the federal law that makes POT illegal nation wide. As you know – Fed law over rides state law – such as passed in California. He told fed to turn a blind eye to this illegal activity and not to prosecute sellers of pot. That is one problem I have with Obama. He put his hand on the Bible and lied under oath when he said that he would uphold and enforce the laws of this land.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:28 pm
Proof please.
It relies on a lot of unskewed polling data.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
3:29 pm
Towncrier — “Armed revolt is either justified (in certain circumstances) or it is not. If it is not, then the existence of the USA is not justified. If you think “clear standards” are necessary to justify such a revolt, please point me to those published and agreed upon by our founding fathers prior to their revolt (apart form the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”).”
You misunderstand, and deeply so. The Declaration does not confer rights and is not the foundation of law in this country. And the Revolutionary War was in no way conditioned on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which didn’t follow for over 10 years after the Revolution was declared.
Besides, *you* are the one asserting a right of revolution, are you not? Given that, *you* should be the one to show the standards used to determine when ‘tyranny’ has grown to be intolerable and therefore, when violent overthrow and revolution may therefore be lawfully engaged.
It’s a much more compact argument to say that revolution is a *duty* in the event of tyranny, but that no Constitutional right exists to support it or to defend those charged with armed insurrection or with attempting/conspiring to overthrow the US government by force.
Just as an aside, when I was tapped for the White House Communications Agency, part of the initial consideration process was sworn statement that I had never engaged in or conspired to engage in the violent overthrow of the US government. If there were such a Constitutional right, then surely such an affidavit wouldn’t be needed, yes?
“Unless you are willing to argue that the Constitution supercedes and negates everything said in the DoI, then I think it is very hard to argue that a right to revolt against tyranny is not implied by the 2nd Amendment.”
The Declaration is a beautiful and timeless document, to be sure, but it has no force of law whatsoever in this country. Therefore, there’s nothing to be negated or superceded. It’s no more a legal document than any of the Federalist Papers.
And again, the *implication* of a right is something that’s very, very hard to argue. Consider the implied right to privacy, on which the right to abortion is predicated. Knowing your personal views on abortion, I feel certain that you’d look with a most critical eye on *my* arguments in favor of those two rights, were we to discuss them here. In view of that, let’s simply agree that the defense of implied rights is a difficult task at best, and perhaps one left for those more skilled than us at the practice of the law.
I have to run, JHM, but thanks for the debate.
And I thank you as well, sir.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
3:30 pm
Sockpuppet. you are entertaining.
But trying to come across as informed, intelligent or even relevant?
Sorry, it isn’t working for you.
Go back to what you are best at – straight ahead trolling…
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:30 pm
“It relies on a lot of unskewed polling data.”
In other words, you’re full of crap.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
3:31 pm
The woods are littered with gun totting anti gun people like the Hollywierd elite. Just ask that harpy Rosie O’Donnell.
td
January 15th, 2013
3:31 pm
Jay
January 15th, 2013
3:15 pm
“For the record, I thought publishing that map was a stupid stunt by the newspaper.”
Well dang. I was really wanting to see if all your progressive minions on this board would come and try to save you when you were tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail after you posted a similar list in Georgia. jk
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
3:31 pm
And comedy goes straight over the heads of the left. They just don’t understand sarcasm.
We do, but sarcasm isn’t usually used to undermine your own argument. So yes, I am confused why spellcheck would parody an NRA statement.
Jay
January 15th, 2013
3:32 pm
“A stunt that could have resulted in someone being killed.”
I see spellcheck agrees that knowledge of a gun’s presence can attract criminals.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:32 pm
“Lets get to the point Paul. Dems want to ban guns. All guns… Lets just be honest… So yes this is part of the conversation…”
And Christian Conservative officially jumps the shark!
Game, set and match.
Unless you have, say, a cite from VP Biden’s recommendations to Pres Obama that supports your point?
Maybe something from Sen Joe Manchin?
Or… is it 5 o’clock somewhere? A couple hours ago?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:33 pm
Paul:
My question to him was ” how anything the Administration proposed would make it not possible to have a gun in one’s home?”
An assault weapons ban. That would keep you from it if that’s what kind of weapon you prefer.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:33 pm
“I see spellcheck agrees that knowledge of a gun’s presence can attract criminals.”
Never said it didnt’.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:34 pm
“So yes, I am confused why spellcheck would parody an NRA statement.”
Confused is your middle name.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:35 pm
Stevie Ray
It is a diverse and entertaining forum, isn’t it?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
3:35 pm
Q: How many NRA members does it take to change a light bulb?
A: No members, but MOAR GUNZ!
TBS
January 15th, 2013
3:35 pm
Too funny…………………
Later, as governor in 2004, Romney signed a permanent assault weapons ban into law in Massachusetts. That included guns like the AR-15, which was one of the weapons used by suspected gunman James Holmes in the Colorado theater shooting.
“I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal,” he said on Fox News in 2004.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-gun-conrol-nra-assault-weapons-colorado-shooting-theater-2012-7#ixzz2I4vfOhrK
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
3:36 pm
The REAL reason Obama and the Dems are after gun holders and the gun industry? Most of them don’t TRUST the gub’ment to be there when they need them – which they won’t and most of them did not vote DEM and Obama – and most of them did not send lobbyists with pockets full of money to shower the Dems and Obama with. Each side has their supporters and causes and they “gift” their supporters (financially) and punish their non supporters. Nothing new here.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
3:36 pm
Lets get to the point Paul. Dems want to ban guns. All guns
this is where the old trick of using the plural form of a noun allows one to make weaselly crafted statements.
Paul is, of course, calling out this silliness @ 3.32. However, one can probably search and find two (2) self-identifying Democrats, somewhere, who literally want to “ban guns. All guns” — and thus, it’s somehow not a lie to say it.
Pretty lame rhetorical device, and it’s used a lot on AM talk radio.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
3:37 pm
Has a single person here all day mentioned the fact that all of Obama’s attempts to ramp up gun legislation will fail without getting at the root of the most festering social diseases and disorders in our culture: inequality and struggle between social classes?
I bet not a single person has mentioned that all day, including Jay Bookman.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:37 pm
Morality? hits the nail on the head.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:42 pm
Christian Conservative
[[My question to him was ” how anything the Administration proposed would make it not possible to have a gun in one’s home?”
An assault weapons ban. That would keep you from it if that’s what kind of weapon you prefer.]]
Ahh… so not having access to an assault weapon (careful, Spellcheck’s gonna take up your time demanding to know what an assault weapon is) means you can’t defend your home because if you can’t buy your weapon of choice, you can’t buy anything?
Just…. wow…….
Wait… wait…. I get it…. you won’t be able to buy a handgun or a shotgun or a musket either, because Democrats want to ban them too, right?
sam
January 15th, 2013
3:42 pm
the NRA is a lobbying organization speaking for manufacturers and dealers not gun owners. i own several guns (no assault weapons), the NRA does not speak for me.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
3:43 pm
“Lets get to the point Paul. Dems want to ban guns. All guns… Lets just be honest…”
Telling a flat out lie hardly qualifies as “honest”
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:43 pm
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
3:37 pm
So what do you propose? I’m curious about social disease and class on class struggle…
Krystal'sBalls
January 15th, 2013
3:46 pm
@Jay
January 15th, 2013
3:15 pm
That is one thing that burned me up and is one of the “crackpot” perspectives that unfortunately comes from those on the “left” (which I myself most likely identify with by the way, while not hard left). I think it is a TOTALLY IDIOTIC position to think it to be even halfway reasonable to make it public knowledge as to exactly WHO has legal firearms purchased and filed on a BATF form at a specific address whether it be through Google maps, and app or whatever. It makes your home a TARGET when you are not there! And yes, criminals will put in the time to stake out your place and track your movements if they think the score will be huge. So again, one example of lunacy on both sides of the issue, driven by emotion and irrationality.
td
January 15th, 2013
3:46 pm
NRA: Membership Has Grown by 250,000 in One Month.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/15/nra-membership-has-grown-by-250000-in-one-month
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:46 pm
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:42 pm
For those convinced that they are a superior target of home invasion that the rest of us, how about a nice, quiet angry Rottweiler..or Pit? Upkeep is expensive but it’s doubtful anyone will break in to steal your dog..
Adam
January 15th, 2013
3:46 pm
So you can’t answer the question.
Don’t worry about him. He’s new at this.
“Ha ha, ha ha, you won’t answer my questionnnnn! *sing songy*”
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:46 pm
In other words, you’re full of crap.
I got the results straight from Karl Rove.
moonbat betty
January 15th, 2013
3:47 pm
“So what do you propose? I’m curious about social disease and class on class struggle…”
One Class, One World.
All you have to do is legalize the ganji.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
3:47 pm
the NRA is a lobbying organization speaking for manufacturers and dealers not gun owners.
Well, it does claim to have ~4 million members. But that still doesn’t excuse the kind of cowardice shown by elected officials over the past several decades, who haven’t had the courage to tell this organization to stick their objections to sensible regulations where the sun don’t shine.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:48 pm
“Telling a flat out lie hardly qualifies as “honest””
That sums up Ada and Taxpayer.
moonbat betty
January 15th, 2013
3:49 pm
If they legalize the gangi, all the guns could be converted into pipes and bongs.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
3:50 pm
NRA: Membership Has Grown by 250,000 in One Month.
Reminds me a whole lot of:
KKK Membership Up Since Obama Election
Not unexpectedly, KKK membership is up since Barack Obama’s win. Former Imperial Wizard Johnny Lee Clary, now an outspoken critic of the Klan, said the difficult economic times and Obama’s win both contribute to a rise in Klan membership.
At a recent rally in Alabama, 300 people signed up. Clary called that “unprecedented.”
“They (KKK) actually sent me an email just the other day and were telling me that Barack Obama was the best thing that ever happened to them and they’re excited and happy because their membership is growing larger than it ever has,” Clary said.
Clary said that in these economic times the Klan finds “the poor, the miserable, the down and out” as easy targets for recruitment.
Birds of an ODS feather…
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:50 pm
ADAM
Seems to me that most here act just like politicians…they answer only the questions they wish you’d ask…
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:50 pm
“But that still doesn’t excuse the kind of cowardice shown by elected officials ”
There are many members from both sides of the aisle.
OBIWAN
January 15th, 2013
3:51 pm
Cars kill more people than guns, lets ban cars!
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:51 pm
“At a recent rally in Alabama, 300 people signed up.”
That’s really not that many people compared to 200,000. Guess math isn’t something the left is good at after all.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:51 pm
Republicans don’t do math or science but hey, I’m just the messenger.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:52 pm
“Birds of an ODS feather…”
I love people who struggle to make an argument. It really is sad to see someone compare NRA members to those of the KKK.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
3:52 pm
Spellcheckkk, do you come from a long line of white supremacists?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:52 pm
think progress.
There’s your sign.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:53 pm
“Spellcheckkk, do you come from a long line of white supremacists?
Jay, can you take care of this?
Thanks
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:53 pm
Stevie Ray 3:46
I remember reading remarks from a chief of police during the Vietnam riots. Said if confronted with a bunch of angry demonstrators, he’d rather that 3 officers with dogs than 50 officers without.
Taxpayer
[[In other words, you’re full of crap.
I got the results straight from Karl Rove.}
Karl Rove? Well, like he said…..
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:53 pm
Paul:
I guess easily proving you to be wrong is still not accepted. How about ammunition? Perhaps they will tax them to the gills so the average person can’t afford them….
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
3:54 pm
Perhaps spellcheck could provide an “outliar” (a special version of the standard form) via a demonstration of his or her mathematical and scientific skillset.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
3:54 pm
All you have to do is legalize the ganji.
Just 48 states to go.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
3:54 pm
“Cars kill more people than guns, lets ban cars!”
How many guns do cars kill?
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
3:55 pm
Ahhhhhh, meat got his fee fees hurt….
This is a rough crowd, meat!
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:55 pm
“Just 48 states to go.”
Or is it 56?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:56 pm
Paul:
Again lets debate this simple question. Why not ban handguns? They are used for the overwhelmingly for murders. No lib on here seems to want to answer this or even talk about it….
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:56 pm
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:48 pm
As long as honesty is defined by who is on which side, you are a big silly to suggest that concept has any play here…
The other annoying political word IMO is “look”..as in “look, i’m being honest…” or look, getting lobbyist out of DC is a must..” it helps to stutter a bit before introducing a sentence with that word..
Kinda like when some one says “to be honest with you..blah blah blah…” why is that caveat necessary? I guess that policy is now the exception than the rule
Just kidding…kinda
Paul
January 15th, 2013
3:56 pm
Christian Conservative
“I guess easily proving you to be wrong is still not accepted.”
You did that when? Waitadadgumminnit…. was it ME who said Democrats want to ban all guns? By golly, I can’t even keep up with what my fingers are typing.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
3:56 pm
And how many cars do guns kill, Doggone?
I remember an old 1979 Chevy that I wanted to shoot!
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:56 pm
“Ahhhhhh, meat got his fee fees hurt….”
No, I just don’t get into pissing matches with lunatic left wingers like you. I’ll let Jay deal with you.
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
3:56 pm
Or is it 56?
57-2 = 55.
(you’re welcome.)
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
3:57 pm
Oh we got to ban all guns!!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/15/2-reported-shot-at-st-louis-business-school/
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
3:57 pm
a demonstration of his or her mathematical and scientific skillset.
See the post @ 3.55.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
3:58 pm
Why not ban handguns?
Indeed, Lynyrd Skynyrd suggested it…
Hand guns are made for killin’
Ain’t no good for nothin’ else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don’t we dump ‘em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
3:59 pm
ADAM
You’d be interested to know that one of the most effective deterrents to home invasion is to possess a gaggle of geese…many folks in rural areas or otherwise large landowners do well to simply have geese on property. They make more noise that a pack of wolves..
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
3:59 pm
” Lynyrd Skynyrd suggested it
Skynard died in a plane crash. Lets ban planes.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
3:59 pm
“I remember an old 1979 Chevy that I wanted to shoot!”
No, no…that would be gun killing a car!
stands for decibels
January 15th, 2013
4:00 pm
JamVet, Skynyrd were a lot more enlightened then most people credit.
/drive-by
Krystal'sBalls
January 15th, 2013
4:00 pm
@Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
3:37 pm
To do that gets you accused of playing “the race card”, because those inequalities have embedded within them historically and in present day tense racial/ethnic components, and to a large degree. That right there is at the very heart of what ails most of the U.S. You will however in your lifetime I believe NOT get an open honest discussion on those issues. We’d rather numb our pain and live in denial, just like a “junky” does.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
4:00 pm
oops! misread that one!
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
4:01 pm
Well, there was this one car.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
4:02 pm
So I see it coming…this will be like the man made global warming debate…ie everytime we have a blip of hot weather, the believers get all puffy chested and claim…”see you idiot deniers, we were right… despite the multi hundred year trend that is being sold to us. Difference here is that anytime someone is shot, many will allude back to the ineffective gun law changes as being just that…ineffective..
Paul
January 15th, 2013
4:02 pm
Christian Conservative
“Again lets debate this simple question. Why not ban handguns?”
Why? It’s nowhere on the horizon. Not even thought of. You’re the only one proposing it. Or at least saying Democrats want to do it. Which you’ve been called out on.
“No lib on here seems to want to answer this or even talk about it….”
But… if you really, really, really want to play:
Sigh…. maybe ‘libs’ are just a tad more informed than you?
Because it’d be in violation of District of Columbia v Heller.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:02 pm
Stevie Ray: LOL at both of your last posts.
I so need a gaggle of geese protecting my house. It would be a great conversation starter.
And yeah a lot of people here do that politicians’ answer the question thing. But so many also do the “ask the question that has no relevance” thing too.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
4:02 pm
Why do so many people advertise their gun ownership with NRA logos, “insured by Smith & Wesson” stickers, and suchlike?
The same point that I made a couple of months ago next door at Kyle’s. I was informed that I didn’t know the meaning of the word “deterrence.”
Seems to me it’s an invitation to come at you with deadly force
Peadawg
January 15th, 2013
4:03 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/15/2-reported-shot-at-st-louis-business-school/
Lock these crazies up! My goodness.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:03 pm
“Seems to me it’s an invitation to come at you with deadly force”
Doubt it. Most car jackings happen to people who aren’t really paying attention to their surroundings.
Jm
January 15th, 2013
4:04 pm
hilarious
libs blowing up
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/krugman-stewart-in-trilliondollar-coin-tiff-154234.html?hp=r11
Peadawg
January 15th, 2013
4:04 pm
“Why do so many people advertise their gun ownership with NRA logos, “insured by Smith & Wesson” stickers, and suchlike?”
Don’t you think a “bad guy” would looove to know who’s packing and who isn’t? It’d sure make it easier for them to know who doesn’t won a gun.
Peadawg
January 15th, 2013
4:05 pm
own*
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
4:06 pm
Paul
You did that when? Waitadadgumminnit…. was it ME who said Democrats want to ban all guns? By golly, I can’t even keep up with what my fingers are typing.
Ok Paul.. Lets take this slow so you can easily understand. Its an assumption that dems want to ban all guns… Listen to the top leaders. Feinstein and the like… But I did prove you wrong about an assault weapons ban… If assault weapons are banned and it is your preferred weapon then you couldn’t protect yourself as you see fit.
Check Mate!!!
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:08 pm
Jm: That sh*t WAS hilarious.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
4:08 pm
Doubt it.
Keith Ratliffe says, “What?”
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
4:09 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:32 pm
What we CAN show is that reducing gun availability ON A NATIONAL LEVEL (border controls, people) reduces crimes committed by guns.
______________________________
Has a crime ever been comitted by a gun?
How much time did the gun serve?
Since the gun is a convicted criminal, is it prohibited from owning a gun?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:09 pm
The fact that libs think a trillion dollar coin was a good idea proves how dumb they are when it comes to anything related to money.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
4:10 pm
C. Conservative — “Its an assumption that dems want to ban all guns”
And it’s a bad assumption, too. Why would I want to ban something I own?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:10 pm
“Since the gun is a convicted criminal, is it prohibited from owning a gun?
It’s prohibited from owning a man.
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
4:10 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:28 pm
Name me ONE long distance efficient lethal and legal weapon that isn’t a gun. GO.
_____________________
Define “long distance”
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
4:10 pm
Check Mate!!!
You can’t use that move in checkers, CC.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
4:11 pm
Paul:
But but but Paul. If we really want to curtail gun related murders shouldn’t we get to the root of the problem???? Handguns……
Paul
January 15th, 2013
4:11 pm
” Its an assumption that dems want to ban all guns”
NOW it’s an assumption?
Nice backpedal.
When did Feinstein say she wanted to ban all guns?
You proved me wrong by saying “Dems want to ban all guns” then saying that meant “since they want to ban assault weapons I won’t be able to defend my home because I want to use an assault weapon to do it”?!!? THAT proves ME wrong by questioning your saying Dems want to ban all guns?
Y’know, CC, if you’re not drunk or high, it really doesn’t bode well for you…..
Hey! You wanna propose any more laws in violation of recent Supreme Court decisions?
Slick
January 15th, 2013
4:12 pm
An assault weapon ban will do little to save lives. The majority of shootings and violent crimes are committed with handguns. We banned assault weapons and mag capacities before and Columbine happened. Va Tech massacre – yeah that was handguns. Liquor store stickups? Handguns. Muggings? Not too many muggers walking around with AR’s. But whatever. It will make some of you feel better just like the Patriot Act – but that’s a topic for another day. I’ll just remind you of the old adage – if you give up freedom in order to gain security you’ll end up with neither.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
4:12 pm
Joe Hussein Mama:
So you own an assault weapon? I do. Just purchased one. So why would I want them banned?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:13 pm
That Black Guy: Has a crime ever been comitted by a gun?
Fine, WITH guns, semantic Nazi
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:14 pm
TBG: Define “long distance”
As close as you would have to be, but still be well out of arm’s reach, to effectively hit a target with a handgun.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
4:14 pm
Slick:
Libs are notorious for knee jerk reactions. I’m wondering why they haven’t banned hurricanes….
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:14 pm
“So you own an assault weapon?”
What is an assault weapon?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:14 pm
TBG: Define “long distance”
And don’t forget my other qualifiers.
Long distance
Efficiency
Lethal
Legal
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:15 pm
If someone owns a gun but said person never assaults anyone is it still considered an assault weapon?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:15 pm
What is an assault weapon?
Short term memory loss is often the sign of early onset Alzheimer’s. Please see your doctor.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:16 pm
“I’m wondering why they haven’t banned hurricanes….”
They tried after Katrina. (To the left, that was sarcasm)
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
4:16 pm
TaxPayer:
You can’t use that move in checkers, CC.
You certainly can in the game of logic….
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
4:16 pm
Spellcheck — “The fact that libs think a trillion dollar coin was a good idea proves how dumb they are when it comes to anything related to money.”
Several libs, including myself, pointed out when it first came up that it would be a foolishly inflationary thing to do, not to mention that it would also upset the hell out of bond traders and brokers.
Less stereotyping would suit you nicely.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:17 pm
“Less stereotyping would suit you nicely.”
I didnt’ say “Joe Hussein Mama” in my comment. Not everything is about you.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:17 pm
The fact that libs think a trillion dollar coin was a good idea proves how dumb they are when it comes to anything related to money.
Where do you get the idea that libs actually thought this was a GOOD idea?
What they THOUGHT was it would be a nice FU to the House GOP.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
4:17 pm
C. Conservative — “So you own an assault weapon?”
Nope. Didn’t say that.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:17 pm
“Short term memory loss is often the sign of early onset Alzheimer’s. Please see your doctor.”
Deflection alert.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:17 pm
“Where do you get the idea that libs actually thought this was a GOOD idea?”
Paul Krugman. NY Times.
Paulo977
January 15th, 2013
4:17 pm
Fred ….”I got that TOO, but I also got an official one as well (with the ticket). I’m going to frame it with the one from 2008.
_____________________________________________
Are you going? If you are , do enjoy…
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:18 pm
Deflection alert.
LOL. Only someone who forgot I answered the question earlier would think so.
Seriously, see your doctor. You forgot I answered the question and it was only a couple of hours ago at most.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:19 pm
What’s an assault weapon?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:19 pm
“Seriously, see your doctor. You forgot I answered the question and it was only a couple of hours ago at most.
Deflection alert.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:20 pm
For the record, here’s what at least one “lib” thought of the trillion dollar coin idea: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-14-2013/paul-krugman—the-trillion-dollar-coin
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:20 pm
Your childish games are not impressive, spellcheck. But if it makes you happy, keep on going!
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
4:21 pm
“As close as you would have to be, but still be well out of arm’s reach, to effectively hit a target with a handgun”
Not specific enough. WHICH “handgun”? They vary a LOT in their effective range. As for other weapons lethal from a distance: there are bows, cross-bows, slings, spears, blowguns, thrown knives. All of which are hand weapons.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
4:21 pm
Spellcheck — “I didnt’ say “Joe Hussein Mama” in my comment.”
No, you said this, which is broadly inclusive of me:
“The fact that libs think . . .”
“Not everything is about you.”
And that’s precisely why I pointed out that I wasn’t the *only* lib who was discussing the matter, in addition to being why I recommended that you engage in less *stereotyping.*
Already ahead of you, son.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:22 pm
What’s an assault weapon?
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2013/01/15/most-gun-owners-far-more-reasonable-that-the-nra/?cp=4#comment-1202420
Jm
January 15th, 2013
4:22 pm
Adam
glad you could laugh at that one
Stewart is funny. and dead on
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:22 pm
“No, you said this, which is broadly inclusive of me”
Only in your insecure little mind.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
4:22 pm
I’ll let Jay deal with you.
Just whine and plead some more first, OK? And if you need some real help in perfecting the crybaby troll role, just check with Dave R/tibby next door.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:23 pm
Doggone: They vary a LOT in their effective range. As for other weapons lethal from a distance: there are bows, cross-bows, slings, spears, blowguns, thrown knives. All of which are hand weapons.
How many are legal and how many are as efficient as a gun?
Paul
January 15th, 2013
4:23 pm
Spellcheck
““So you own an assault weapon?”
What is an assault weapon?”
Still trying to get other people to help you across the street?
Boy, talk about dependency. You a Democrat lib?
Here’s a hint. Find out if we’ve ever had an assault weapons ban in this country. Look up the law. See how it was defined.
Unless you want to keep asking others to hand stuff to you.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:23 pm
Adam, nothing makes me happier on this blog than making you chase your tail.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
4:23 pm
You certainly can in the game of logic….
That would actually be another reason why you cannot use it.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:24 pm
” Find out if we’ve ever had an assault weapons ban in this country. Look up the law. See how it was defined.”
Automatic weapons are banned, Paul. So what’s an assault weapon?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
4:24 pm
Spellcheck — “Only in your insecure little mind.”
Your concession and surrender are hereby accepted.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:25 pm
JamVet reminds me of the guy from SE7EN. You know, the serial killer guy who stalks other people?
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
4:25 pm
USP is beginning to remind me strongly of WOW. Same school of “thought”, for sure
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:25 pm
“Your concession and surrender are hereby accepted.”
That line would make sense if we were on Planet Romulus.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
4:26 pm
You know, the serial killer guy who stalks other people?
Gerbil says, “What?”
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:27 pm
Doggone/GA
You remind me of a yappy little dog that my neighbor owns. Always yapping and getting kicked around by neighbor kids.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
4:28 pm
Meat, it really is a shame for you that there is no money to be made by playing stupid to perfection.
Because gawdknows, you’ve got it down to a science!
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
4:28 pm
One might assume that after so many pages of comments, at least one Republican would have mentioned just how deadly chainsaws are compared to guns.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
4:30 pm
Spellcheck
“Automatic weapons are banned, Paul. So what’s an assault weapon?”
Still unable to do stuff on your own, I see.
While you’re attempting to find Google again, you may want to add in ‘define automatic weapons’ to your search and see how they differ from assault weapons.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:30 pm
” it really is a shame for you that there is no money to be made by playing stupid to perfection.”
You’d be a millionaire.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
4:30 pm
“How many are legal and how many are as efficient as a gun?”
Pretty much all of them. From Derringers to the “wrist breaker” And “effiiciency” depends on how you use it. A Derringer would be highly INefficient against a deer. The 500 S&W Magnum would be effective in the hands of a good shot. So, I ask again: WHICH handgun?
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
4:30 pm
USP is beginning to remind me strongly of WOW. Same school of “thought”, for sure
He’s certainly one of the easily forgotten ones.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:30 pm
“Still unable to do stuff on your own, I see.”
Deflection alert.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
4:31 pm
Use Spellcheck please
JamVet reminds me of the guy from SE7EN. You know, the serial killer guy who stalks other people?
I don’t agree with that. That guy was pretty smart……
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
4:31 pm
Meat gets his fee fees hurt and cries out to Big Daddy.
And ten minutes later he is…………… you guessed it, doing the very thing he just whined about.
Hysterical.
My forecast for meat?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrdMyQSKr8
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:32 pm
“He’s certainly one of the easily forgotten ones.”
He’s so easily forgotten that two posters are devoting multiple comments to talking about said person.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:32 pm
So what’s an assault weapon?
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2013/01/15/most-gun-owners-far-more-reasonable-that-the-nra/?cp=4#comment-1202420
Nothing makes me happier than continually making you look stupid, spellcheck
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
4:32 pm
“You remind me of a yappy little dog that my neighbor owns”
I love you too
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
4:33 pm
I still say Jay has a column coming up about Colin Powell ridiculous comments on the Sunday shows….
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:33 pm
“And ten minutes later he is…………… you guessed it, doing the very thing he just whined about.”
And where did I call someone a “white supremacist?” JamVet has a harder problem with reading comprehension than Adam.
BTW, Jay can decide on what to do about you, Jam. I’m sure he’ll be amused by your comments about the KKK.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
4:34 pm
Obama and the Dems consider the gun industry and their supporters to be the enemy.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:34 pm
“Nothing makes me happier than continually making you look stupid, spellcheck”
You keep posting an AJC article yet you can’t answer the question with your own words. Stupid is as stupid does, ay Adam?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:34 pm
Why is JamVet obsessed with me?
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
4:35 pm
WHICH handgun?
Is this a test! Are we being timed! A.. a … a .22 Beretta.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
4:35 pm
Tick…tick…tick….
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:35 pm
“Obama and the Dems consider the gun industry and their supporters to be the enemy.”
Of course they do. Just read some of the comments from folks like JamVet.
MrLiberty
January 15th, 2013
4:36 pm
By reasonable you mean willing to give up their rights to a tyrannical government that ultimately wants them disarmed. Dont’ worry, the NRA is willing to bend over for the tyrants in government too. Thankfully the Second Amendment foundation, the Gun Owners of America, and the rest of us freedom loving (life-respecting) types aren’t so willing.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:36 pm
Doggone: WHICH handgun?
You’re missing the point. But ok, for the sake of argument let’s say something modern. Like the following:
Ruger LC9
Walther PPS
Kel-Tec PLR-16
Glock 39
If I’m right, all those should be no earlier than 2005 mfg date and have varying cartridges (except for two, bonus points for picking them out).
So take your pick.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
4:37 pm
“He’s so easily forgotten that two posters are devoting multiple comments to talking about said person.”
Almost Harry Callahan with the need for attention. Not quite that bad, but still pretty sad.
Comes to a blog about ideas and spends his time posting anything just so others will interact with him.
I call it my good deed for the day.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
4:38 pm
“Guns attract criminals”…… I would say quite the opposite. Point a loaded gun in a criminals face and they will find it quite unattractive.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
4:38 pm
cc, you calling anybody smart is kinda funny, doncha think?
Given the amazing amount of idiotic, roundly laughed at claims you’ve made here.
Meat, you know the drill. You perfected it. You play your whack-a-troll role for a little while, then after a little while more you scurry off with your blogging legs between your trail and then the best part….
Use Spellcheck please is never heard from again and a new slice of spamming mystery meat appears.
Spam, eggs, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam and spam!
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:39 pm
“Almost Harry Callahan with the need for attention. Not quite that bad, but still pretty sad.”
So I guess you need attention as well since you constantly respond to my comments and others as well. Pretty sad.
“Comes to a blog about ideas and spends his time posting anything just so others will interact with him.
Which is EXACTLY what you do, Paul and you’ve been here all day long.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
4:39 pm
He’s so easily forgotten that two posters are devoting multiple comments to talking about said person.
Just two with multiple posts. That’s pretty forgettable. If you wish to improve your chances at becoming memorable, you could try using the same handle that you have used here in the past. It might help assuming you had any memorable posts from the past.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:40 pm
“Given the amazing amount of idiotic, roundly laughed at claims you’ve made here.”
JamVet, take your meds and go to bed. Your comments are just sad.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
4:41 pm
Glock 39: effective range 55 yards
English long bow: effective range 180 to 250 yards
Does that answer your original qustion?
indigo
January 15th, 2013
4:41 pm
morality – 3:37
I believe you’re being somewhat disingenuous regarding Obama and pot laws.
He’s saying that since the Govt. says one thing and the states say another, it’s up to the Justice Dept. to advise on further action.
That seems reasonable.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15908830-obama-on-pot-laws-weve-got-bigger-fish-to-fry?lite
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
4:43 pm
You keep posting an AJC article yet you can’t answer the question with your own words.
That’s an AJC article? When was your last eye exam?
Our mystery meat faceplants. Gosh, didn’t see that one coming.
Peadawg
January 15th, 2013
4:44 pm
“You keep posting an AJC article yet you can’t answer the question with your own words”
Did you even click on the link, Spell Check? It’s a link to an earlier comment by Adam where he says what an assault rifle is.
Stupid is is stupid does indeed.
indigo
January 15th, 2013
4:44 pm
Doggone/GA – 4:41
Glock 39 range is 55 yards?
Think again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq8shrwQgu8
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
4:45 pm
Clint Eastwood in “Unforgiven”. What a great classic western. Former gunslinger (Eastwood) is lured back in to the trade to take out the bad guys (Gene Hackman) menacing a town and he takes care o business – becoming a hero to the towns folks he saves.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
4:46 pm
Spellcheck
If you haven’t figured it out, there’s a BIG difference between posting to get others’ attention and posting to laugh at someone.
But seriously, read the last page or so of comments. You don’t see a pattern there? You and… the rest of the universe?
Tan Vampire
January 15th, 2013
4:46 pm
The 2nd Amendment, Batman Shooting & High Fructose Corn Syrup
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvIK4cmzeRY
curious
January 15th, 2013
4:46 pm
The heck with banning guns.
Ban td and Jm.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:47 pm
“That’s an AJC article? When was your last eye exam?”
Adam posted:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2013/01/15/most-gun-owners-far-more-reasonable-that-the-nra/?cp=4#comment-1202420
What’s that sound? That’s the sound of Aquagirl doing a face plant on a big slab of concrete.
Get your eyes checked, Aquagirl.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:48 pm
“Did you even click on the link, Spell Check? It’s a link to an earlier comment by Adam where he says what an assault rifle is.”
I asked Adam what an assault weapon is and all he did was post a link to Jay’s blog.
Stupid is as stupid does, Peadawg.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
4:48 pm
When was your last eye exam?
Probably the last time he was in Grand Forks.
Or was it LA?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:48 pm
Paul, stalk someone else.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:49 pm
“Ban td and Jm.”
Yes, because we can’t have differing opinions.
Peadawg
January 15th, 2013
4:50 pm
*right to that comment
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:50 pm
Can anyone explain, in their own words, what an assault weapon is?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:51 pm
“Idiot.”
Tick tick tick. As Kamchak puts it.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
4:51 pm
Get your eyes checked, Aquagirl.
Substituting your own reality doesn’t mean I need an eye exam. It means you need some serious help with whatever’s afflicting your brain.
moonbat betty
January 15th, 2013
4:51 pm
Is the fight at O.K. Corral still going?
Yep…
Tuesday’s gone with the wind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-f2y1QC_yg
Peadawg
January 15th, 2013
4:51 pm
“Can anyone explain, in their own words, what an assault weapon is?”
Adam did @ 1:45 this afternoon.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
4:51 pm
“Glock 39 range is 55 yards?”
I wasn’t speaking from experience…just quoting a web site I found. And I said “effective” range. That is not neccessarily the maximum range.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:52 pm
“Adam did @ 1:45 this afternoon.”
No, no he did not.
Peadawg
January 15th, 2013
4:53 pm
“No, no he did not.”
Bless your heart.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
4:54 pm
Tick tick tick. As Kamchak puts it.
To be fair, that’s a pretty accurate description of someone befuddled by an internet link.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:54 pm
Peadawg also needs an eye exam because the guy doesn’t know the difference in a wiki column and an opinion by Adam.
What was it that you called me, Peadawg?
Idiot?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:54 pm
“Bless your heart.”
Bless yers too, Peadawg!
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
4:55 pm
“Click on the link. It’s a link to Adam’s earlier comment @ 1:45. It goes right to that article.”
And like I said earlier, I asked ADAM what HIS opinion of what an assault rifle is. I did NOT ask for a wiki article.
Thanks for playing.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
4:58 pm
Tick tick tick. As Kamchak puts it.
Kamchak?
Who Dat?
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:00 pm
Point a loaded gun in a criminals face and they will find it quite unattractive.
Until they take it away from you and shoot you with it
Or pull out their own then its wild west time.
Yehaaaaaa
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:00 pm
Instead of encouraging illegal drug activity by not enforcing Fed law shouldn’t our “leaders” in D.C. be upholding the law of the land as Obama swore under oath with his hand on the Bible to do? I can not trust a man that puts his hand on the Bible and lies under oath to defend and uphold the law of the land.. and then refuses to do so.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
5:01 pm
” can not trust a man that puts his hand on the Bible and lies under oath to defend and uphold the law of the land.. and then refuses to do so.”
That’s what lawyers do everyday. He is a lawyer.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:04 pm
Its not a matter of if we will have serious gun control
Its when
Its just a matter of how many more people and children will die before we get there.
Sadly that’s the truth.
The NRA nuts and the Conservative ” The government is coming after me” nutjobs will have a lot of blood on their hands between now and then.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:04 pm
Cheezy – go ahead and reach – just remember you will be making a career decision.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
5:05 pm
Spellchecked ain’t no Harry Callahan.
Harry was a raging nutjob and full blown pyschopath. Spellchecked is just a minor league troll with the same neediness issues…
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:05 pm
I can not trust a man that puts his hand on the Bible and lies under oath to defend and uphold the law of the land.. and then refuses to do so.
Be specific. What laws has he not upheld ?
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:06 pm
Not so – most lawyers – Clinton & Obama aside – don’t lie under oath. Lying under oath is an impeachable offense.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:07 pm
Cheezy – go ahead and reach – just remember you will be making a career decision.
As will you
So tell me
You feeling lucky punk ?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
5:09 pm
Stevie Ray:
I’m simply saying that the issue of gun control cannot be separated out from the reality of a social order that is in crisis. Liberals are wrong if they think passing a few gun laws or banning a range of assault weapons will “solve” this issue. It will not.
Almost nothing of any real purpose can be done in this devastated society until the primary issue of the destroyed social contract and the broken economic system is addressed.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:10 pm
Marihuana laws on the Fed books. Just one example.
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
5:10 pm
I can not trust a man that puts his hand on the Bible and lies under oath to defend and uphold the law of the land.. and then refuses to do so.
Says the man who voted for George W. Bush twice…
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:11 pm
Good ofr New York
It usually takes the liberal states to lead the way.
Lord know the backwoods hillbilly southern states aren’t going to do anything.
One thing you can count on. The poorer a state, the lower the education level, the more people on welfare and moochers.
The more likely its a red Romney state.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:11 pm
You are doing the reaching and you had better be real lucky . go ahead & make my day.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
5:12 pm
Stevie Ray:
What is almost guaranteed to make the problem WORSE is if Barack Obama combines executive-order abridgement of gun rights while simultaneously pursuing economic policies of austerity, as he is doing.
That is a recipe for more carnage.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:12 pm
Marihuana laws on the Fed books. Just one example.
So he should ignore the states and impose federal law concerning pot ?
Didn’t know you were such a BIG GOVERNMENT guy
Not my real name
January 15th, 2013
5:13 pm
For all that’s Whole Foods Jay, end this madness.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
5:15 pm
So he should ignore the states and impose federal law concerning pot ?
A shootout between the Feds and local cops…man, that would rock the gun nuts’ world.
pogo
January 15th, 2013
5:16 pm
What exactly IS an assault weapon Adam? The most prominent definition favored by liberals is a weapon showing characteristics of a military weapon. That doesn’t cut it because ALL weapons demonstrate characteristics of military weapons of one era or another. Mindless liberals like yourself want to think that just because a weapon has an extendable stock and a pistol grip then it is an assault weapon. That simply is not so. As for clip sizes? A clip can be changed out in about three seconds by someone who knows what they are doing. And that goes for a 3 round clip or a 7 round clip or any other clip. That means one hell of a lot of shooting doesn’t it?
The government cannot protect this nation from those who are truly insane and who want to inflict severe damage on our people. They (the psychos) will find a way to kill and some of the other methods at their disposal are much worse than an “assault weapon” with a 30 round clip. They haven’t used them yet but I am afraid it is coming. The government could not protect this nation from the psychos who did 9/11 (and a host of earlier terrorist attacks) and it cannot protect this nation from every home grown psycho we have now. Useless violence is born into the DNA of mankind and mental illness just accelerates their desire to kill. It cannot be overcome government. Many have fooled themselves into thinking that if just another law is passed that will solve everything. I think this country has demonstrated that that tactic is a total failure and it will again with this current false campaign by the Whitehouse.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
5:18 pm
For all that’s Whole Foods Jay, end this madness.
Don’t be a spoil sport,I just made more popcorn!
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:19 pm
The government cannot protect this nation from those who are truly insane and who want to inflict severe damage on our people
Easy access to guns sure makes it easier
Tough DUI laws cut DUI deaths in half
Why cant tough gun laws do the same ?
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:19 pm
“Can anyone explain, in their own words, what an assault weapon is?”
A drone?
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
5:19 pm
Everybody knows how law averse the Nixon administration was.
And the Reagan administration was absolutely riddled with criminals. I believe to this day there is still nobody in their league for the sheer number of indictments and prosecutions of federal officials.
And of the course the W administration never found a law they couldn’t circumvent or ignore via signing statement or otherwise.
So, it’s no wonder the cons here are such big law and order types, huh?
LOL!
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 15th, 2013
5:25 pm
The American Revolution did not start over taxes. It started when the British snuck over to Lexington and Concord in the darkness of night to seize the guns and ammo of the Colonists.
I believe history will show (and I pray it’s not in my lifetime) that Obama has awakened a sleeping giant on this and many other issues.
He has truly become the “El Jefe” many of us feared he would try to be.
There are more than enough federal laws on the books. Leave it to the states (as New York has done) and let American citizens decide which state’s gun laws they most approve of by voting with their feet.
saywhat?
January 15th, 2013
5:26 pm
“Can anyone explain, in their own words, what an assault weapon is?”
——————————————————————–
Its what you usually find next to the apepper weapon.
getalife
January 15th, 2013
5:28 pm
New York passed new gun laws.
Debate is over.
cons lost again.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 15th, 2013
5:28 pm
Well, you don’t need a gun sign or a burglar alarm to keep people from breaking in to your place.
What you do is go find a pair of size 18 boots, muddy them up good, and leave them on the front porch near the door. Then you write a note and tape it to the front door: “Vern, I needed to go find a lawyer. Don’t go inside till I get back. The four pit bulls got hold of the mailman this morning and tore him up pretty bad. They think he’ll live but they’re not sure.”
You won’t have no unwelcome visitors.
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:29 pm
For Bookman and the other less intelligent posters on here. Please explain how the so-called assault weapons ban prevented the shootings at Columbine. If Bookman and his brain dead followers had any integrity they would admit their ultimate goal IS a complete ban on all guns in this country. But we all know integrity is not in their DNA.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
5:30 pm
Poor Scout. He must have had too much Welsh Rarebit.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:31 pm
For Bookman and the other less intelligent posters on here. Please explain how the so-called assault weapons ban prevented the shootings at Columbine.
Please explain how an armed guard on site stopped the shootings.
It didnt
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:31 pm
SCOUT
The American Revolution began in February 8, 1690 with the Schenectady Massacre.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 15th, 2013
5:31 pm
If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny!
“So how can over 873,000 people come off the unemployment line when there were only a little over 114,000 jobs created?
Luckily I found a transcript of a conversation between two eminent economists discussing this very question!
Here we go, the recent unemployment report explained:
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 7.8%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.
COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.
ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 7.8% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 14.7% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 7.8%.
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%?
ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.
COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how the current administration gets it to 7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. Our govt. doesn’t want you to read about 14.7% unemployment.
COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for reelection.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have administration supporters stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like the Economy Czar.
COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the h— I just said!
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like our current President”
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:32 pm
Adam – Well let’s see : – #1 just eliminate the murderers #2 lock up the thieves and #3 fine the speeders. No need to eliminate laws already on the books – just ENFORCE them
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:32 pm
Every gun maker in NY, MA, CA, and any other states supporting gun control to move to friendlier states. Start employing people that support the company. Start paying taxes to states that will not try destroying your industry. And stop supplying firearms to those states, stop selling bullets to those states. Complete guns and ammo boycott of those anti-American states.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:32 pm
pogo: The most prominent definition favored by liberals is a weapon showing characteristics of a military weapon.
Cite please
kayaker 71
January 15th, 2013
5:32 pm
Most of this comes down to trust. Gun owners don’t trust Bozo and the gang to do the right thing. Most of this posturing and anti-gun rhetoric is centered on getting politicians elected rather than to stop the slaughter of school children. The Democrats play this scenario like a fine tuned fiddle. Bozo is in over his head again. The gun owning public will not put up with this crap from a bunch of do-gooder politicians like that NY governor who is posturing for a 2016 run. We’re smarter than that.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:33 pm
If Bookman and his brain dead followers had any integrity they would admit their ultimate goal IS a complete ban on all guns in this country.
No. Deer hunting rifles and shotguns generally aren’t the problem
I would ban handguns and assault weapons.
Those are the real killers.
Countries where those weapons are illegal have a lot less gun violence
Gee isn’t that nice.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
pogo: “A clip can be changed out in about three seconds by someone who knows what they are doing.”
That’s an eternity.
pogo
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
Exactly josef. A drone is a true assault weapon. It is mindless (except for the 20 year old with the joy stick in hand some 6000 thousand miles away) and it doesn’t care who it takes out in the process of getting the “bad guy”. AND, the 20 year old doesn’t have to smell the stench and see the gore or the human cost of his/her actions up close. Think of it as “Clinical Killing”; nice, easy and clean and no remorse. The Obama administration has become quite good at using these weapons, hasn’t it? It seems quite strange that we never hear about the “collateral” damage these weapons inflict anymore do we? I guess the American news media only applied that standard to Bush.
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
For Bookman and the other less intelligent posters on here. Please explain how the so-called assault weapons ban prevented the shootings at Columbine.
Please explain how an armed guard on site stopped the shootings.
It didnt
Is this an admission that the last assault weapons ban was a failure????
Bob
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
Most gun owners are more reasonable than Obama. While he was in the IL state senate he voted against the right to use a gun to protect yourself in your own home. Lefites whine about the NRA but I don’t see any of them defend Obama’s position with that vote. Obama says he is for allowing hunters to have guns but he is a liar. How can any reasonable person think someone should not be allowed to defend yourself with a gun if someone breaks into your home. Obama says he wants to make things more fair in America so I guess he wants to make things fair for someone to break into your home. Maybe that is why Obama’s home town Chicago already had had 22 murders this year and we are only halfway through January.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
Doggone: My original question is whether any other weapon can efficiently kill (lethal) from a distance (basically not arm’s reach, if you must know), and is also legal and not a gun?
Frankly, a bow and arrow doesn’t really meet that test. Even a hit from a distance doesn’t efficiently kill, certainly not up to the efficiency of a gun.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
Why cant tough gun laws do the same ?
I’m not so sure it will help Cheesy.(I know you asked pogo but I thought I would answer anyway)
DUI laws made punishment much more severe and it helped a lot but severe punishment for mass murders will not deter a crazy person.IMHO
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:36 pm
Most of this comes down to trust. Gun owners don’t trust Bozo and the gang to do the right thing
Your right. Most of that group are Southern Rednecks who
1. Dont like the fact that a black man is President
2. Have a very very low education level ( Probably no HS Diploma )
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 15th, 2013
5:36 pm
josef:
El Jefe has bitten off more than he can chew this time.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:36 pm
keith: Is this an admission that the last assault weapons ban was a failure????
Yes, the LAST assault weapons ban was a failure because it had too many loopholes, and didn’t address several other root causes of gun violence.
And anyone who thinks just coming up wiht a new assault weapons ban with a few closed loopholes and leaving it at that will fix the problem or significantly reduce the problem is out of their ever-lovin minds. It’s not enough, but it can work as part of a comprehensive package.
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:37 pm
I would ban handguns and assault weapons.
Those are the real killers.
Really? I defy you to show me one, JUST ONE example of where a handgun or assault weapon has killed without some for of human manipulation. You just stated THEY are the real killers. So prove it!!
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:37 pm
0311 – you would be funny if you weren’t telling the tragic truth. Good work – uh good unemployment?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 15th, 2013
5:38 pm
We can blame this on “low information voters” who in large part put El Jefe in office.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:38 pm
“Frankly, a bow and arrow doesn’t really meet that test. Even a hit from a distance doesn’t efficiently kill, certainly not up to the efficiency of a gun”
And you’re wrong. Just as with a gun, the better the shooter the more “efficient” the weapon is. Personally, I wouldn’t face a shooter with EITHER a handgun or a long bow and depend on the “inefficiency” of the weapon to save me. Maybe you don’t know, but a long bow was a very effective weapon against armed Knights – as it was powerful enough to pierce steel armor.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
5:38 pm
Pogo: “A clip can be changed out in about three seconds by someone who knows what they are doing”
At Tucson, witnesses reported that the gunman Loughner stopped to reload, allowing bystanders to interfere, which may well have prevented the casualties from being far higher than they were in that shooting.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:40 pm
Is this an admission that the last assault weapons ban was a failure????
Is that an admission that having an armed guard on site wont help at all ?????
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:40 pm
POGO
Ssshhhh…we ain’t supposed to talk about drones, ya know…
kayaker 71
January 15th, 2013
5:40 pm
cheesy grits, 5:37,
What an stupid statement. Not all gun owners lack a HS diploma nor do most of them hate black people. Your depiction of gun owners being red-neck knuckle dragging cretins lacks any intelligent thought. But what could you expect from liberal.
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:41 pm
Your right. Most of that group are Southern Rednecks who
1. Dont like the fact that a black man is President
2. Have a very very low education level ( Probably no HS Diploma )
1. Obama is bi-racial. His mother was white. YOUR FIRST ERROR
2. We are intelligent enough to understand it takes human manipulation to operate a weapon for good or bad purposes. Something you havent realized yet. YOUR SECOND ERROR.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:41 pm
We can blame this on “low information voters” who in large part put El Jefe in office.
Dead wrong.
The lower the education level. The more likely they were a Romney voter.
Look at the South were education levels are terrible.
All red states.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:42 pm
Scout: El Jefe has bitten off more than he can chew this time.
Yep, I mean, you guys certainly haven’t said this before about any other issue… oh wait….
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:43 pm
Insane people don’t usually concern themselves with the law….. that’s a fact.
TM
January 15th, 2013
5:44 pm
the questions that needs to be asked as these new laws are passed are
Would it have prevented the shooting in Fort Hood/
Would it have prevented the shooting in Colorado?
Would it have prevented the shooting in CT
Would it have prevented the shooting in NY
Under that standard I think you would find that these proposed laws are worthless for what they claim. NY wants to reduce the size of a legal clip in that State from 10 to 7. Big deal?? I think not.
pogo
January 15th, 2013
5:44 pm
Feinstein in a recent interview recently stated that weapons showing certain characteristics such as those I pointed to above (extendable stock, etc, etc,) should be outlawed. Find the interview yourself. So she was basically stating that weapons that LOOK a certain way are the culprits. You liberals are nothing reactionary simpletons who never really solve problems, you only react, react and react. And the problems just get worse because of it.
So Adam, since you agree with an assault weapons ban why don’t you tell us what you think that particular animal is? The real answer? An assault weapon is anything (a rock, a knife, a car, a piece of pipe? that kill somebody. That is what an assault weapon is.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:44 pm
If you don’t like RED states feel free to move to a BLUE one.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:44 pm
What an stupid statement. Not all gun owners lack a HS diploma nor do most of them hate black people. Your depiction of gun owners being red-neck knuckle dragging cretins lacks any intelligent thought
Not all.
But hey I live in the South.
I know the gun nut type.
They typically are
1. White
2. Very Very Racist.
3. Almost no education
4. Very scared of anything that isn’t just like them.
TBS
January 15th, 2013
5:45 pm
“We can blame this on “low information voters” who in large part put El Jefe in office.”
This from the same blogger who was touting a Romney win on the lines of Reagan and Carter
Just saying. Speaking of “low information”……….. what sources lead you to remotely believe that bs? world net daily
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:45 pm
If you don’t like RED states feel free to move to a BLUE one.
Eventually I will.
Have personal reasons to stay a bit longer.
It will be nice to leave Hillbillyland for the real world.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:46 pm
Doggone: Just as with a gun, the better the shooter the more “efficient” the weapon is.
And a bow and arrow takes more skill to be efficient than a modern handgun does.
Would you dispute that? I know from personal experience it’s a lot easier to fire a handgun and hit a target consistently within a few tries than it is to do the same with a bow and arrow. AND efficiency ALSO has to do with number of projectiles in a short time fram and accuracy with said projectiles.
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:46 pm
DOGGONE
“When the last H-bomb has done its stuff,
and stilled for good the Geiger counter’s voice,.
When all that’s left is but just a few of us
will come the moment of my dreadful choice.
Invent the peaceful wheel? Oh, dear me, no!
Let those who would assuage the general woe.
I plan to freeze my neighbors to the marrow
by reinventing the bow and arrow!”
Jay
January 15th, 2013
5:47 pm
We can do it your way, Keith. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” So let’s regulate people. People without a certificate proving they’ve passed a gun safety course can’t buy ammo. People can’t buy assault weapons. People can’t buy large-capacity magazines.
We’re just regulating people, you know. Not the devices they use, which as you say are inanimate and can’t be regulated anyway.
kayaker 71
January 15th, 2013
5:47 pm
There is not a single thing, not one, that Bozo has introduced in his proposals that would eliminate another Sandy Hook incident. He and other politicians are so fearful of the gun owning public that they will not tread on that territory. Bozo wants your gun but he doesn’t have the balls to introduce legislation that would get it. No politician does.
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
5:47 pm
If guns kill people, how does anyone get out of a gun show alive?
If you don’t have to give up your car because others drive drunk with theirs, why do you have to give up your gun because others commit crimes with theirs?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. – Wayne LaPierrre
25 states allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street without a permit of any kind. Some say that’s crazy. However, four of five US Murders are committed in the other half of the states. Who’s crazy?
You may not like guns and choose not to own one. That is your right. You may not believe in God. That is your choice. However, if someone breaks into your home the first two things you will do are: 1) call someone with a gun, and 2) pray they get there in time to save you.
You could save more innocent lives taking pens from politicians than by taking guns from law abiding citizens.
You actually think that criminals will obey gun control laws? Your’e a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?
The 2nd amendment does not exist so we can go hunting, but so that we can defend our Freedom from Tyrants!
Your’e welcome.
TBS
January 15th, 2013
5:47 pm
Scout
You guys need something new. The “low information voter” meme that can be heard on any given right leaning talk radio program show or read on any given right leaning website just shows how easy it is to get you guys to act like macaws.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
5:47 pm
JHM et alia – an interesting and thoughtful analysis of the 2nd Amendment by a qualified individual:
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:48 pm
Cheesy
Don’t let the door hit you where the G-od L-rd split you. You’re the kind that give Yankees a bad name. You don’t speak well for your people. Bless your heat…
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:48 pm
We’re just regulating people, you know. Not the devices they use, which as you say are inanimate and can’t be regulated anyway.
KABOOOOOM!
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:48 pm
“Would you dispute that?”
No, I wouldn’t…but you asked about effective weapons as the same distance as a handgun. I named several.
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:49 pm
Its pretty funny watching a liberal insulting themselves like that. Calling people in the south dumb while THEY LIVE IN THE SOUTH. Priceless.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:49 pm
TBS: Both sides use “low information voter” To be honest, I’m not sure which side came up wit it first.
TBS
January 15th, 2013
5:49 pm
kayaker
Does it really matter what any politician wants if they do not have the means to make it happen?
Anyone can use that same exact thing for politicians of every stripe if they wanted to play that game. In the end it will mean……. nothing
Bob
January 15th, 2013
5:49 pm
Cheesy, are those southern rednecks that are killing each other in Chicago ? 500 murders last year and 22 already this year, how many of them were by southern rednecks ? You can make bigoted comments but the rednecks are not killing each other at the rate blacks are killing each other, southern or not. The truth may hurt but you are much more likely to be killed by a young black man than a southern redneck. Why is it that the media and liberals jump to action when the white kids in CT got shot but ignore Chicago ? Could it be that people might ask why the home of Mr. hope and change is such a bad place to raise a child ?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 15th, 2013
5:49 pm
Morality?
Not my work. It was in quotes.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:50 pm
“I plan to freeze my neighbors to the marrow by reinventing the bow and arrow!””
Kind of like the bit about horses:
My greatgrandfather was a great horseman, but he was afraid to ride on a train
My grandfather was a train engineer, but he was afraid to ride in a car
My father loves to drive, but he’s afraid to fly
Me? I love to fly. But I’m afraid of horses
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:51 pm
CHEESY
How dumb are you? The South is anything BUT white…just for starters it’s 30% Black…it’s 40% mestizo…no education? Well, you certainly ought to fit in in that category…
TBS
January 15th, 2013
5:52 pm
Adam
Either way, it is so overused. There are those who believe and repeat anything Maddow, Limbaugh, Hanitty, Shultz and the like tell them.
I get embarrassed for those people, especially when you know that most are much more intelligent than the recited “talking points” they are conveying
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
5:52 pm
Low information voter does not mean a stupid person. A mom who spends all day with work, kids, etc and only listens to the local news at night when falling asleep is an example of a low information voter. No one is saying they are dumb, they just need political education that their life does not take in.
Now, those who have time to actually educate themselves but choose to get their news from entertainment shows are a special kind of stupid voter.
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:52 pm
DOGGONE
Love that!
TM
January 15th, 2013
5:53 pm
“People without a certificate proving they’ve passed a gun safety course can’t buy ammo. People can’t buy assault weapons. People can’t buy large-capacity magazines.
And people without certificates proving they’ve passes a safety course can’t exercise their right to free speech or Assembly, And don;t try to say that the exercise of those rights have resulted in deaths
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:54 pm
Why should we have to pass an exam to enjoy our CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS? Liberals favorite words are ban and regulate, always when its other people rights they are wanting to regulate. Never their own. GOD has given us our rights. And you and your forms of govt hope to deny them. GOD given rights are non-negotiable.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:55 pm
“Love that!”
Yeah, me too!
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
5:55 pm
So Jay wants to regulate people.
Please see #7 in my 5:47.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 15th, 2013
5:55 pm
Well, I see our Representatives in Congress spent most of the day taking turns reading the Constitution aloud. I think it’s great they dealt with all our problems and have time left over for Patriotic things like that.
Have a good night everybody.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:55 pm
“And don;t try to say that the exercise of those rights have resulted in deaths”
No need to. You just did it for us.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:56 pm
Cheesy, are those southern rednecks that are killing each other in Chicago ?
Nope.
Ever been to Chicago.
Its a great town. More culture in its pinky than the entire South has.
Wanna know what culture is to a Southern Redneck.
Jeff Foxworthy.
Its pretty funny watching a liberal insulting themselves like that. Calling people in the south dumb while THEY LIVE IN THE SOUTH. Priceless.
Its not by choice I can assure you.
There is a reason the South is the butt of every joke.
The rest of the country thinks the South is a joke.
Frankly having lived here its hard to argue with them.
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
5:56 pm
I omitted a favorite.
Why carry a gun? Because a whole cop would be too heavy!
TM
January 15th, 2013
5:57 pm
Maybe we can require a test or certificate to show you are qualified to vote
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
5:57 pm
And this legal brief for Emerson:
http://www.saf.org/emersonacadsecd.htm
I find this especially compelling as to the INTENDED meaning of 2A:
C. The debates over ratifying the Constitution set the stage for the Second Amendment.
Although the ensuing ratification debates included some heated political rhetoric, there was little disagreement about the meaning of the relevant provisions in the proposed Constitution. All sides agreed that Congress would have almost plenary authority as a legal matter over both the military and militia. The real controversy turned on the benefits and costs of this arrangement. Anti-Federalists focused on the threat of tyranny, especially the danger that the states would lose their ability to mount a meaningful resistance to usurpations by the federal government. Federalists argued that these fears were overblown because there were numerous checks on the new federal government, including the fact that the American populace (unlike its European counterparts) consisted of an armed citizenry: whatever the federal government might do or neglect to do with the militia,the people themselves were armed and would therefore be anything but helpless in the face of an oppressive federal government.
The essence of the Anti-Federalist position is captured in Attorney General Luther Martin’s famous Genuine Information, which bitterly denounced:
this extraordinary provision, by which the militia, the only defence and protection which the State can have for the security of their rights against arbitrary encroachments of the general government, is taken entirely out of the power of their respective states, and placed under the power of Congress. (15)
Similarly, the Federal Farmer wrote:
Should one fifth, or one eighth part of the men capable of bearing arms, be made a select militia, as has been proposed, and those the young and ardent part of the community, possessed of but little or no property, and all the others put upon a plan that will render them of no importance, the former will answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenceless. (16)
The Federalists could not deny that the new Constitution would take control of the militia away from the states as alegal matter, or that the federal government would have the legal authority to create a select militia. But they did deny that there was cause for serious alarm. In the Federalist Papers, for example, Madison wrote at length about the improbability that the federal government would ever become animated by a spirit of oppression. Assuming for the sake of argument that this could happen, however, Madison contended that America’s armed citizenry could not be subdued by such a government:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. (17)
Thus the Federalists and Anti-Federalistsshared the assumption that the new federal government should lack the power to disarm the citizenry. Without that assumption, Madison’s argument would collapse because the American people would then be as easy to subdue as the Europeans. This was not enough for the Anti-Federalists, who wanted additional safeguards in the form of restrictions on the federal government’s military resources. (18) But the Federalists prevailed, and the Constitution was ratified as proposed.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:58 pm
“Why should we have to pass an exam to enjoy our CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS?”
To show that you can operate said right safely. If the only danger was you killing yourself, no such test would be needed. But YOUR Constitutionally protected right to own a gun ends where MY Constitutionally protected right to be SAFE from you begins.
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
5:58 pm
For Cheesy – know the difference between a yankee and a damn yankee? A damn yankee won’t leave.
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:58 pm
They read the Constitution, eh….did they skip over the 3/5 compromise again?
TBS
January 15th, 2013
5:59 pm
JohnnyReb
Hope all is well with you and yours.
The “low information voter” mantra is mostly used when someone doesn’t agree with the political positions of others.
Just because someone disagrees on any given issue, doesn’t mean the other person is a “low information voter”. Any any given issue that “low information voter” may have more knowledge than the one who thinks they are a “high information voter”.
IMO it is a politically correct term to say someone isn’t as smart or informed, but in many cases that isn’t the truth.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:00 pm
“They read the Constitution, eh….did they skip over the 3/5 compromise again?”
I wondered about that too!
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:00 pm
To show that you can operate said right safely. If the only danger was you killing yourself, no such test would be needed. But YOUR Constitutionally protected right to own a gun ends where MY Constitutionally protected right to be SAFE from you begins.
Such paranoia. How do you go outside with all that fear?
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:02 pm
But hey I live in the South.
I know the gun nut type.
They typically are
1. White
2. Very Very Racist.
3. Almost no education
4. Very scared of anything that isn’t just like them.
I live in the south too(all my life) Cheesy.
I know only one gun nut like you are talking about.Very few of us fit your description. Jus sayin…….
Bob
January 15th, 2013
6:03 pm
Jay, it’s estimated that America has 300 million guns, if most can’t handle them safely wouldn’t we have thousands of accidental deaths ? Maybe we should make voters prove they have a handle of the issues or they lose the right to vote. We let just about anyone drive a car, shouldn’t we have a real drivers test so people can prove they can handle driving a car on a highway ? The drivers test is a trip around the block at 35MPH yet auto deaths far outpace accidental gun deaths and driving is not a right. And look at how many people drink alcohol and kill people in a drunken rage or DUI, shouldn’t people prove they can handle their liquor before we sell it to them ? Should we make smokers prove that their second hand smoke will not harm someone else ?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:05 pm
SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS!
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:05 pm
“To show that you can operate said right safely. If the only danger was you killing yourself, no such test would be needed. But YOUR Constitutionally protected right to own a gun ends where MY Constitutionally protected right to be SAFE from you begins.”
I agree with your sentiment but not necessarily the requirement. There can be no doubt that mass killers like Lanza and Holmes knew how to operate a gun and could pass a gun safety test. So I am not sure what benefit there is to the law except in limited cases (where people buying a gun aren’t wise or smart enough to use it correctly). I am thinking there are bigger fish to fry.
Bob
January 15th, 2013
6:06 pm
Doggone, you are not one of those that say the 3/5ths compromise counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person are you ?
TBS
January 15th, 2013
6:07 pm
Cheesy
Delta is ready when you are………….
And take those broad brushes with you or better yet throw them away. They seem to leave more of a mess then anything when you start with your painting.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:07 pm
The last election proves we need a test for people to prove they are educated on the issues. I saw obamabots in the 2008 election asked how they felt about Palin as his running mate. They LOVED her. Yep,they are truly that stupid.
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:08 pm
CHEESY
“Look at the South were education levels are terrible.”
Were, eh? I guess you’re saying they are not any longer?
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
6:09 pm
“A day before President Barack Obama is scheduled to release Vice President Joe Biden´s recommendations to curb gun violence in the United States, the National Rifle Association told U.S. News and World Report that they have seen membership grow by 250,000 in the month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.” –USN&WP
Bummer…
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
6:09 pm
you are not one of those that say the 3/5ths compromise counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person are you ?
Oh, go ahead, recite your “I iz so smart about this” speech. We know you’re just dying to bust it out.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:10 pm
Gun control was first implemented in the south as a way to prevent slaves from rising up against their masters. The masters are at it again wanting to hang on to their ever increasing power. Anything that they preceive as a threat to their dominance over us must be eliminated.
indigo
January 15th, 2013
6:10 pm
Either this whole sentence is false or we need to outlaw private gun ownership.
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:11 pm
TBS
Methinks Cheesy’s Mama was scared by a Gaugin when she was carrying him!
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:12 pm
250,000 times at least 25.00 and still growing. And that doesnt even include our contributions to the NRA in Bookmans honor. Every time he writes about the NRA we send them a check.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:12 pm
Dang,I think Chessy just insulted everyone born below the Mason-Dixon line. Whew!
Yankee go home!!!!
TBS
January 15th, 2013
6:13 pm
josef
Not sure where Cheesy works, lives or hangouts but he seems to be sheltered. Maybe that is by choice.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:14 pm
“Such paranoia. How do you go outside with all that fear?”
Why would you think I”m afraid? Being able to face and understand the realities of a possible situation does not equal fear of that situation. But it IS extremely interesting that you leaped to that conclusion on no evidence whatsoever.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:14 pm
“I saw obamabots in the 2008 election asked how they felt about Palin as his running mate. They LOVED her. ”
It seems that to many liberals, you cannot be really “black” or “female” if you are conservative.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:14 pm
Dang,I think Chessy just insulted everyone born below the Mason-Dixon line. Whew!
Yankee go home!!!!
Apparently they are down here too. They sure are hard on themselves.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:15 pm
Dang,I think Chessy just insulted everyone born below the Mason-Dixon line. Whew!
An insult is like poison or strong drink, it can only affect you if you accept it.
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
6:15 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:14 pm
TBG: Define “long distance”
As close as you would have to be, but still be well out of arm’s reach, to effectively hit a target with a handgun.
____________
Cross bow
Bow and arrow
blow gun
spear
throwing knife
throwing ax
boomerang
throwing star
stick of dynamite
jar of acid
IED
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:15 pm
SCOOTER
Home probably don’t want him either….
TBS
And maybe it’s by popular demand…
TM
January 15th, 2013
6:15 pm
How about before anyone can run for office they must pass a test that shows they understand the Constitution,
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:16 pm
“I agree with your sentiment but not necessarily the requirement. There can be no doubt that mass killers like Lanza and Holmes knew how to operate a gun and could pass a gun safety test”
I wouldn’t argue that. But I think being able to demonstrate you know how to safely operate a gun is a reasonable requirement. Just as it’s a reasonable requirement to show that you can safely operate a motor vehicle.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:16 pm
““A day before President Barack Obama is scheduled to release Vice President Joe Biden´s recommendations to curb gun violence in the United States, the National Rifle Association told U.S. News and World Report that they have seen membership grow by 250,000 in the month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.” –USN&WP
Bummer…
_____
Perhaps there is some fear among these new “members” that they might one day become like the tragically murdered children. Only this time, Lanza will be wearing a military uniform.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:17 pm
Doggone: Well then I just needed to clarify what I meant by efficient. Perhaps I should have just added “user friendly”
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:17 pm
keith: Gun control was NOT first implemented as a measure against the slaves.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:19 pm
“But I think being able to demonstrate you know how to safely operate a gun is a reasonable requirement.”
Perhaps, but it is low lying fruit in my opinion. I don’t think it will solve much. If you think differently, please tell me what sort of things you think such a bill targets (like accidental deaths?).
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
6:19 pm
“Ever been to Chicago.
Its a great town. More culture in its pinky than the entire South has.”
Well Cheesy, you fit right in here. Pretty much everyone of Jay’s commie choir here feels the same way. Jay, the leader of this august group, has elevated a bigot going by the name of RC to HOF status.
Like you, these people make fun of southerners, laugh at their accents, and accuse them of sub-standard IQ’s. And if one happens to be a middle aged white southerner, standby to be accused of neanderthalism.
Yankees like you and Jay hate us. We just aren’t cosmopolitan, urbane, and erudite enough for you. Yet lib ilks are supposed to be the most tolerant people on the face of the earth.
You are pathetic.
getalife
January 15th, 2013
6:20 pm
The debate changes tomorrow for the proposals submitted for congressional approval.
Soothsayer
January 15th, 2013
6:20 pm
On matters related to the Palestinians, the president seems to view the prime minister as a political coward, an essentially unchallenged leader who nevertheless is unwilling to lead or spend political capital to advance the cause of compromise.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Obama’s nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, is said to be eager to re-energize the Middle East peace process, but Obama — who already has a Nobel Peace Prize — is thought to be considerably more wary. He views the government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as weak, but he has become convinced that Netanyahu is so captive to the settler lobby, and so uninterested in making anything more than the slightest conciliatory gesture toward Palestinian moderates, that an investment of presidential interest in the peace process wouldn’t be a wise use of his time.
Obama, since his time in the Senate, has been consistent in his analysis of Israel’s underlying challenge: If it doesn’t disentangle itself from the lives of West Bank Palestinians, the world will one day decide it is behaving as an apartheid state.
[W]hat Obama wants is recognition by Netanyahu that Israel’s settlement policies are foreclosing on the possibility of a two-state solution, and he wants Netanyahu to acknowledge that a two-state solution represents the best chance of preserving the country as a Jewish-majority democracy. Obama wants, in other words, for Netanyahu to act in Israel’s best interests.
So far, though, there has been no sign that the Israeli government is gaining a better understanding of the world in which it lives.
– Jeffrey Goldberg
josef: if you want to stomp out of here in a huff because I express my opinions re: Israel, that’s your prerogative. And, if you feel the need to express your feelings towards me for doing so, believe me, if won’t hurt my feelings.
The stark reality is that there are many worldwide who share my opinions. Those who don’t live in the brain-dead United States.
This is a great article, by the way. Well worth reading.
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:20 pm
Really, though, Cheesy insulted the decent Yankees. Feeds right into the Southern stereotype of “you know what they’re like…”
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:20 pm
“keith: Gun control was NOT first implemented as a measure against the slaves.”
Just out of curiosity…what WAS the first “gun control” law, and when and where was it passed? In all this discussion, I don’t remember ever seeing it mentioned.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
6:20 pm
0311
” I believe history will show (and I pray it’s not in my lifetime) that Obama has awakened a sleeping giant on this and many other issues.”
You do realize he’s closer to the views of most Americans than the cons opposed to any regulation who’ve been posting here today, don’t you?
You didn’t know that? Why… gasp… are you a low information voter?!!?
“Leave it to the states (as New York has done) and let American citizens decide which state’s gun laws they most approve of by voting with their feet.”
Yet you want to regulate abortion and gay marriage at the federal level, don’t you?
Nothing like consistency, is there?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:21 pm
And don;t try to say that the exercise of those rights have resulted in deaths
You’re right. They haven’t. Words don’t kill people and neither does peaceful assembly. Neither does exercising your rights to keep and bear arms.
However, your potential use of some form of arms can hurt or kill another person. At that point, you have infringed on their right to life. IMO, even if you were defending yourself, unless you literally had no other choice. And by literally I mean you had no means by which to stop them other than to kill them.
Also, it is worth noting that neither the first nor the second amendment are unlimited. Kids don’t go into schools with rocket launchers. Why? Because they would have a really tough time getting them. I suppose they could always just go on the black market though. After all, that MUST be easy the way you guys talk about the black market.
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
6:21 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
4:23 pm
Doggone: They vary a LOT in their effective range. As for other weapons lethal from a distance: there are bows, cross-bows, slings, spears, blowguns, thrown knives. All of which are hand weapons.
How many are legal and how many are as efficient as a gun?
All of them to both questions.
Also, none of your gun control proposals would have stopped Sandy Hook.
His mother owned the guns and would have met all of your qualifications.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:21 pm
An insult is like poison or strong drink, it can only affect you if you accept it.
Kam,those are good words of wisdom that I will not forget. Thanks!!
And now I will go get that strong drink!!
TBS
January 15th, 2013
6:21 pm
Sink
Sounds like Cheesy and yourself would be great friends
Two peas in a pod
You could be the intolerant brothers
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:21 pm
“If you think differently, please tell me what sort of things you think such a bill targets (like accidental deaths?).”
Like accidental deaths
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:22 pm
SOOTH
What huff? What stomp?
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:22 pm
“As close as you would have to be, but still be well out of arm’s reach, to effectively hit a target with a handgun.”
You forgot “angry” eyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd9ihDYLiJk
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:23 pm
That Black Guy: Cross bow
Bow and arrow
blow gun
spear
throwing knife
throwing ax
boomerang
throwing star
stick of dynamite
jar of acid
IED
Now, narrow your list down to the ones that are just as efficient and user friendly (to me user friendly is part of efficiency, and by user friendly I mean easy for a first time user to use effectively) as guns and are also legal.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
6:23 pm
getalife
I’ve seen a few exasperated conservatives on national shows wondering just how much political capital Republicans are going to expend being on the wrong side from most Americans on so many issues, many of them marginal.
It just seems to be in their nature.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:24 pm
Yankees like you and Jay hate us.
I’m not overly fond of you, and I was born on Peachtree St.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:24 pm
That Black Guy: His mother owned the guns and would have met all of your qualifications.
The son would have been treated and would have been less likely to be motivated to steal the guns in the first place under my mental health suggestions. His mother would also likely still be alive.
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:25 pm
DOGGONE
@ 6:20
Good question…
SCOOTTER
Name your poison!
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:25 pm
Theres no reason for you liberals to live your lives in constant fear. There are millions of gunowners out there that have never committed a crime. So as long as you stay away from those gunfree zones you will be safe. What did VA Tech, Aurora CO, Columbine CO and Sandy Hook have in common? Gun free zones. The tucson shooting was the only recent shooting not in a gunfree zone and that perp was a well known mental case that the liberal mindeset allowed to roam the streets. And the firefighters in NY were killed by an ex convict with gun he was not lawfully in possession of. If the liberal courts had kept him incarcerated after murdering his grandmother with a hammer then Cuomo would not be using their deaths for political momentum.
Soothsayer
January 15th, 2013
6:25 pm
josef: NO COMMENT. STILL NO COMMENT.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:27 pm
Theres no reason for you liberals to live your lives in constant fear.
The smoking gun is the mushroom cloud.
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
6:27 pm
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
4:35 pm
WHICH handgun?
Is this a test! Are we being timed! A.. a … a .22 Beretta.
______________
My nephew was shot in the chest with a .22, the bullet came out his armpit and lodged in his arm. He ran the guy down and beat him senseless.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:27 pm
“You do realize he’s closer to the views of most Americans than the cons opposed to any regulation who’ve been posting here today, don’t you?”
Seeing that Chicago banned handguns outright until overruled by the SC, and judging from past statements or votes, no I do not. I will agree he wishes to appear moderate on this issue, but I think he just being deceptive (as are most politicians).
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:27 pm
keith: The tucson shooting was the only recent shooting not in a gunfree zone.
Clackmas Mall, San Antonio movie theater, the list goes on. Shooters don’t care if it’s a gun free zone or not. They don’t read signs.
Soothsayer
January 15th, 2013
6:28 pm
josef: BTW even though I can’t post @ Kyle’s that doesn’t stop me from reading the comments over there. So, stop with the blushing ingenue routine, OK?
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:28 pm
“There are millions of gunowners out there that have never committed a crime”
Funny! that’s EXACTLY what I’ve been saying for weeks now.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:29 pm
There are millions of gunowners out there that have never committed a crime
Download any torrents lately?
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
6:30 pm
Jay I. Will give the reasoning a shot, no pun intended.
You state that the NRA is basically paranoid of a gun ownership data base because they think the government would go door to door taking them. You indicate that this is a far fetched concern that is totally beyond reason.
The problem with your lack of concern is this. If indeed the constitution gives individuals the right to possess guns then it does so with the predetermined purpose of preventing exactly what you argue is ridiculous . When the kings men sought to enforce the kings will British troops did indeed occupy and confiscate guns. This fact is not only the basis of the 2nd amendment but also the 4th amendment which prevents search and seizures without cause approved by a judge. The fact that the ruler of what was the British Colonies, would abuse his powers by kicking open the doors of his subjects means that we, as citizens have been, are and would be the target of an abusive or unauthorized government. Ownership of guns is exactly what was intended to prevent that government abuse.
If we can be honest for a few, abusive governments are the rule in this world not the exception. Western industrialized nations are the same ones that have the rule of law and therefore constitutional rights. The 3rd world nations, Russia and China still thrive by the complete control of its populace and under the will of governmental power.
Assuming you assumption were true, that the government needs a data base, it would only make that seizure, which you dismiss, easier for the government. Our nation has faced several incidents in which free law abiding citizens of this country, without cause, lost their rights under the rule of government self protection. As mentioned before our British leaders sought to impose its will on us. Lincoln suspended Habeus during the civil war. The argument could have been made that he directed it toward an illegal rebellion however it was often used to hold people thought to be southern sympathizers, regardless of proof and to intern government opposition in the north. Finally Roosevelt interned thousands of Japaneeze Americans during WW2. People who had no fewer historic reasons to oppose its government with guns than our founders.
So the fact is that governments have and will abuse the powers it holds and historically governments have had to be opposed by force, by its citizens. Therefore you cannot simply suppose that it’s stupid to fear that unlikely possibility. The fact that it did happen is why we have a constitution isn’t it ?
More toward the issue. a data base is useless in preventing crime. Police never trace gun ownership until after a serious crime has taken place, it does on very rare occasions help to find the offender but it never stops the crime before it happens. A data base serves no real need. Of all the crimes committed with guns, excluding domestic incidents, the criminal uses a gun that is stolen or one that is not registered to him/her. Once a gun is legally bought the ability to trace it stops as they are gifted, lost and stolen which prevents a true tracking ability.
The rest of your thoughts I believe are legitimate tools toward a valid goal. The answer is in finding the ability to prevent the gun from getting into the hands of a mental person. To that end the constitution could never be interpreted to allow wacko’s to possess guns. We should require a mental health certification for ownership of guns. You should be required to list all parties who occupy your residence or the place that the gun will be stored and mental health certifications should be required on those people. In other words if I wish to have a gun I not only should I be sane but so should my wife and any person over 14 years old, who may have access to it.
But in general the real issue is the fact that guns are specifically mentioned in the constitution. As any other constitutionally mandated right, any action which imposes limits or conditions on that right will surely be found unconstitutional.
So back to you, do you think that it’s possible to find a real compromise that will stand legal challenges if it even hints at limitations on a constitutional right ?
I think we have a better chance of enforcing the immigration laws than we do gun laws and immigration is black and white, you enter legally or you don’t . Violence has become a modern day blight, gun or otherwise. It’s a mindset which conflicts with our bill of rights as does its solutions. After all your not a violent criminal until you commit a violent crime. Until The Minority Report is reality, under the law and. constitution you have to be convicted before you lose your rights.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:30 pm
when obama was in the IL Senate he voted against the right to self defense even when it was within your own home. That is hardly a mainstream view.
getalife
January 15th, 2013
6:30 pm
Paul,
It should be an entertaining debate in congress.
The AR ban will probably fail but the background checks and magazine ban might pass.
I am still waiting on them to try to fix the gop.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:32 pm
There are millions of gunowners out there that have never committed a crime
Download any torrents lately?
Nope. Get mine the legal way thru Amazon Prime and ITunes. What about you?
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:33 pm
SOOTH
I thought I made it clear that I was there at invitation from some of his regulars and that I needed to take a break for a few days from here…not a huff, not a stomp.
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
6:34 pm
“I’m not overly fond of you, and I was born on Peachtree St.”
So what?
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
6:34 pm
A damn yankee won’t leave.
For the umpteenth time, we are just here to claim what is rightfully ours!
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:34 pm
keith: Nope. Get mine the legal way thru Amazon Prime and ITunes. What about you?
Downloaded any torrents EVER or MP3s EVER?
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:35 pm
SCOOTTER
Name your poison!
Boilermakers tonite Josef!!! They make my rebel yell come out better.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:35 pm
keith: Ever fired off fireworks in an area where it was illegal? Are you aware of every single law that has ever applied to you your whole life?
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:37 pm
SCOOTTER
G&T here..
Tundra Dude
January 15th, 2013
6:37 pm
what WAS the first “gun control” law, and when and where was it passed?
In the US, the first State law was in Ky. Jawja was next.
A Layman’s short History of Gun Control in America
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/516676/posts
Paul
January 15th, 2013
6:39 pm
Towncrier
” I will agree he wishes to appear moderate on this issue, but I think he just being deceptive”
Well then, how about this?
How about we see what his recommendations are and how they stack up against the survey questions Jay cited in his lead? Then we can bump those up against what the no/low control advocates have been posting here and see who’s closer to mainstream America.
Mama says
” If indeed the constitution gives individuals the right to possess guns then it does so with the predetermined purpose of preventing exactly what you argue is ridiculous . When the kings men sought to enforce the kings will British troops did indeed occupy and confiscate guns. This fact is not only the basis of the 2nd amendment”
Are you saying the basis was to prevent confiscation of firearms, which was the action of the army? Or was the basis protection against a standing army?
getalife
I think you’re reading the outcome correctly. Let the GOP/NRA lead the fight against assault weapons. When another tragedy occurs, they’ll own it.
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
6:39 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:19 pm
The government cannot protect this nation from those who are truly insane and who want to inflict severe damage on our people
Easy access to guns sure makes it easier
Tough DUI laws cut DUI deaths in half
_________
Safer cars had nothing to do with it.
Air bags, ABS, Collapsible steering columns, crumple zones, increased rollover protection, seatbelt laws, improved accident avoidance tech does not help ONE BIT.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:39 pm
Liberals cannot seem to have a rational discussion on the issues with going way overboard in their utter stupidity. Have you EVER broken any laws in your life? LMAO Get a life.
Soothsayer
January 15th, 2013
6:39 pm
“My New Year’s resolution was to keep my personal opinions of others to myself. I’m having to take a break from Big Daddy’s [i.e., Jay's blog] verandah to do that and I was invited to spend more time here.”
– josef (from Kyle’s)
Your personal opinion of me is always welcome. Anyone on this blog will tell you that I have a thick skin. You need not keep it to yourself and you don’t have to go to Kyle’s blog to avoid having to do so.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:41 pm
Liberals cannot seem to have a rational discussion on the issues with going way overboard in their utter stupidity.
Anti abortionists say, “What?”
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:43 pm
Liberals cannot seem to have a rational discussion on the issues with going way overboard in their utter stupidity.
Birthers say, “What?”
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:43 pm
Liberals cannot seem to have a rational discussion on the issues with going way overboard in their utter stupidity.
Skewers say, “What?”
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:43 pm
ZamVet
Ach, ja Wohl! Drang nach Süden!
K’CHAK
And, no, Godwin’s law doesn’t apply here…
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:47 pm
“Liberals cannot seem to have a rational discussion on the issues with going way overboard in their utter stupidity.”
“going overboard” = presenting retional arguments that break down “my” over-emotional opinions
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:48 pm
SOOTH
What huff and stomp there? Someone asked why I was there, and I answered. I’ve long since given my personal opinion of you, and there’s no need to repeat it here. Unlike some, I’m not out to make enemies.
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
6:48 pm
“White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced this afternoon that President Obama will unveil a “concrete package” of gun control proposals including assault weapons bans, high capacity ammunition magazine bans, and closing loopholes on background checks. Carney said that the president will be joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as children who wrote to the president after the Newtown shootings. “They will be joined by children around the country expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents,” Carney confirmed.”
Using children as props?
Shame.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:49 pm
“Well then, how about this? How about we see what his recommendations are and how they stack up against the survey questions Jay cited in his lead? Then we can bump those up against what the no/low control advocates have been posting here and see who’s closer to mainstream America.”
In my opinion, Obama will only attempt what he thinks he can get realistically away with. I think he would ban guns completely if he thought he had any real chance of doing so. I do not think his image on the national stage matches that on the local stage. They are incongruous. Besides, in the final analysis, this issue is not a popularity contest. I don’t know if Jay is really prepared to tackle the Constitutional questions of gun ownership in an intellectually honest or informed way. I haven’t seen much evidence of that.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:50 pm
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
6:30 pm
Dang Mama,that’s the best post I have ever seen on this issue.Thanks for sharing it.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:53 pm
You asinine comments about have you EVER broken any laws in your life showed how weak your argument is. Next you may ask if I have ever gotten a speeding ticket. LMAO.
It is ignorant to blame the millions of lawabiding gunowners in this country for the deeds of a few misguided people. It is equally ignorant to want to punish the lawabiding for the crimes of those individuals. Do you also want to ban alcohol because people get drunk? Ban cars because people get in wrecks? Ban airplanes because they crash? Ban knives because they cut? Ban the sun because it burns? That really is how stupid your arguments are.
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
6:56 pm
what WAS the first “gun control” law, and when and where was it passed?
In addition, most of the Western cow towns had ordinances against carrying firearms inside the city limits. The Earp brothers got into a little dust-up near the OK Corral trying to enforce one such statute against a group of local cowboys.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:56 pm
For the umpteenth time, we are just here to claim what is rightfully ours!
You can have anything you want JamVet except our women.When we figured out you only wanted the slaves we just quit fighting!
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:58 pm
“Using children as props? Shame.”
The real shame is that this supposedly “black” (but actually mulatto) president will not have any inner cities kids, say, from Chicago with their “parent(s)” (or gang leader) there as a prop. No, because mass killing of white people are the only gun problem in America and gun laws in Chicago have NOT prevented high rates of gun violence by CRIMINALS. Yet, he and others want to pass another spurious “solution” to a poorly defined “problem”.
That’s “gubmint” for you, folks.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
6:58 pm
“Using children as props?”
No, Sink, just showing a segment of citizens who want to be protected from other citizens.
Then again, you’d probably label the vets who were shown with cancer (or pics of those who’d died) after Agent Orange exposure as shameful props, right?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:58 pm
Using children as props?
Bush reading The Pet Goat says, “What?”
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:00 pm
Towncrier
Isn’t the art of politics about getting accomplished what you think you can, not necessarily everything you’d personally like?
I know, I know, that concept is lost on modern conservative Republicans, isn’t it?
indigo
January 15th, 2013
7:00 pm
Either this whole sentence is false or guns should not be privately owned.
This sentence is either true or false. If it is false then, by it’s own statement, guns should not be privately owned. If it is true, then either the first statement ‘this whole sentence if false’ or the second statement ‘guns should not be privately owned’ must be true. Assuming the whole sentence to be true, the first possibility is excluded and hence the second must be true.
Therefore, guns should not be privately owned.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:02 pm
Towncrier
Sorry, hit ’submit comment’ too soon.
So isn’t what’s germane to the conversation what he does?
And we know what’s being proposed. So for this thread, isn’t the issue who do those proposals line up with? The majority of Americans? Or the NRA?
That is, according to the lead Jay wrote for this thread.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
7:02 pm
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:39 pm
The libs are very easy to talk to here. Just don’t generalize and start a post with “you morons” or “you loons” and such. Jus sayin…………
keith
January 15th, 2013
7:02 pm
If these ludicrous leftwing solutions to problems worked Chicago would be the safest city in the nation. The great liberal society in Chicago is an abject failure.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:04 pm
“Isn’t the art of politics about getting accomplished what you think you can, not necessarily everything you’d personally like? I know, I know, that concept is lost on modern conservative Republicans, isn’t it?”
Isn’t it the sworn duty of a president to uphold the Constitution (and not subvert it)? I know, that concept is lost on modern liberal Democrats, isn’t it?
josef
January 15th, 2013
7:05 pm
SCOOTTER
@ 702
Yeah, but you’re a Southern Gentleman of Culture and Breeding… you’ve got good manners. AND you use them…. -)
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:05 pm
indigo
To what post does your 7:00 refer? Is it just an exercise in logic? ’cause real-world in the US, it really doesn’t matter, does it?
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:07 pm
Towncrier
“Isn’t it the sworn duty of a president to uphold the Constitution (and not subvert it)?”
Of course.
Are you implying Pres Obama doesn’t?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:12 pm
If these ludicrous leftwing solutions to problems worked Chicago would be the safest city in the nation.
And according to the numbers, Texas ranks in the top ten of states with per capita gun ownership so by your logic should there would be very little crime in Texas?
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
7:13 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:23 pm
That Black Guy: Cross bow
Bow and arrow
blow gun
spear
throwing knife
throwing ax
boomerang
throwing star
stick of dynamite
jar of acid
IED
Now, narrow your list down to the ones that are just as efficient and user friendly (to me user friendly is part of efficiency, and by user friendly I mean easy for a first time user to use effectively) as guns and are also legal.
_________
OK:
Cross bow
Bow and arrow
blow gun
spear
throwing knife
throwing ax
boomerang
throwing star
stick of dynamite
jar of acid
IED
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:14 pm
It would also be of great assistance if we stopped using incorrect descriptions.
A semi auto gun is a gun that requires that a person pull the trigger each time a bullet is fired. The “assault rifle” is a fully automatic gun. Pull and hold the trigger and it shoots continuously.
Semi autos include handguns. Banning assault rifles is a lark. Assault rifles are by public identification, the ones sold in gun shows and gun dealers, are semi auto. Fully auto rifles are already illegal. So a ban on semi auto assault rifles opens a huge door to semi auto weapons period. Another point of political posturing is the magazine capacity. A limit on clip size accomplishes nothing when considering these mass killings.
In the Conn. incident the pistols brought more killing ability to the scene than the semi auto rifle yet you never hear people talking about banning handguns. A basic semi auto handgun typically has 9 to 15 round magazines. Most folks carrying two magazines some three. That’s 30 to 45 bullets delivered just like a rifle, one trigger pull at a time.
Do you ban handguns also ?
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:14 pm
“And we know what’s being proposed. So for this thread, isn’t the issue who do those proposals line up with? The majority of Americans? Or the NRA?”
According to the AJC Manual of Blogging Style? At some point, probably most NEW regulations are going to receive a Constitutional challenge. It matters NOT what Jay, you, I or anyone else FEELS about one or more regulations. Why is Obama suddenly RUSHING to pass gun legislation? Because of an “back breaking” event (”Don’t waste a good crisis”). There has been LITTLE effort to really define the problem we might like to solve, only a rush to pass gun laws. That, in my opinion is STUPID (speaking as an engineer, whose purpose is to solve problems). It’s just like so MUCH legislation passed into law – ill considered, hurried, mind numbingly complex and partially or mostly ineffectual.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:15 pm
Fully auto rifles are already illegal.
Nope.
All it takes is the proper license.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
7:17 pm
Southern Gentleman of Culture and Breeding
Why thank you Suh. And the same to you.
Brosephus™
January 15th, 2013
7:18 pm
The real shame is that this supposedly “black” (but actually mulatto) president will not have any inner cities kids, say, from Chicago with their “parent(s)” (or gang leader) there as a prop. No, because mass killing of white people are the only gun problem in America and gun laws in Chicago have NOT prevented high rates of gun violence by CRIMINALS. Yet, he and others want to pass another spurious “solution” to a poorly defined “problem”.
For some reason, it doesn’t seem like conservatives or gun lovers give a damn about those kids in Chicago either. I don’t see any one of y’all up there helping that community out, but you whip that sh*t out like a 12 inch gold plated dildo every chance you get to try to deflect conversation away from something you don’t want to talk about.
Maybe it’s the flu, maybe it’s the meds… but I’m sick and damned tired of hearing about Chicago kids from a bunch of people who don’t give a rat’s ass about Chicago kids. If you’re personally doing something, Towncrier, then don’t take this to be directed personally at you. If you fall into that same category as the others then maybe y’all will get offended enough to either do something about Chicago or quit using that as a talking point. Kids and young people are dying everywhere and y’all treat them like the period at the end of a sentence or something.
I pray God has mercy on all y’all…
//drive-by//
josef
January 15th, 2013
7:19 pm
REAL SCOOTTER
You’re too kind.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:20 pm
“Of course. Are you implying Pres Obama doesn’t?”
People have. I haven’t seen egregious enough examples to care much. My point was that though he might personally want to ban most (if not all) guns (as they did in Chicago) he would not dare to because he knows (or strongly suspects) he would be impeached. He is “moderate” on gun control because that is all he can be – not because his “thinking” is in “line” with most Americans.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:20 pm
…but you whip that sh*t out like a 12 inch gold plated dildo every chance you get…
That Black Guy
January 15th, 2013
7:21 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
6:24 pm
That Black Guy: His mother owned the guns and would have met all of your qualifications.
The son would have been treated – HOW? if his mother owns the weapons, how would HE have been identified as unstable? Also, are you saying you support *forcing* treatment on law abiding citizens (remember, he didn’t break the law until AFTER he killed his mother).
and would have been less likely to be motivated to steal the guns in the first place under my mental health suggestions. – You don’t know that. You are assuming. Are you saying ALL mental health issues are observable. No one *snaps*.
Under your proposals, Sandy Hook would have still happened.
Also remember, existing laws PREVENTED him from buying his own weapon. That’s why he took his mom’s
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
7:23 pm
Do you ban handguns also ?
That’s the next thing on there agenda Mama! And you can count on it.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
7:24 pm
their not there Whew
Boris Badnoff
January 15th, 2013
7:25 pm
Indeed we need to ban guns to stop all violence. Followed by banning forks to stop obesity. If snakes had been banned in Egypt Cleopatra would still be with us. And if we banned icebergs the Titanic would haven’t sunk. Those laws banning alcohol and drugs have worked wonderfully and now we have no alcoholism or drug abuse problems. And finally a ban on any woman over 40 years or 150 pounds from wearing a miniskirt or tanktop.
josef
January 15th, 2013
7:25 pm
K’CHAK
That one qualifies, at least, for line of the day, eh?
BROSEPHUS
Hope things are getting better ’round there…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:26 pm
That’s the next thing on there agenda Mama! And you can count on it.
Not according to the last O of O meeting.
The next two things are:
1) Make everyone get gay married.
2) Force ‘em all to get abortions.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
7:28 pm
Wow the Bookman Buffoons really went batty after I left this afternoon….
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:28 pm
K’CHAK
That one qualifies, at least, for line of the day, eh?
9 out of 10 MAJOR historians agree.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:30 pm
Towncrier
“Why is Obama suddenly RUSHING to pass gun legislation? Because of an “back breaking” event”
Saw a poster on a friend’s Facebook page (he’s an active duty Air Force senior NCO).
It was a pic of Richard Reid with the caption “one guy tries to bomb on plane by hiding explosives in his shoe and immediately we all have to remove our shoes at the airport” followed by a chart with the caption ” 61 mass murders over the last 30 years and we still can’t pass reasonable gun control”
Again, given Jay’s comments in the lead, the question could be “why do most of the American people support this rush to pass gun legislation”?
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:32 pm
Paul,
The colonies did not have a standing military prior to the revolution. Therefore the constitution had to written to secure the right to oppose the army doesn’t it ?
I mean if there were no governmental power abuse would the forefathers had needed to secure a way to oppose it ?
Here’s you something to ponder. If there were no government could a group of citizens legitimately ban guns under the Bull of Rights ?
Wow that was a good questioning must say. I have discovered a new conservative argument. Smaller government means more gun control and therefore more safety.
indigo
January 15th, 2013
7:32 pm
Paul – 7:05
That is a logically correct statement.
I guess logic doesn’t count in your “real world”.
Recon 0311 2533
January 15th, 2013
7:33 pm
This president must either have complete stupidity behind intrinsic incompetence or he’s determined to bring down this Republic to third world status. I tend to now believe it’s the latter.
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
7:33 pm
“Also remember, existing laws PREVENTED him from buying his own weapon. That’s why he took his mom’s…”
Logic is a fool’s errand on this blog.
Lib ilks just have to “do something” every time some calamity befalls us. It doesn’t matter whether the “something” has any impact addressing the problem at hand, but as long as it’s done, they sleep better at night.
josef
January 15th, 2013
7:34 pm
K’CHAK
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:34 pm
Towncrier
(reference subverting the Constitution and our laws)
““Of course. Are you implying Pres Obama doesn’t?”
People have.”
Yes, people here have said that.
Then again, tens of thousands of Americans signed a petition urging the government to build a Death Star like the one in Star Wars.
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:35 pm
Kam,
Are you kidding ?
In your response you said the government has to approve it, so therefore it’s illegal without government approval correct ?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:35 pm
Lib ilks just have to “do something” every time some calamity befalls us.
Robert and Mary Schindler say, “What?”
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:36 pm
“For some reason, it doesn’t seem like conservatives or gun lovers give a damn about those kids in Chicago either.”
So you thereby stipulate my claim that Obama (who is from Chicago) doesn’t care.
“I don’t see any one of y’all up there helping that community out, but you whip that sh*t out like a 12 inch gold plated dildo every chance you get to try to deflect conversation away from something you don’t want to talk about.”
That’s pretty offensive language there, buddy. And you are praying for God’s mercy upon us? I dare say Jesus would never have used language like that. I am pointing out Obama’s hypocrisy and what so you do? You point to other people’s hypocrisy in a very angry manner. That looks and sounds like defensiveness. Why in the world are you defending Obama? I voted for GWB twice, but please show where I have defended HIM (as opposed to maybe a few of his policies) on this blog.
“Maybe it’s the flu, maybe it’s the meds… but I’m sick and damned tired of hearing about Chicago kids from a bunch of people who don’t give a rat’s ass about Chicago kids. If you’re personally doing something, Towncrier, then don’t take this to be directed personally at you. If you fall into that same category as the others then maybe y’all will get offended enough to either do something about Chicago or quit using that as a talking point. Kids and young people are dying everywhere and y’all treat them like the period at the end of a sentence or something.”
I don’t live in Chicago, buddy. But I have personally tried to help inner city kids in areas in which I have lived. And I have been the recipient of a fair amount of racist statements and threats there for my efforts. I take what you said personally because you responded to MY post, part of the point of which is that it is WRONG to act suddenly because WHITE kids have been killed. It, upon analysis, appears racist and ideological. I am all for doing something about gang violence in our cities. No politician really tackles that. I have often thought if I were elected president, that would be one of the first things I would address – because I view it as a cancer.
“I pray God has mercy on all y’all…”
On all of us, I hope you mean. Otherwise you sound like the Pharisee in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.
godless heathen
January 15th, 2013
7:39 pm
There is a reason the South is the butt of ever
Every country has a city that they make fun of.
In America, it’s Cleveland.
In Russia, it’s Cleveland.
-Yakov Smirnoff
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:40 pm
Mama says
“The colonies did not have a standing military prior to the revolution. Therefore the constitution had to written to secure the right to oppose the army doesn’t it ?”
The British army -
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:42 pm
In your response you said the government has to approve it, so therefore it’s illegal without government approval correct ?
Capt. Picard goalposts with warp drive.
You clearly stated they were illegal which they aren’t.
At both gun ranges that I frequent, fully automatic weapons are for rent so they are clearly not illegal.
josef
January 15th, 2013
7:45 pm
Heathen…
Give the folks from Cleveland their just due, though. They have fun with it, too.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:45 pm
“It was a pic of Richard Reid with the caption “one guy tries to bomb on plane by hiding explosives in his shoe and immediately we all have to remove our shoes at the airport” followed by a chart with the caption ” 61 mass murders over the last 30 years and we still can’t pass reasonable gun control”
You forgot to highlight the word “reasonable”. And to recognize that Reid’s actions had nothing to do with enumerated Constitutional rights (which is the rub in all of this).
“Again, given Jay’s comments in the lead, the question could be “why do most of the American people support this rush to pass gun legislation”?
Again, what does that matter? You almost seem to be saying since a majority of people want to do X then we should rush to do it (even if that might be imprudent or dangerous or illogical). If so, then welcome to the herd.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:45 pm
indigo
“That is a logically correct statement.
I guess logic doesn’t count in your “real world”.
?????????????????????????
You wrote “Either this whole sentence is false or guns should not be privately owned.”
I was asking if the ‘this’ in the sentence means that specific sentence, or a sentence from a previous post, or a sentence in the two paragraphs you wrote after that sentence.
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:45 pm
Paul are you arguing just to argue ?
The British Army was the means by which the King imposed on the citizens. The resistance to that abuse was impossible without the ability to fight the force used by the King. In other words no citizens with guns equals no revolution, Mate. Wait that may have been my Australian accent. Either way no guns and you are still a subject in the kings control.
saywhat?
January 15th, 2013
7:47 pm
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
Something to read for over-reacting Godwinites.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:48 pm
You almost seem to be saying since a majority of people want to do X then we should rush to do it (even if that might be imprudent or dangerous or illogical). If so, then welcome to the herd.
“We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
Condoleezza Rice says, “What?”
Brosephus™
January 15th, 2013
7:49 pm
And you are praying for God’s mercy upon us? I dare say Jesus would never have used language like that.
Yep. Praying for those who need mercy more than I do is the least selfish thing I could do. Praying for self mercy while others are in dire need seems quite selfish.
Also, I’m not Jesus nor did I ever claim that he would use language like that, so until I make such a claim of such, don’t address me as such. As to anger, you’re right it’s anger. I’m sick and tired of “conservatives” talking about Chicago and not doing a thing about Chicago. I know you do stuff in other communities, but until you’re helping in Chicago, you’re just as much of the problem as Obama and every single gangbanger breathing there. So, talk about your community instead.
I take what you said personally because you responded to MY post, part of the point of which is that it is WRONG to act suddenly because WHITE kids have been killed. It, upon analysis, appears racist and ideological.
I responded to your post because of the Chicago Statement, not because of you. As I stated within, if you’re doing something, then don’t pay it any attention which either you didn’t see, didn’t ignore, or really aren’t doing something. I’ll leave that to you. I don’t really care about your personal doings.
Dude, this is America. Nothing happens until it happens to WHITE kids. I don’t know where you grew up or was exposed to, but that’s how America has been for as long as history has been recorded. If/When any single politician seriously gives a crap about inner city America, that will be a first.
As to my prayer of mercy on y’all, I had it right despite your hope. I have people praying for me already, so I’m just making sure y’all are covered too.
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:49 pm
Kam,
Make a deal with you. Take the gun from the gun range and see how many cops descend upon you before you leave the driveway.
Or better yet go ahead and convert your semi auto and then call the police on yourself, want to see how long you will be jail ?
The guns you refer to at the range are owned by the range, not you. The range had to apply to the government in order to possess them and they charge you a fee to shoot them.
You are being very tic tacky with your argument
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
7:50 pm
Not according to the last O of O meeting.
The next two things are:
1) Make everyone get gay married.
2) Force ‘em all to get abortions.
LOL Kam!!!!! They caint make me have no abortion cause god said it aint right!
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:53 pm
“Yes, people here have said that. Then again, tens of thousands of Americans signed a petition urging the government to build a Death Star like the one in Star Wars.”
Then again, intelligent people are willing and able to evaluate the validity of claims on their own merits and not dismiss them in a fallacious deflection. Children, on the other hand, are “pre-logical” and….
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
7:53 pm
“Using children as props?
Shame.”
Using children as targets? : not so much.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
7:53 pm
Make a deal with you.
No deal.
You clearly stated that fully automatic weapons are illegal, I pointed out that they aren’t and now you are weakly trying to walk it back.
Get a hoveround if you’re that lame.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
7:55 pm
Towncrier
I didn’t forget to highlight the word ‘reasonable.’ It wasn’t highlighted in the poster the sergeant posted.
If you read Jay’s lead and then thru the day’s posts, I don’t think you’ll find any of the posters who oppose VP Biden’s/ Pres Obama’s proposals who have stated support for ANY new proposal.
” And to recognize that Reid’s actions had nothing to do with enumerated Constitutional rights (which is the rub in all of this).”
What’s been proposed that violates Constitutional rights? That the Supreme Court would likely overturn?
““Again, given Jay’s comments in the lead, the question could be “why do most of the American people support this rush to pass gun legislation”?
Again, what does that matter?”
It was meant to show, as was laid out in the lead, that most Americans (71% 65% 58%) support control proposals. NOT the NRA position on those proposals.
Mick
January 15th, 2013
7:55 pm
recon@7:33
I see your projecting yourself again, your numbers don’t add up…
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:55 pm
Another problem with this issue.
I am sitting here watching the world news on which they have doctors saying that a mandated reporting of mental treatment is a violation of personal information against people who have not been convicted of a crime and the standing medical disclosure law known as HIPA, The Health Information and Privacy Act.
See every way you turn there is the constitution
Mama Says
January 15th, 2013
7:56 pm
Ok Kam,
I know the gun laws, think what you like I don’t care. Get one and go to jail. Argue with yourself
Mr_B
January 15th, 2013
7:57 pm
“The colonies did not have a standing military prior to the revolution. Therefore the constitution had to written to secure the right to oppose the army doesn’t it ?”
All of the colonies had citizen militias well before the Revolution.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
7:59 pm
“I am sitting here watching the world news on which they have doctors saying that a mandated reporting of mental treatment is a violation of personal information against people who have not been convicted of a crime and the standing medical disclosure law known as HIPA, The Health Information and Privacy Act.”
Doh!
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
8:01 pm
I know the gun laws…
All available evidence suggests otherwise.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
8:01 pm
Mama says
“Paul are you arguing just to argue ?”