You'll have to grill ex about this alleged plan, it's his post, not mine. No, YOU used the word then are trying to pass off that he said, he never did.

The "revolution crap" is the context of the article I posted.

Geez, no wonder no productive discussions ever occur here.

Try to keep up. Irelevant. Grow up. Troll. Ankle biter. Go away.

Ethics in Journalism - Plagiarism & Fabrication Scandals (http://catalog.freedomforum.org/FFLib/JournalistScandals.htm)

Trust little you read in newspapers...

No, YOU used the word then are trying to pass off that he said, he never did.

The "revolution crap" is the context of the article I posted.

Geez, no wonder no productive discussions ever occur here.

Try to keep up. Irelevant. Grow up. Troll. Ankle biter. Go away.

Dude, it's your problem if you can't keep from looking like a fool. I tried to help you avoid that but you just won't give up. Live with it.

Ok, I'll try to live with live it. Thanks for helping... you rock!

Got to go back to my regularly scheduled work and family now. I guess you'll be staying here all day?

Nutty new NRA president Jim Porter still fighting war against 'Northern Aggression' - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nutty-new-nra-president-jim-porter-war-guns-article-1.1333864)


He also advocates training all U.S. civilians to use standard military firearms so “they’re ready to fight tyranny.”

Is this mandatory military service?

Last I checked advocating is not compulsion.

The left fears people knowing how to defend themselves... might harm a few of their friends during a robbery.

The left fears people knowing how to defend themselves
No, the left fears people think they need to defend themselves.

No, the left fears people think they need to defend themselves.

Well that's rather stupid. The left doesn't think people need to defend themselves?

Music store owner shoots burglar dead after his wife was hit with wooden club in store invasion (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316260/Music-store-owner-shoots-burglar-dead-wife-hit-wooden-club-store-invasion.html#ixzz2Sdh538Lz)

Well that's rather stupid. The left doesn't think people need to defend themselves?
Always the putdown. Is it because I respond at all? Because I am female? Because I don't agree with you?

Defend... from imaginary threats.

Always the putdown. Is it because I respond at all? because I am female? because I don't agree with you?

defend ... from imaginary threats.

Um, I'm not the one imagining threats. The subject of my response was the same same as yours, :"the left." Are you the left?

The left thinks the people who need to defend themselves but don't want to be safer by more comprehensive background checks to weed out criminals and nut jobs are loony and paranoid.

I mean worrying about an armed conflict with the government (or zombies) is loony, and a door to door mass confiscation of guns from American citizens is paranoid.

Makes one wonder about those Americans with guns already.

Hello again, Steve:

From what I can detect in this conversation, the NRA is protecting MY rights as a convicted felon to buy a gun.

Tell him thanks for me.

Excon

FYI... gun crime is DOWN dramatically over the last 20 years, not according to the NRA but the Bureau of Justice statistics (http://bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm):


WASHINGTON–Firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69 percent from 1993 to 2011, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

And this stat is just for you my friend:


In 2004 (the most recent year of data available), among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of the offense, fewer than two percent bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show. About 10 percent of state prison inmates said they purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.

And according to Pew (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/), most Americans are unaware that gun crime is down so dramatically. That doesn't fit the left's hysterical narrative.

The left thinks the people who need to defend themselves but don't want to be safer by more comprehensive background checks to weed out criminals and nut jobs are loony and paranoid.

I mean worrying about an armed conflict with the government (or zombies) is loony, and a door to door mass confiscation of guns from American citizens is paranoid.

Makes one wonder about those Americans with guns already.

See my last post, your hysterics have been exposed for what they are, nonsense.

The left thinks the people who need to defend themselves but don't want to be safer by more comprehensive background checks to weed out criminals and nut jobs are loony and paranoid.

I mean worrying about an armed conflict with the government (or zombies) is loony, and a door to door mass confiscation of guns from American citizens is paranoid.

Makes one wonder about those Americans with guns already.

The Zombie fearing crowd are Democrats.

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books now most of which are ignored... why does the left thing more are going to change anything.

Its illegal for Democrats to be arming the drug cartels... but they are doing it and nobody has been arrested or impeached for it yet.

Well that's rather stupid. The left doesn't think people need to defend themselves?

Music store owner shoots burglar dead after his wife was hit with wooden club in store invasion (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316260/Music-store-owner-shoots-burglar-dead-wife-hit-wooden-club-store-invasion.html#ixzz2Sdh538Lz)

I would also say that anyone, left or right, may well fear a situation whereby self protection becomes some sort of prerequisite for living in a community. Some people may well be happy with such a requirement, but no everyone wants to be put into this situation.

So no, it isn't a stupid claim. In fact it is a sensible claim.

I would also say that anyone, left or right, may well fear a situation whereby self protection becomes some sort of prerequisite for living in a community. Some people may well be happy with such a requirement, but no everyone wants to be put into this situation.

So no, it isn't a stupid claim. In fact it is a sensible claim.

I commented on what was said, not what wasn't said.

Hello again, Steve:

Well that's rather stupid. The left doesn't think people need to defend themselves?What's stupid, is to say that black is white... As in, going through a background check MEANS people can't defend themselves..

Excon

Its all stupid no zombie is going to pass a background check

I commented on what was said, not what wasn't said.



Wondergirl's quote was in response to Smoothy:

"The left fear people knowing how to defend themselves..."

Wondergirl reponded:

"No, the left fears people who* think they need to defend themselves."
* I am assuming that this word was omitted.

She made a sensible response in the context of the conservation. Hence my response.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves... and no lefty has the right to decide who can or when.

After all its the left that murders over 20 million babies a year then argues convicted murderers and other criminals have a "right" to life.

Hello again, smoothy:

Everyone has the right to defend themselves... and no lefty has the right to decide who can or when.

What's stupid, is to say that black is white... As in, going through a background check MEANS people can't defend themselves.. Do you want to argue with me about what the words mean?

Excon

Everyone has the right to defend themselves...and no lefty has the right to decide who can or when.



I assume this is in response to my post.

Show me where in my responses I am denying anyone of this right.



After all its teh left that murders over 20 million babies a year then argues convicted murderers and other criminals have a "right" to life.

This is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

I assume this is in response to my post.

Show me where in my responses I am denying anyone of this right.



This is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

Not really... its the stated position of the same people who are against the average citizen who has the right to defend themselves and their property.

Until the Supreme court struck down Washington, DC's illegal antigun laws... it was common for a homeowner who shot an intruder in their own home during a robbery or home invasion to be charged for MORE time for having an unregistered gun than the repeat offender criminal would be with their illegal gun in the commission of a crime..

The added word doesn't make it any more sensible, Tut. Thinking one needs to defend themselves, their families, their property is NORMAL, thinking otherwise is NUTS. If she had said what you did I'd have a different answer, but that is not what she said.

The added word doesn't make it any more sensible, Tut. Thinking one needs to defend themselves, their families, their property is NORMAL, thinking otherwise is NUTS. If she had said what you did I'd have a different answer, but that is not what she said.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that defending themselves is anything but normal. To think otherwise is crazy.

My point is this:

From the information provided via the conservation thus far, it is not possible to conclude that Wondergirl is actually supporting the idea that people should not be allowed to defend themselves.

You can show otherwise?

Nobody has said you don't have a right to protect yourselves, or take away your guns. That's you guys making a common sense thing like trust but verify into an issue that serve no ones best interest but the ones who can't pass a background check because they don't have too.

Get over yourselves my gosh and stop being fed by the gun manufacturer and think of yourself and your neighbor with the crazy nephew, or the ex convict with a stupid girlfriend or the millions of people who take money from a dope dealer to buy guns. Or even consider the guy who sells his guns to anyone with cash, off the books.

Yeah the way you want to exercise your rights suck. You even want to protect foreign arms dealers and what good does that do when they sell to people for cash to overthrow the law where ever?

Wake up why don't you and stop making it so easy to break the law and kill people.

Remember YOUR President and Messiah was giving thousands of guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels... and he and Erik Holder are still not in jail for doing it. WHere were the background checks THEY were supposed to be doing? Or are they above those laws too?

If you or me gave ONE gun to a criminal... we would be rotting in jail before the sun sets.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that defending themselves is anything but normal. To think otherwise is crazy.

My point is this:

From the information provided via the conservation thus far, it is not possible to conclude that Wondergirl is actually supporting the idea that people should not be allowed to defend themselves.

You can show otherwise?

I made no suggestion she was. I made it clear that the subject of my comment was the same as hers, "the left." (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3458443-post1011.html) Seeing as how she stated (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gun-control-past-debates-724058-72.html#post3388464) earlier that she is a "registered Republican" I believe we were both referring to OTHERS.

But go ahead, keep trying to find something that isn't there.

From the information provided via the conservation thus far, it is not possible to conclude that Wondergirl is actually supporting the idea that people should not be allowed to defend themselves.
WG has no problem with people wanting to defend themselves. There are guns of all types in her house, and she is okay with that. They are safely locked up (finally!) and have been used correctly (so far). She herself learned how to handle a gun and shoot around the age of 10. WG DOES have a problem with paranoia, meaning people who have to own lots of guns because they think they have to be fully armed and be able to defend themselves from boogeymen that don't exist.

Not really...its the stated position of the same people who are against the average citizen who has the right to defend themselves and their property.


I don't know about the stated position of some people. I was assuming you were responding to my post. If this was the case then I am not against self-protection.




Until the Supreme court struck down Washington, DC's illegal antigun laws....it was common for a homeowner who shot an intruder in their own home during a robbery or home invasion to be charged for MORE time for having an unregistered gun than the repeat offender criminal would be with their illegal gun in the commission of a crime..

Again, I don't know about the type of justice administered in these particular circumstances. Documentary evidence would be useful.

I don't know about the stated position of some people. I was assuming you were responding to my post. If this was the case then I am not against self-protection.



Again, I don't know about the type of justice administered in these particular circumstances. Documentary evidence would be useful.

Actually its wasn't a direct response to your post...

As far as Documentary evidence...

Google them up including Washington Post and Washington Times (the Two major DC newspapers) in the search query and the results will be numerous. And far from complete... because only what was printed will show up... there were innumerous comments by TV news anchors belittling the homeowner for not letting the police deal with it when faced by an armed intruder. Saw so many over the nearly 30 years I've been in this area it nauseated me. And one of the reasons you couldn't PAY me enough to live in DC. And its one of the reasons I moved to Virginia rather than MD when I returned from Europe. I lived in MD before going to Europe after College..

I don't fault you from not being aware of that... as you don't live in this country much less this area... but its extremely well known and they even gloated over the fact for years on the TV and radio news.

Also it was standard practice to threaten them publicly that charges were being considered... fewer charges were actually ever made.

I made no suggestion she was. I made it clear that the subject of my comment was the same as hers, "the left." (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3458443-post1011.html) Seeing as how she stated (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gun-control-past-debates-724058-72.html#post3388464) earlier that she is a "registered Republican" I believe we were both referring to OTHERS.

But go ahead, keep trying to find something that isn't there.

Yes, the subject was the left.

"Well that's rather stupid. The left doesn't think people need to defend themselves?"

This is a guilt by association fallacy. In other words, it is an attack on a person because of the possible similarities between their views and other people (the left) who are are putting forward a particular point of view.

Do you ever just talk or just come to analyze me, tom and smoothy?

Do you ever just talk or just come to analyze me, tom and smoothy?
HOW or WHY or IN WHAT CONTEXT you say something is often more interesting than WHAT you say.

HOW or WHY or IN WHAT CONTEXT you say something is often more interesting than WHAT you say.

And ASSUMPTIONS and ASSIGNING motives that aren't there is counterproductive.

And ASSUMPTIONS and ASSIGNING motives that aren't there is counterproductive.
That is why we ask and challenge and comment.

That is why we ask and challenge and comment.

??

?????
That's what you do too, hence, this is on a Discussion board.

I think we ask and challenge for different reasons.

WG DOES have a problem with paranoia, meaning people who have to own lots of guns because they think they have to be fully armed and be able to defend themselves from boogeymen that don't exist.

How many is it that allows you to state a person has too many guns?

How many is it that allows you to state a person has too many guns?
I never said "too many guns." I suggested there might be a paranoia that demands gun ownership.

Disarming the citizens would solve that paranoia problem..

I never said "too many guns." I suggested there might be a paranoia that demands gun ownership.

So what is the threshold you have in mind ? One that reflects gun ownership and crosses the line into paranoia ?


To make this statement you must have had a number in mind:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl
WG DOES have a problem with paranoia, meaning people who have to own lots of guns because they think they have to be fully armed and be able to defend themselves from boogeymen that don't exist.

So what is the threshold you have in mind ?
People can own lots of guns, but leave the paranoia somewhere else.

I'm just curious as to what qualifies as paranoia, because I've seen more on the left than on the right.

I'm just curious as to what qualifies as paranoia, because I've seen more on the left than on the right.
Were you at the NRA convention the other day?

Is it paranoid to wear a seat belt ? I wear mine all the time and yet have not been in an accident yet where it made a difference. But one day it could.

Were you at the NRA convention the other day?

No, and that's another in a long line of non-answers.

is it paranoid to wear a seat belt ? I wear mine all the time and yet have not been in an accident yet where it made a difference. But one day it could.

Wearing a seal belt and owing a gun isn't a valid comparison, a gun does not automatically deploy when the owner is threatened, it protects against nothing, it is a deterent only when it is visible and so it serves only to pander to the paranoia of the owner

Disarming the citizens would solve that paranoia problem..

Yes it might because if you know others don't possess the weapon you don't need one yourself

wearing a seal belt and owing a gun isn't a valid comparison, a gun does not automatically deploy when the owner is threatened, it protects against nothing, it is a deterent only when it is visable and so it serves only to pander to the paranoia of the owner

Most seat belts do not automatically deploy at least here in the U.S. on most cars the only automatic style system is an airbag. Knowing that there are guns in a given area the criminal will try to pass on those areas to avoid confrontation. So it doesn't have to be displayed to become a deterent. This has been proven time and time again even with the recent shootings in the news.

wearing a seal belt and owing a gun isn't a valid comparison, a gun does not automatically deploy when the owner is threatened, it protects against nothing, it is a deterent only when it is visable and so it serves only to pander to the paranoia of the owner

So by this you verify that firearms have no independent volition; that "Guns don't kill people."

Thus by supporting gun control you are in fact supporting 'control.'

How very authoritarian of you.

yes it might because if you know others don't possess the weapon you don't need one yourself

And then we can all trust in our benevolent government to take care of us.

because we know that when we call 9-1-1 ,that the police will always timely arrive in time to prevent an assault on us.

because we know that when we call 9-1-1 ,that the police will always timely arrive in time to prevent an assault on us.

I don't blame them. I would be arriving as late as possible.

because we know that when we call 9-1-1 ,that the police will always timely arrive in time to prevent an assault on us.

YOU SEE TOM PARANOIA IN FULL FLIGHT, you know your police will respond maybe if you worked on getting rid of the scum instead of insisting on their rights you wouldn't need guns

Not paranoid... just realist . The cops are good at drawing white lines around the victim .

not paranoid ... just realist . The cops are good at drawing white lines around the victim .

Many cops could not help but think to themselves. " It's better than having a white line drawn around me" That's realism.

I don't like operating from a premise of all Americans are upstanding law abiding citizens because a gun is no toy and a stupid mistake costs lives and I submit the homes that act stupidly and a kid kills or injures a sibling. Just because a nut is undiagnosed he is still a nut, and dangerous.

Yeah I say check everybody as a matter of process and policy before you allow them to exercise their rights and a psych exam would be great as well as some responsible instructions.

And a recognition that criminals are smarter than the public and have no regard for laws and we make smarter criminals every day. I am a realist too, and most criminals are better armed than the cops.

YOU SEE TOM PARANOIA IN FULL FLIGHT, you know your police will respond maybe if you worked on getting rid of the scum instead of insisting on their rights you wouldn't need guns

It's the lefties that insist on the criminals having MORE rights than the innocent law abiding public.

If they locked up the worst of them and threw away the key... it would be a safer world.

If the exicuted the worst of the worst... there would be room for the others. But the lefties here fight to defend the murderers and rapists that they have the right to life... will in the next breath arguing about their rights to kill babies apparently almost up to the point they could fight back.

But then there are the few bad cops out there... that really are nothing but criminals with a badge that haven't gotten caught yet. And yes if Washington DC and PG COunty MD are any indicator... there are a LOT of them.

Washington DC police in the last 4 years have had over 90 of their own arrested and convicted for crimes.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/90-plus-arrests-of-d.c.-cops-in-under-4-years/article/2507386

Take the guns off the cops... and while you are at it.. take away the Secret service, and armed private guards too. Because no one individual has a right to armed protection while any other citizen is being denied that same right.

Hello clete:


maybe if you worked on getting rid of the scum instead of insisting on their rights you wouldn't need gunsCouple things... I'm SURE you include ME in your description of scum. It's true too. A police state would accomplish your utopia - or would it?

We have the LARGEST prison population in the ENTIRE world. It's BIGGER than China. It's BIGGER than Russia. It's BIGGER than Iran. But, it's NOT big enough for you...

The good news is, we have a Constitution that PREVENTS a$$holes like you from getting hold of things..

Excon

PS> (edited)
If the locked up the worst of them and threw away the key... it would be a safer world.

If the exicuted the worst of the worst... there would be room for the others.You too, smoothy!

Hello again, smoothy:


It's the lefties that insist on the criminals having MORE rights than the innocent law abiding public.Actually, it's the Constitution, but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Actually, it's the Constitution, but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

excon

Where in the constitution do the criminals get more rights than the law abiding population?

Where in the constitution do the criminals get more rights than the law abiding population?You posit a statement that has no bearing in fact, it's hard to argue against that for sure.

Where in the constitution do the the criminals get more rights than the law abiding population?

You have a right to bear arms and criminals don't. You have a right to vote criminals don't. They do have a right to due process under the law, so do you, so what's this about they have MORE rights than citizens?

You have a right to bear arms and criminals don't. You have a right to vote criminals don't. They do have a right to due process under the law, so do you, so what's this about they have MORE rights than citizens?

excon said they did... and he claimed it was in the constitution... where exactly I don't know. Was hoping he couild point it out.

They lost those rights as part of the punishment for the crimes they committed and were convicted of.

It is in the presumption of innocence that they have more rights than other citizens. We all know where there is smoke there is fire

it is in the presumption of innocence that they have more rights than other citizens. we all know where there is smoke there is fire

No it isn't... their rights are equal but no more than other citizens.. everyone enjoys the presumption of innocence here... not just the convicted criminals. Once convicted there is no longer any presumption.

Hello clete:

Couple things... I'm SURE you include ME in your description of scum. It's true too. A police state would accomplish your utopia - or would it?

We have the LARGEST prison population in the ENTIRE world. It's BIGGER than China. It's BIGGER than Russia. It's BIGGER than Iran. But, it's NOT big enough for you...

The good news is, we have a Constitution that PREVENTS a$$holes like you from getting hold of things..

excon

PS> (edited) You too, smoothy!!

Let's try to deal with some issues Ex former prisioners who have reformed and form a legitimate part of society are not scum. What I refer to as scum are the exploiters, the drug dealers, the gun men, the rapists, the child molesters and standover merchants, those who have no intention of complying with the law

A police state isn't the answer, that can become just as lawless. You have the largest prison population because you are stupid and have gone too far to the right. The answer to societies problems is not to put minor offenders in jail and turn them into criminals and for your information I am not an arsehole, arsehole, I am a caring person who wants to see as few as possible in the prison system but proper systems for rehabilitation of first offenders. I spent too much of my life trying to keep my teenage son out of reform school, etc but I also want the idiots who think they can offend with impunity because they are a minority dealt with. I have been a visitor to prisions

I cannot say what it is like for you but our prison system has an over representation of minorities and it would seem an increasing population of muslim idiots

Well lack of gun control has shown up again this time in New Orleans. Another round of the excuses coming up. You know the excuses, it was criminals, law abiding people need to protect themselves. There were cops there, so more security wouldn't have prevented it. Someone might like to answer this question in what way did gun ownership prevent this incident or allow the victims to protect themselves?

well lack of gun control has shown up again this time in New Orleans. Another round of the excuses coming up. You know the excuses, it was criminals, law abiding people need to protect themselves. There were cops there, so more security wouldn't have prevented it. Someone might like to answer this question in what way did gun ownership prevent this incident or allow the victims to protect themselves?

At this time they believe it was gang related violence. Lets wait and see what develops.

Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18108298-gun-violence-in-us-has-fallen-dramatically-over-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?last=1368245292&threadId=3719446&sp=0&pc=25#last_1)

Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18108298-gun-violence-in-us-has-fallen-dramatically-over-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?last=1368245292&threadId=3719446&sp=0&pc=25#last_1)

Irrespective of that it is obviously too high with 10,000+ losing their lives each year, and you need to look at how the statistic is expressed. As your population has grown and you did have a peak in the 90's. The level of gun violence is back to 1976 levels so it also could be said it hasn't fallen in 40 years

Irrespective of that it is obviously too high with 10,000+ losing their lives each year, and you need to look at how the statistic is expressed. as your population has grown and you did have a peak in the 90's. The level of gun violence is back to 1976 levels so it also could be said it hasn't fallen in 40 years


There were 35.9 thousand people died in automobile accidents in 2009. Why aren't you foaming out the mouth to outlaw automobiles? That number is 4 times higher... and there is no constitutional right to own or drive a car.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html


Most of those murders are committed by blacks with no legal right to possess guns... that should be in jail... and aren't thanks to liberal policies. (meaning they are repat offenders)

There were 35.9 thousand people died in automobile accidents in 2009. Why aren't you foaming out the mouth to outlaw automobiles? That number is 4 times higher... and there is no constitutional right to own or drive a car.

Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities - The 2012 Statistical Abstract - U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html)

I don't foam at the mouth I leave that others who have a penchant for that sort of thing. I'm sure that if someone tried to abolish the automobile you would find the constitutional right under the commerce clause or some such obscure intrepretation just as this right to own a gun is an obscure interpretation


Most of those murders are committed by blacks with no legal right to possess guns... that should be in jail... and aren't thanks to liberal policies. (meaning they are repat offenders)

Now we come to the nub of it the raw racism which says you have to protect yourselves from black people and I have no doubt the black people, noting your racist attitude, say they have to protect themselves from white people. When you stop locking people up you may find a way to solve many problems but there is no way they are going to cut that racism out of you. You want a war, that is how you solve your problems, have a war, accumulate a few million bodies and you can say, look, mission accomplished.

Good Morning, clete:

**greenie**

excon

I don't foam at the mouth I leave that others who have a penchant for that sort of thing. I'm sure that if someone tried to abolish the automobile you would find the constitutional right under the commerce clause or some such obscure intrepretation just as this right to own a gun is an obscure interpretation



now we come to the nub of it the raw racism which says you have to protect yourselves from black people and I have no doubt the black people, noting your racist attitude, say they have to protect themselves from white people. When you stop locking people up you may find a way to solve many problems but there is no way they are going to cut that racism out of you. you want a war, that is how you solve your problems, have a war, accumulate a few million bodies and you can say, look, mission accomplished.

Back to this race baiting by the left again... plenty of statistics back the fact they (the blacks) commit crimes of all types in much higher rates of any other ethnic group... or is that YOUR racist side by pretending that's NOT the case?

In fact statistics prove it even around here on a local scale with PG county MD... and DC wheich have been majority plack for some time... also are the areas with the highest crime rates in this area... spread that ring outward to past 60 miles... and Baltimore... another Black majority city with a massive crime problem falls into the fold.

Chicagos crime issues are legendary... As are those of Camden NJ. Both majority black cities coincidently.

I don't foam at the mouth I leave that others who have a penchant for that sort of thing. I'm sure that if someone tried to abolish the automobile you would find the constitutional right under the commerce clause or some such obscure intrepretation just as this right to own a gun is an obscure interpretation



now we come to the nub of it the raw racism which says you have to protect yourselves from black people and I have no doubt the black people, noting your racist attitude, say they have to protect themselves from white people. When you stop locking people up you may find a way to solve many problems but there is no way they are going to cut that racism out of you. you want a war, that is how you solve your problems, have a war, accumulate a few million bodies and you can say, look, mission accomplished.

Clete, that's about as much bullsh*t as I've ever seen. Why don't you mind your own country's problems instead of foaming at the mouth every day about mine?

P.S. You want facts? Of the 6222 hate crimes reported in 2011 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/tables/table-12) in the U.S. 2092 of them - over a third - were in 3 states; California, New York and New Jersey. The southern states combined accounted for a little over half of over what was reported in those 3 states. One would think if it was so much racism the problem would be down south according to the left's narrative. Just sayin'...

Clete, that's about as much bullsh*t as I've ever seen. Why don't you mind your own country's problems instead of foaming at the mouth every day about mine?

Your debates are more interesting we don't have the same problems you do in finding solutions, but smoothy just has to be taken on, his attitudes are too far to the right, he sounds like a closet KKK member and don't you find it disturbing he allegedly works for your government

Back to this race baiting by the left again.....plenty of statistics back the fact they (the blacks) commit crimes of all types in much higher rates of any other ethnic group...or is that YOUR racist side by pretending thats NOT the case?

In fact statistics prove it even around here on a local scale with PG county MD....and DC wheich have been majority plack for some time...also are the areas with the highest crime rates in this area...spread that ring outward to past 60 miles...and Baltimore...another Black majority city with a massive crime problem falls into the fold.

Chicagos crime issues are legendary.....As are those of Camden NJ. Both majority black cities coincidently.

Instead of pointing out the obvious, you might look for other reasons, like the level of disadvantage, or the level of unemployment. I don't doubt you have a problem with drugs and associated crime but Chicago for example had a crime problem long before black people gained the ascendency and you may find if you looked closely that some of these other areas might have too. You might ask who modelled lawlessnes for black people? You also have a high black population in jails. What this demonstrates is the system of law enforcement, etc doesn't work.. You know they say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things and expect things to change

Your debates are more interesting we don't have the same problems you do in finding solutions, but smoothy just has to be taken on, his attitudes are too far to the right, he sounds like a closet KKK member and don't you find it disturbing he allegedly works for your government

If you'll notice I answer for myself, not Smoothy. See the P.S. on my last post.

Good Morning, clete:

**greenie**

excon

I don't know what that means ex but I expect you are saying I'm further left than you are, not so, I actually have some very right wing attitudes about certain things but I'm not as far right as these fellows.

Where I come from a greenie is a tree hugging no hoper who thinks the environment must be preserved at the expense of the community whilst I don't think climate change is actually happening, not in the way it is being sold anyway, taking temperature and CO2 readings next to an active volcano , give me a break, please, but it has nothing to do with this discussion

Clete ,it's the AMHD silly rating system that they have to good sense to not employ on this board.

Instead of pointing out the obvious, you might look for other reasons, like the level of disadvantage, or the level of unemployment. I don't doubt you have a problem with drugs and associated crime but Chicago for example had a crime problem long before black people gained the ascendency and you may find if you looked closely that some of these other areas might have too. You might ask who modelled lawlessnes for black people?. You also have a high black population in jails. What this demonstrates is the system of law enforcement, etc doesn't work.. You know they say the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things and expect things to change

THose are lame excuses... people are responsible for their own action.

Black people are no less capable of civilized behaviour and success than any other group... despite the way so many of them appear to act... because that takes effort and work.. something that the criminal element has an adversion to doing... despite their ethnic background.

You on the other hand like so many other lefties... seem to believe they are inferiour and as such need estra help and assistance because you don't think they can do it on their own.

I on the other hand know they can if they got off their butts and made the effort. That would make you part of the racist element here... not me.

Nice rant smoothy as usual you ignore the obvious, it's a lot easier for a young black guy to go to prison than his white counterpart because the cops hang around the hood instead of the gated communities where most of the dope dealing goes on, have no lawyers, and get heavier sentences.

But like always you never address unequal circumstances and opt for the hardcore racist version of everything. If by a miracle the law was equally applied and enforced the kids in the burbs around the hood would be doing as much time as the kids on the corner unless daddy's lawyer get it reduced, or posts bail.

I bet you thought all the criminals were equal? Naw, I never heard you rail against the ones with lawyers and loot. Just the poor ones of color.

Nice rant smoothy as usual you ignore the obvious, its a lot easier for a young black guy to go to prison than his white counterpart because the cops hang around the hood instead of the gated communities where most of the dope dealing goes on, have no lawyers, and get heavier sentences.

But like always you never address unequal circumstances and opt for the hardcore racist version of everything. If by a miracle the law was equally applied and enforced the kids in the burbs around the hood would be doing as much time as the kids on the corner unless daddy's lawyer get it reduced, or posts bail.

I bet you thought all the criminals were equal? Naw, I never heard you rail against the ones with lawyers and loot. Just the poor ones of color.

That's pure leftist propaganda and you can't prove otherwise. The lefties are invested in the mentality that they and certain other groups are incapible of getting by much less succeeding without the help of the government.

Its all total BS.

Just like the other favorite lefty rant that someone can't get rich without someone getting poor as a result.

It might work that way in certain lefty neighborhoods like CHicago where crime is the major industry, but not in the real world.

But like always you never address unequal circumstances and opt for the hardcore racist version of everything.

Such as the unequal circumstances created by LBJ when he set up the "War on Poverty" that he told two governors was designed to have blacks "voting Democrat for two hundred years?"

Blacks will vote Democrat. - What Liberals Say (http://www.aim.org/wls/blacks-will-vote-democrat/)

There's your hardcore racism

I read the link but please elaborate on the unequal circumstances of the War On Poverty.

Clete ,it's the AMHD silly rating system that they have to good sense to not employ on this board.

Really Tom never seen it what does it mean?

Poor white people don't get the same benefits... Poor Asians don't either... nor do the poor of any other ethnic group.

So much for equality as far as Liberals are concerned... its handouts for our voter base and screw the rest.

Poor white people don't get the same benefits...Poor Asians don't either....nor do the poor of any other ethnic group.

So much for equality as far as Liberals are concerned....its handouts for our voter base and screw the rest.

Quite a claim now back it up with fact.

Quite a claim now back it up with fact.

Why should I bother... you don't.

Another wild claim you cannot backup.

Quite a claim now back it up with fact.

Here is a factoid for you. This is some of the poorest of the poor we have in the United States. And these people have a much different attitude then the ones that figure its owed to them for a lifetime.


Appalachia's War: The poorest of the poor struggle back (http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20001126appalachiamainnat2.asp)


Added after post.

http://www.app-pov-proj.org/igive.html

I read the link but please elaborate on the unequal circumstances of the War On Poverty.

The main program of the "War on Poverty," AFDC, encouraged staying in 'unequal circumstances.'


Typically, only very poor families composed
Of single mothers and their children qualified
For AFDC. This feature led some to
Argue that the program discouraged marriage
And work. To be eligible for AFDC, a
Family had to include a dependent child who
Was under age 18, was a citizen or permanent
Legal resident, and could be considered
Deprived of parental support—usually
Because no father lived in the home

http://www.futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/07_01_01.pdf

Another wild claim you cannot backup.

No less than your claim.

Here is a factoid for you. This is some of the poorest of the poor we have in the United States. And these people have a much different attitude then the ones that figure its owed to them for a lifetime.


Appalachia's War: The poorest of the poor struggle back (http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20001126appalachiamainnat2.asp)


Added after post.

http://www.app-pov-proj.org/igive.html

And I can back that up because unlike the lefties here whose world perspective is what they are told through a lens of bias... I actually grew up around some of the Appalachia culture and people. As I grew up in the northeastern fringe of it.

Appalachia culture and people. As I grew up in the northeastern fringe of it.
The ones I grew up around (NC hills) had illegal stills and drove over roads at night, delivering illegal moonshine and avoiding the "revenuers." And that wasn't the only illegal thing they did.

The ones I grew up around (NC hills) had illegal stills and drove over roads at night, delivering illegal moonshine and avoiding the "revenuers." And that wasn't the only illegal thing they did.

Didn't know any with stills... but that's not saying there wasn't any. Just nobody admitted to it.

Didn't know any with stills...but that's not saying there wasn't any. Just nobody admitted to it.

'Tain't something you talk about. These days you don't talk about how many plants you got growing. Different gro-lights, yes, but not what's under them.

Oh I don't know I have some lovely green plants in my front yard

'Tain't something you talk about. These days you don't talk about how many plants you got growing. Different gro-lights, yes, but not what's under them.

True... but then most of the people I know there aren't drinkers... or just aren't quite close enough they would mention it. Mostly both of those two since I don't live in that area any more so I don't see them frequently enough.

Joe Scarborough is apparently fretting over the thought that the IRS scandal might put a kink in the gun control push. It's a good point he raises, though probably for the wrong reason, but the IRS scandal doesn't exactly instill much confidence in trusting the government with private background check info. Missouri twice leaked info to the feds (http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/highway-patrol-gave-feds-missouri-weapon-permits-data/article_266b644e-a235-11e2-a8e7-0019bb30f31a.html) and you do recall media folks publishing permit holder info don't you?

If only libs weren't so naïve in putting their faith in government these scandals just might get us somewhere in scaling back the Leviathan and protecting our rights.

Count Piers Morgan also among those having at least a slight change of heart (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348625/piers-%E2%80%98tyranny%E2%80%99-andrew-johnson)...


“I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them,” Morgan said last night. “But, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government.”

Guest Penn Jillette agreed with his assessment: “I think that it shows you that how much we can trust the government and just sit back, which is not very much at all.”

I'll take "vaguely tyrannical" out of Morgan, but that "vaguely" part is only going to get worse as government expands Still got your heads in the sand?

P.S. I think you can count any new gun control out of the question. In fact, I bet there's another surge in gun sales. That's the only segment of the economy the left knows how to improve.

Count Piers Morgan also among those having at least a slight change of heart (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348625/piers-%E2%80%98tyranny%E2%80%99-andrew-johnson)...



I'll take "vaguely tyrannical" out of Morgan, but that "vaguely" part is only going to get worse as government expands Still got your heads in the sand?

P.S. I think you can count any new gun control out of the question. In fact, I bet there's another surge in gun sales. That's the only segment of the economy the left knows how to improve.

Sorry but people are slowing down a bit on the gun sales due to government enforced false ammo shortage.

Sorry but people are slowing down a bit on the gun sales due to government enforced false ammo shortage.

Reloading supplies are through the roof, though.

Reloading supplies are through the roof, though.

Everything is as far as recreational shooting is. Its insane right now.

Remember how all those buy back programs were going to get guns off the street ? Guns surrendered would be destroyed ? Well not quite .

St. Charles ;a suburb of Chi town has decided to put tsome of those guns back on the market by selling them to dealers . I wonder what the mark up is ?
St. Charles IL police selling buyback guns to licensed dealers - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2013/05/31/Police-selling-guns-from-buyback-program/UPI-64641370015272/)

Again ;the is a suburb of Chi town ;a town that had 8 people shot on Thursday alone .

remember how all those buy back programs were going to get guns off the street ? Guns surrendered would be destroyed ? Well not quite .

St. Charles ;a suburb of Chi town has decided to put tsome of those guns back on the market by selling them to dealers . I wonder what the mark up is ?
St. Charles IL police selling buyback guns to licensed dealers - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2013/05/31/Police-selling-guns-from-buyback-program/UPI-64641370015272/)

Again ;the is a suburb of Chi town ;a town that had 8 people shot on Thursday alone .


Lets make the place a little safer while we turn a profit at it. This just shows how govenments lie and talk through both sides of their mouth. You always have to be vigilant when the government is involved. I wonder if anyone is going to file suit for missuse of government funds?

remember how all those buy back programs were going to get guns off the street ? Guns surrendered would be destroyed ? Well not quite .

St. Charles ;a suburb of Chi town has decided to put tsome of those guns back on the market by selling them to dealers . I wonder what the mark up is ?
St. Charles IL police selling buyback guns to licensed dealers - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2013/05/31/Police-selling-guns-from-buyback-program/UPI-64641370015272/)

Again ;the is a suburb of Chi town ;a town that had 8 people shot on Thursday alone .

Reminds me of another program from some Chicago politicians - Fast & Furious.

I have to wonder if all of the proper paperwork was filled out for the guns tat were purchases from the public, then for the sale of the guns back to dealers. If any one of those guns had been used in a crime and the information not collected about the gun at the time it was purchased from the "original owner", puts whomever buys that gun from a dealer "in the sights" if the gun somehow turns up as "hot" from a crime. It was in Chicago. I seriously doubt any of this was done and if it was , it was probably at a minimum.

Here is more twists into the tale of gun control from across the pond.

Britain wants its guns back - The Commentator (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back#.UaY8xSR1uQ4.twitter)

But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."

Another supporting article:

Send A Gun To Defend A British Home ... Pistols - Rifles - Revolvers - Shotguns - Binoculars (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/650257/posts)

Hello again,

When law and order breaks down, if people can't depend on the authorities to keep them safe, they're going to want to do it themselves.

If that's where we find ourselves, is it better to arm ourselves, or fix what's wrong?

excon

I would say you don't solve the problem by arming yourselves, you need to fix the problem, basically it is greed and selfishness, the unholy trinity, self first, self second and if there is any thing left self again

Hello again,

When law and order breaks down, if people can't depend on the authorities to keep them safe, they're gonna want to do it themselves.

If that's where we find ourselves, is it better to arm ourselves, or fix what's wrong?

excon

The problem resides in fixing what is wrong. Too many opinions in the pot and most just believe in making more laws to control the population. To me its not the answer. Law enforcement has become increasingly intrusive in peoples lives. Its time for them to back away and get a grip on the big picture.

I agree that we must be able to defend ourselves at any time against anyone. We are seeing police being turned into paramilitary forces. Look at the Boston Bombing. Was it really necessary to have 2000 heavily armed, military style police in that one 4 block area? They ended up shooting at the kid in the boat over 100 times and still missed him for the most part. Police are becoming extremely intrusive even in small towns all over America. We are not criminals but law enforcement treats everyone as if they are suspect of something wrong. The term Domestic Terrorism is being used more and more but just who are these Domestic Terrorists? Is the Government usurping the Constitution for more control over the people or is it the People arming themselves against the government that is trying to control them? If the Military and Police band together in a move against the Citizens of this country, they have done the one thing that their oath to duty stands for... Upholding the Laws and Constitution of the country. If the Citizens take up arms against these Constitutional violators . Would those citizens be considered enemies of the state? How many of the military will "defect" and join forces with the citizens? WE have a system designed that is supposed to avoid any of these scenarios but it is increasing becoming apparent that there are forces that do not want the citizens to have those
Powers. And luckily the citizens are far better armed than the military and are out numbered by 50+ to 1.

The problem is the US against THEM mentality that pervades to keep us divided. The ruling party is always defending against them, to keep power. This is a man made divide that keeps compromise for solutions to the real problems off the table.

I mean we buy guns not to defend our home against a common enemy, criminals and crazies, but against our own duly elected officials. That's crazy since its our government. Or did they steal that too when they stole all the money?

Hello Handy:


And luckily the citizens are far better armed than the military and are out numbered by 50+ to 1.That's just silly. Just how many Apache helicopters or F-16's have you got stashed? Furthermore, it's popular spin on the right to believe that the military would abandon their post and join in your right wing revolution... While I don't doubt that a few of them would, MOST of them will, of course, honor their oath, and will fight for the United States of America against its enemies, domestic or foreign.

Your rebellion would be crushed in the first 24 hours. What would possibly possess people to think they can defeat the 82nd Airborne?

Excon

That's what happens in third world countries that have rich dictators and a bunch of poor people. That's what you guys want to happen to bring back the glory days of the Revolution and Civil War.

You guys who want a shooting war with your own countrymen are few, and those of us that vote are many. You guys are loud though, but you need more than noise to overthrow the government. Especially when those 360 million guns ain't all on your side.

For any ground warfare that could take place in this country, I would put all of my money on the armed civilians. I know this may sound a bit cliché but in the movie Red Dawn, that could be construed as really happening. excon, I do not know if you have ever been an avid sportsman but let me just say that with the 20 or 30 of them who have a lot of experience in the field. And a good portion are ex military with good survival skills. Don't dismiss the abilities of your fellow countrymen. Yes, air attacks are something to contend with BUT I don't think that an overtaking government would want to damage a lot of infrastructure that is necessary for their cause.

Hello again, Steve:

It IS true, that when I walk out of my house each and every morning, I see an entirely different country than you do.

excon



I like this answer/statement. I believe that everyone is this way. I don't believe we interpret everything that same as anyone else.
Sorry I missed this before

Don't dismiss the abilities of your fellow countrymen.
And who is going to organize this rebellion and on whose political stance? I'm guessing you won't have enough rebels to fit inside a high school gym.

There are over 300 million people in this country. I really believe that you are living a dream world. I am thinking there would be thousands of hig school gyms full of people organizing a fight.

There are over 300 million people in this country. I really believe that you are living a dream world. I am thinking there would be thousands of hig school gyms full of people organizing a fight.
Let's get 'em together for a quick check. Betcha when push came to shove, they would find something else to do.

300 million people are ready to go to war with the government? I don't think so.

300 million people are ready to go to war with the government? I don't think so.

The news reports certainly make it sound like DHS is preparing to make war here against SOMEONE.

I doubt seriously that exie's armed revolution conspiracy theory holds any water. I do think that 3am raids by BATF squads will continue to become more hazardous to the BATF.

I think its dangerous to feed paranoia to borderline people who are already sanity challenged.

Hello C:


I doubt seriously that exie's armed revolution conspiracy theory holds any water.MY theory?? That the United States of America would DEFEND itself is a theory?? Dude!

Excon

Again excon, I am with you on this one.

Hello C:

MY theory??? That the United States of America would DEFEND itself is a theory??? Dude!

excon

Your conspiracy theory that some skeet and trap club or all of them will listen to a tinfoil hat type and try to overthrow the United States and bring on the drones and the F-16s is pure fantasy. By the way, a Hornet is probably the worst choice for air strikes in our inventory. Bullpups were designed for it.

The SWAT team I.Q. estimate just went down another few points
LAPD, 'Call of Duty' mannequin end up in standoff; no one injured (http://now.msn.com/lapd-call-of-duty-mannequin-end-up-in-standoff-no-one-injured)

Hello again, C:

When some right winger says he's going to overthrow the US, and I say they'll get slaughtered, it's not MY theory.

excon

Hello again, C:

When some right winger says he's gonna overthrow the US, and I say they'll get slaughtered, it's not MY theory.

excon

Your theory, like all your racist Democrat theories, is that one "right winger" speaks for all. It never has been true of any group: not conservatives, not blacks, not christians, not soldiers, not even Democrats.

Hello again, C:


racist Democrat theoriesHere's your FIRST English lesson for the day. When I say ONE right winger, it doesn't mean I'm talking about ALL of you...

Second lesson of the day, when I say the US will SMASH your revolution, it's not racist.

Finally, why did my telling you that you're going to FAIL in your stupid rebellion piss you off sooooo much?? I didn't know right wingers were so sensitive.. You didn't think you'd win, did you?

Excon

Santa Monica gunman left a note, police say (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/14/santa-monica-shooting/2425025/)


Seabrooks said the semi-automatic weapon appears to have been built with component parts that are legal to obtain, but put together make the rifle illegal in California.

She said he also modified an antique black-powder .44 revolver so that it could hold .45-caliber ammunition; it was loaded during the shooting and he carried it with him in a duffel bag.

Did you notice the main factor was a history if mental health issues?

Yes I did, but this nut didn't have to buy a gun, he made his own. Then selected his targets. I have always felt this was less about the means and more about the people who used whatever means to do what they do.

A smart loony is more dangerous than a drug dealer, because he could be anyone anywhere. They seem to be coming out of the wood work.

Yes I did, but this nut didn't have to buy a gun, he made his own. Then selected his targets. I have always felt this was less about the means and more about the people who used whatever means to do what they do.

A smart loony is more dangerous than a drug dealer, because he could be anyone anywhere. They seem to be coming out of the wood work.

What you seem to fail to understand is there was nothing illegal about the gun being carried except for how it was being used and the capacity of the magazine. California has a 10 round limit. The other weapon that he was carrying would have failed when fired and more then likely exploded in his face.

Hello again,

I want to address some underlying issues... I've read how the right wing BELIEVES that it would WIN a popular uprising. I BELIEVE the basis for that belief is that, WHEN and IF Obama comes after their guns, NOBODY will back him up - not even the Armed Forces of the United states.

Couple things about that.

It might surprise my right wing friends, but IF Obama came after your guns, I'd JOIN the rebellion. However, I don't, for a minute, believe that he's coming for your guns.

What I DO believe, is that some itchy trigger fingered right winger, like say Ted Nugent, or a Tim McVey wanna be, is gonna start it (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/22/nugent-at-gun-industry-trade-show-if-you-want-a/192340)- or at least TRY to start it. I ask my right wing friends, if THAT'S the way it starts, who's side are you going to be on? Who's side do you think the 82nd Airborne is going to be on?

I say the above, because there's only ONE side here who's rattling their sabres, and it's NOT Obama. In fact, the only gun law that Obama signed into law, STRENGTHENED the 2nd Amendment... But, facts don't seem to be part of this equation. To wit, there's NO facts in evidence ANYWHERE to indicate that Obama is coming after your guns..

Yet, you believe it. There's NOTHING that I can say about that that hasn't been said thousands of times. It's HARD to argue a policy that resides ONLY in the heads of your opposition..

Over to you, wingers.

excon

I don't understand any of this! The countries, and US states, with the stiffest anti gun legislation are the areas with the highest crime rates involving guns. Ie; Washington DC , New York city, London England etc etc... Immediately following a mass shooting tragedy committed by an insane person the focus is to take guns away from the people who didn't do it... rather than focus on providing mental heath to those who desperately need it . Here in New York the Governor unconstitutionally slammed a bill through into law that each fire arm can only be loaded with seven (7) bullets..? The law was ten (10)... how does that help anything!. Go to the CDC( Center for Diseases and Control.. www.cdc.gov )‎. And see for yourself the cause's of death in america... do the math... Following the Governments reasoning for gun ban legislation we should also ban any vehicle that is capable of traveling over the national speed limit, ban house hold chemical cleaner usage, outlaw extension ladders and the use of soap bars in the shower.! Not mention the causes of heart disease and lung cancer... Look back at history... it repeats itself... The first step to completely dominate a people is to disarm them... weather it be guns, knives and swords, bows and arrows or sticks and stones... there can be no one world power if a large group of people collectively still hold power... and in our case that power is Freedom protected by the second amendment

Hello xx:


Following the Governments reasoning for gun ban legislationThanks. It's an excellent post. Could you possibly link me to this legislation you're speaking of? I'd like to read it.

Excon

Nobody has banned guns but the issue before us is a process that makes it harder for loony's and criminals to get them. I guess the rhetoric about taking guns from lawful citizens keeps us from doing anything at all and perpetrates a distraction to the bigger issue of the wrong people getting them.

You righties assume that everybody who wants a gun is a lawful responsible citizen, and we know for fact that's not true. That assumption is getting people killed because you think the government wants your guns, instead of helping us get loony's and criminals.

The right wants NO process to separate the loony's from the healthy responsible citizens. Most people want that process through background checks so we at least can know the loony's who try to buy a gun, so we save lives. Why is that NOT a consensus compromise?

Hello again, tal:

Why is that NOT a consensus compromise?May I offer my OPINION as to what they'll say?

(1) A background check will lead to a gun registry.

(2) A gun registry will lead to confiscation.

(3) Confiscation will result in Obama making himself king.

(4) We're doomed..

(5) Listening to our phone calls, however, will make us safer.

Excon

Hello again, tal:
May I offer my OPINION as to what they'll say??

(1) A background check will lead to a gun registry.

(2) A gun registry will lead to confiscation.

(3) Confiscation will result in Obama making himself king.

(4) We're doomed..

(5) Listening to our phone calls, however, will make us safer.

excon

Ex your logic is faulty in fact it doesn't follow that gun registration leads to confiscation. Obama is already a king, an elected king, he cannot make himself what he already is. If you are doomed it is because you think personal gun ownership will save you, Why don't you trade telephone privacy for the gun registry after all telephones are registered and no one has confiscated them

Nobody has banned guns but the issue before us is a process that makes it harder for loony's and criminals to get them. I guess the rhetoric about taking guns from lawful citizens keeps us from doing anything at all and perpetrates a distraction to the bigger issue of the wrong people getting them.

You righties assume that everybody who wants a gun is a lawful responsible citizen, and we know for fact that's not true. That assumption is getting people killed because you think the government wants your guns, instead of helping us get loony's and criminals.

The right wants NO process to separate the loony's from the healthy responsible citizens. Most people want that process thru background checks so we at least can know the loony's who try to buy a gun, so we save lives. Why is that NOT a consensus compromise?

I agree 100% that no one wants loonies to have access to guns. You say that no one has banned guns? In New York city all semi automatic firearms are illegal... in the 1960's the city government issued a law to register all firearms for the sole purpose of the police to know who had fire arms when a domestic call in. Sounded reasonable... Most law abiding citizen complied and then in 1969 they passed the anti semi auto act... (the actual name of the law escapes me but PLEASE don't take my word for it look it up for yourself) which made all these legally owned guns illegal... and they then went around and confiscated them... that's history... not propaganda or here say...
And no I don't think everyone who owns a gun legally is of the utmost quality.. but I believe that some one who owns a fire arm... ANY FIREARM... should fist have to receive training to be proficient in the use said firearm, learn how to properly store and maintain that firearm and above all be trained thoroughly in the ramifications and consequence's of the use of that firearm in any and all situations... Furthermore a background check is positively essential for the purchase of any and all firearms... even if that person already owns a firearm(s).

And even further more... the assumption that no one want to separate the nuts from the trees is preposterous... it's the government itself that wishes to do little to nothing... except feel good laws that do little but make the public think they are doing something... if they fixed the problems of high crime rates and radical crazies shooting sprees and rampant drug use they would have no platform upon which to declare to have the answers to in order to be re elected... the answers are not very hard... it can be accomplished... just hard for the politicians to admit to and swallow!!

And that's all I have to say about that!

Hello again, tal:
May I offer my OPINION as to what they'll say??

(1) A background check will lead to a gun registry.

(2) A gun registry will lead to confiscation.

(3) Confiscation will result in Obama making himself king.

(4) We're doomed..

(5) Listening to our phone calls, however, will make us safer.

excon

One quick comment... ALL LEGALLY PURCHASED FIREARMS ARE REGISTERED... no if's.. no and's.. and no but's... if any gun is purchased legally it is register. The FFL licensed gun dealer / broker MUST complete a government form with accurate information and submit that form along with a back ground check...
One last hing... we are all doomed.. in this game of life... no one gets out alive!

One quick comment......ALL LEGALLY PURCHASED FIREARMS ARE REGISTERED
No, not the straw purchases at gun shows nor are private purchases.

No, not the straw purchases at gun shows nor are private purchases.

Yes you are quite correct... privately owned guns, sold by owner sales,are not subject to these regulations... BUT... every person I know who has ever sold a firearm , even to friends and relatives , has documented proof of who they sold it to... just to protect themselves... but we need to transfer ownership of vehicles and houses and real propriety... why not firearms too..?

Yes you are quite correct...privately owned guns, sold by owner sales,are not subject to these regulations ...BUT.....every person I know who has ever sold a firearm , even to friends and relatives , has documented proof of who they sold it to.......just to protect themselves.........but we need to transfer ownership of vehicles and houses and real propriety...why not firearms too...??

Do you agree or disagree with a national gun registration ?

Do you agree or disagree with a national gun registration ?

Of course he agrees, there is nothing unreasonable about it excepting perhaps the weight of registering 300,000,000 weapons

Nobody has banned guns but the issue before us is a process that makes it harder for loony's and criminals to get them. I guess the rhetoric about taking guns from lawful citizens keeps us from doing anything at all and perpetrates a distraction to the bigger issue of the wrong people getting them.

You righties assume that everybody who wants a gun is a lawful responsible citizen, and we know for fact that's not true.

And we know for a fact that assertion is not true.

Hello again, tal:
May I offer my OPINION as to what they'll say??

(1) A background check will lead to a gun registry.

(2) A gun registry will lead to confiscation.

(3) Confiscation will result in Obama making himself king.

(4) We're doomed..

(5) Listening to our phone calls, however, will make us safer.

excon

1) Schumer's bill was a backdoor registry... and we already have background checks.

2) I've already shown examples of that reality.

3) He already thinks he's king.

4) Not yet, we're looking out for you.

5) I never gave permission for total surveillance, but His Majesty apparently likes it now.

You were right Ex.

Yes Tal you are right he is totally confused by the gun lobby

The gun lobby is on the wrong side of the will of the people and they will soon find out their bought politicians cannot save them this time.

The gun lobby is on the wrong side of the will of the people and they will soon find out their bought politicians cannot save them this time.

Let me get my violin. You only see your side and try to dominate the debate with lies. The truth is the 2nd amendment will stand and its not being taken away any time soon.

It isn't about that, the founders didn't anticipate the lawless society you have today and the funny part is you think this is acceptable

Hello again, dad:


The truth is the 2nd amendment will stand and its not being taken away any time soon.The problem is comprehensive background checks don't do ANYTHING to "take away" the 2nd Amendment..

It's like I said "white", and you yelled at me for saying "black". Makes NO sense. No sense at all.

Excon

You were right Ex.

The first two are documented in this thread, why deny the truth?

The gun lobby is on the wrong side of the will of the people and they will soon find out their bought politicians cannot save them this time.

Yeah, Bloomy is on the job.

After gun bill's defeat, it's Democrats, not Republicans, paying the political price - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-gun-bills-defeat-its-democrats-not-republicans-paying-the-political-price/2013/06/12/342b5548-d373-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html)

Hello again, Steve:


The first two are documented in this thread, why deny the truth?
(1) A background check will lead to a gun registry.

(2) A gun registry will lead to confiscation.I guess I missed it. Can you "document" it again for me?

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

I guess I missed it. Can you "document" it again for me?

excon

Search the thread.

Hello again, Steve:

Couldn't find it.. I guess it's the same place your "proof" that Obama ordered the IRS to go after his enemy's, is.

excon

What's documented is fear of a registry by the feds while states, and cities already have a list. And indeed have laws that prohibit owning and carrying unregistered firearms. But lax laws in some places over sales has made beleaguered cities the victims of easy access to guns with a short, or long car ride, to those that shouldn't have them.

I have also documented many times that the suburban and rural dwellers face different challenges than do their urban counter parts. You still try to ignore that most want background checks even among gun owners and righties. Wonder why?

Hello again, Steve:

Couldn't find it.. I guess it's the same place your "proof" that Obama ordered the IRS to go after his enemy's, is.

Excon

I mentioned the ACLU's concerns at least twice:


The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.

Calabrese — a privacy lobbyist — was first careful to note that the ACLU doesn’t strictly oppose universal background checks for gun purchases. “If you’re going to require a background check, we think it should be effective,” Calabrese explained.

“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.

“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”
Ads by Google

“[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.”

“As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.”

Read more: ACLU: Reid gun bill could threaten privacy, civil liberties | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/#ixzz2WTwO8Ewg)


And then there's this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gun-control-didnt-take-long-715117-58.html#post3442540) and the incident in California I mentioned twice. I'm sure there are many more such incidents, the cops are looking for an excuse to grab your guns. You trust the cops don't you, and we can certainly trust the government with our information, right?

it isn't about that, the founders didn't anticipate the lawless society you have today and the funny part is you think this is acceptable

Do you really believe people were more honest back when there were few people (to be witnesses, to give chase... ) people were much more brutal... if the had machine guns back then the founding fathers would have wanted everyone to have one... With an estimated 300 million guns in america the death rate is 10,000 times less than the death rate per capita of automobiles, house hold accident cause more death than with guns... if we take away the accidental shootings ( mostly law enforcement) and the drug related shooting it is such a small percentage... don't get me wrong I don't think the senseless shootings of innocent school children should be minimized or even accepted... but if we just jump at feel good fixes to the problem , just pass laws that make us feel that we are doing something, then the as we see still happing , they don't work and the trgic instances continue. What do ALL the incidents have in common, a mentally ill person, for one reason or another decides to kill people. The reasons vary from revenge for being bullies to becoming a legend serial killer... but they were all mentally deranged and in many cases they could have had help... Noe the only way to stop gun violence 100 % is to remove ALL guns... from governments too, or the criminals will get them somehow, BUT... then killings will be with IED's ( improvised explosive devise), knives.swards, sticks and stones. A man bent on killing random people in England , where guns are EXTREMELY forbidden, dropped bricks from a skyscraper, killed three people, ran away and drop bricks another day killed four people... We live in a society that is self destructing and growing more violent... how do we protect ourselves.? The police for the most part show up after a crime, collect evidence , then arrest and seek a conviction... but that is after the crime has been committed and if that crime is murder, and it was your murder, well that's a bit too late isn't it... we must take our own safety into our own hands... and that we do anyway we can...

Advocates of "gun control" desire gun prohibition, despite claiming that every "gun control" measure they support is merely a "reasonable" step that supposedly would not infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens to shoot, hunt, or protect themselves from violent crime. Anyone inclined to trust these claims would be wise to study the history of firearms registration in New York City.

In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a rifle-shotgun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. Under that law, every person who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun in New York City had to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain a permit to possess it. The fee was set at $3.

City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, solemnly promised that the $3 fee would never be raised, but that the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law. Seeking to allay firearms owners` fear of registration, the firearms-prohibitionist New York Times editorially vowed the bill "would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons."

Interestingly, just after the bill became law, another New York Times editorial entitled "Encouraging Rifle Registration," opposed Mayor Lindsay`s proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10, or to $25 as he had originally proposed. The Times for December 16, 1967, expressed concern that "too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety."

Notice the expression "right off the bat." What about later on? Well, today, the fee is $55, an increase of over 1,700%!

Most significantly, just before the rifle-shotgun bill became law in 1967, Vincent L. Broderick, a former New York City police commissioner who was later awarded a federal judgeship, testified at a city council committee hearing on the bill that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong." According to Broderick, that philosophy assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles." Broderick then added: "There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted." This was all reported in the New York Times for October 17, 1967. How prophetic!

In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- namely, certain imitation or look-alike assault firearms (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm -- and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown`s testimony that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city.

The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

The NYPD has reported that the majority of these previously-registered imitation assault firearms -- 2,615 out of 3,360 -- have been taken out of the city. In addition, the department`s deputy commissioner of legal matters, Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News: "for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned."They were panned and carried out with over 600 confiscations with arrests or citations.

This deplorable New York City saga shows that those of us who had opposed the concept of registration back in 1967, and were labeled "paranoid," were not only not paranoid but also not impractical. For the New York City story quite vividly shows the nationwide plan apart to destroy the civil right and liberty to keep arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, notably the Ninth Amendment.

The plan is now obvious to all who would see: First Step, enact a nationwide firearms waiting period law. Second Step, when the waiting period dose noy reduce crime, and it won`t, then enact a nationwide registration law. Final Step, confiscate all the registered firearms.

Final Step, confiscate all the registered firearms.Explain how that would happen.

Hire more police and instead of stopping and frisking minorities they go to the burbs and stop and frisk them.

Hire more police and instead of stopping and frisking minorities they go to the burbs and stop and frisk them.

If they're registered they would go their homes, not stop and frisk. Why guess at who MIGHT have a gun when you know where they are?

Hello again, Steve:


If they're registered they would go their homes, not stop and frisk. Why guess at who MIGHT have a gun when you know where they are?Just who, exactly, would go to the homes of gun owners to take their guns? Can you lay that out for me?? What, exactly, would happen at the FIRST house? In your wildest right wing imagination, why would Obama do that??

Excon

We can go round and round with all of this... since the beginning of time man has shown his cruelty to his fellow man... mankind is the only creature on earth that is capable of true evil... the senseless brutalization of others... evil can not, and will never be, stopped by running from it... history repeats itself... Mankind's mentality has not changed only the technology has...

Hello again, Steve:

Just who, exactly, would go to the homes of gun owners to take their guns? Can you lay that out for me?? What, exactly, would happen at the FIRST house? In your wildest right wing imagination, why would Obama do that??

Excon

Try and keep up with who said what, ex. It was in response to this and nothing more:


xx-man: "Final Step, confiscate all the registered firearms."

Needkarma: "Explain how that would happen."

Talaniman: "Hire more police and instead of stopping and frisking minorities they go to the burbs and stop and frisk them."

Me: "If they're registered they would go their homes, not stop and frisk. Why guess at who MIGHT have a gun when you know where they are?"

So theoretically speaking, if you knew where they were would you go there or just take a wild shot?

Hello again, Steve:

But, you don't "theoretically" believe Obama will come for your guns.. You ACTUALLY DO believe it. I'm just asking YOU how that ACTUALLY might take place, and WHY you think it ACTUALLY would.

What? Aren't those legit questions? I think they go to the HEART of the argument.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

But, you don't "theoretically" believe Obama will come for your guns.. You ACTUALLY DO believe it. I'm just asking YOU how that ACTUALLY might take place, and WHY you think it ACTUALLY would.

What? Aren't those legit questions? I think they go to the HEART of the argument.

excon

We've been over this before many times, ex. It's hard to have a discussion when you provide both the questions and the answers. You don't need me for that, you just debate it amongst yourself. Should you ever get curious, ask me the questions without the answers.

How will this weapons confiscation happen?

I had better luck telling my 3 year old that there were no monsters in the closet or under his bed. He believed me, so why can't you believe if they come door to door for the guns me and Ex would be on YOUR side?

Hello again, Steve:

Let me put it in language you can understand.. You SAY Obama is going to come after your guns. You SAY if he does, a civil war will break out. Tal and I agree with you. In fact, I think it'll happen at the FIRST house.

Do you think that Obama DOESN'T know that? If he does, WHY do you think he'd DO that?

I don't believe we addressed this particular question.

excon

OK, I don't believe Obama will take my guns and I do believe ex and Tal would defend the 2nd amendment - to a point.

But, if you trust the federal government to collect lots and lots of data on us as long as they swear they'll never use it against us, you're both nuts. You certainly would not have trusted Bush with such info, or say a Ted Cruz now would you?

You certainly would not have trusted Bush with such info
Isn't he the one who started all this with his Patriot Act?

Isn't he the one who started all this with his Patriot Act?

And we trusted them - both sides - to remain within the confines of "foreign" surveillance part of FISA and not used against all of us. In light of that betrayal should we trust them with even more? Do you trust them?

And we trusted them - both sides - to remain within the confines of "foreign" surveillance part of FISA and not used against all of us. In light of that betrayal should we trust them with even more? Do you trust them?
I never trusted them to stay within the fenced-in area. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Like my dad always said, "Give 'em a finger and they will take the whole hand." That is true no matter where you go.

I never trusted them to stay within the fenced-in area. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Like my dad always said, "Give 'em a finger and they will take the whole hand." That is true no matter where you go.

Perhaps "entrusted" would be a better word.

Perhaps "entrusted" would be a better word.
I meant what I said.

The Patriot Act clearly did NOT make domestic datamining of ALL phone #s legal.

The Patriot Act clearly did NOT make domestic datamining of ALL phone #s legal.
No, they instead went after library reading preferences. Librarians stopped that pretty quickly.

I meant what I said.

OK, me too. We entrusted them with our rights and they violated that trust, would you entrust them with protecting gun registry data and not abusing it?

OK, me too. We entrusted them with our rights and they violated that trust, would you entrust them with protecting gun registry data and not abusing it?
They tried to get into library patron records, so no.

They tried to get into library patron records, so no.

Thank you, me either.

Hello again, Steve:

But, you don't "theoretically" believe Obama will come for your guns.. You ACTUALLY DO believe it. I'm just asking YOU how that ACTUALLY might take place, and WHY you think it ACTUALLY would.

What? Aren't those legit questions? I think they go to the HEART of the argument.

excon

You might want to look at this. Its from 5 years ago so way before all of the sandy hook and other events.

Obama's Gun Control Positions - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z745MfGynYY)

Isn't he the one who started all this with his Patriot Act?

No he is not the one that started it all. Clinton did.

Archived-Articles: Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity" (http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/01/under_clinton_ny_times_called.html)

NSA Watch | Echelon FAQ (http://www.nsawatch.org/echelonfaq.html)

All I know is Obama is setting a poor example.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BM1aYmLCMAAnpg2.jpg:large

The Obama family has had gun safety training.

Hello again, Steve:


All I know is Obama is setting a poor example.
You got it exactly backwards... The president doesn't follow the lead of stupid teachers.. They follow HIS lead.. It's OK, really, to squirt your kids with a water gun.

Excon

That's it convert the 300,000,000 guns to water guns then shoot who and what you like

He said you could take your guns into state parks but you can't allow him to squirt his water gun??

What's wrong with THAT picture?

Hello again, Steve:

You got it exactly backwards... The president doesn't follow the lead of stupid teachers.. They follow HIS lead.. It's ok, really, to squirt your kids with a water gun.

excon

Just don't use a cap gun or point a Pop Tart.

Now that the administration has solved all our other issues Biden is gearing up for another run at gun control (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-to-claim-progress-in-far-narrower-push-to-stem-gun-violence/2013/06/17/213192b2-d7b6-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html), warning that lawmakers who oppose it will pay a political price (yeah, Democrats).

Also on board, Organizing For Action. A protest in San Bernadino drew 3 members (http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_23464357/organizing-action-rallies-san-bernardino-gun-control).

Yea, Americans shooting each isn't as important an issue as that horrible pic of Obama playing with his kids with a water gun.

So the president shouldn't set the example? How many kids are going to get suspended from school and interrogated until they pee their pants (http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/17/suspension-wont-be-removed-for-five-year-old-grilled-over-cap-gun-until-he-peed-his-pants/) because they saw this picture and brought a cap gun or water gun to school, or pointed a Pop Tart at someone?

So the president shouldn't set the example? How many kids are going to get suspended from school and interrogated until they pee their pants (http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/17/suspension-wont-be-removed-for-five-year-old-grilled-over-cap-gun-until-he-peed-his-pants/) because they saw this picture and brought a cap gun or water gun to school, or pointed a Pop Tart at someone?
President Obama is with his family and having fun. His daughters won't be taking those guns to school.

President Obama is with his family and having fun. His daughters won't be taking those guns to school.

Can any of you just laugh or is sarcasm to tough for you?

Can any of you just laugh or is sarcasm to tough for you?
Backatcha.

Backatcha.

What was I supposed to find humorous?

So the president shouldn't set the example?Yes, he's a good dad, especially given his position.

Right over your heads.

I've often stated here that saving one child was worth the fight against the abortion holocaust. Well, a reporter posed an interesting question to the pro-gun control rep from Colorado that didn't know magazines could be reloaded...

QSbVKABePOo


CNSNews.com asked DeGette, “Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?”

DeGette said, “Well, this is, this is. … We already have laws in many states of this country. This bill is blatantly unconstitutional.”

“And, and if you look at the perceived—if you look at the stated reason of doing this legislation the Kermit Gosnell case, that gentleman was convicted of murder and sentenced to life,” DeGette said. “Any other questions?”

When CNSNews.com tried to follow up, DeGette said, “No, excuse me. Any other questions?”

Well, what about it? Why wouldn't the same logic apply with late term abortions?

By that logic apple pie is as delicious as mud pies. If you can register your car, why can't you register your gun?

Why don't you buy a dress for your son when you buy one for your daughter?

Well, what about it? Why wouldn't the same logic apply with late term abortions?Yes, the mother should be charged with murder.

All I know is Obama is setting a poor example.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BM1aYmLCMAAnpg2.jpg:large

Watergate?? :D

If you can register your car, why can't you register your gun?


That would be because there is no right written into the constitution for owning a car. But there is one for owning a gun ;)

By that logic apple pie is as delicious as mud pies. If you can register your car, why can't you register your gun?

Why don't you buy a dress for your son when you buy one for your daughter?

Don't want to answer the question either, eh?

Fascinating these leaps of logic are

If you are asking ME why I don't apply the same logic to late term abortions as I do gun safety its because they are two very different subjects.

Sen, Degettes logic is her own, as is her conduct. I have stated my logic in the explanations of the positions I have expressed on both subjects so your question is illogical to me.

If you are asking ME why I don't apply the same logic to late term abortions as I do gun safety its because they are two very different subjects.

Sen, Degettes logic is her own, as is her conduct. I have stated my logic in the explanations of the positions I have expressed on both subjects so your question is illogical to me.

Yes they are different subjects, one involves the legalized murder of a child.

And the other is the killing of innocents humans. They both need solutions. Even if I had to redefine my rights to save one life. I think we can save MORE than one with the proper approaches, and solve other pressing problems also. Stopping abortions and keeping our streets safe is more complex than saying you shouldn't do it and the root causes need to be addressed.

And the other is the killing of innocents humans. They both need solutions. Even if I had to redefine my rights to save one life. I think we can save MORE than one with the proper approaches, and solve other pressing problems also. Stopping abortions and keeping our streets safe is more complex than saying you shouldn't do it and the root causes need to be addressed.

See that's where we disagree, both involve the killing of innocent humans, one with the blessing of the state.

Deleted and moved to proper thread.

Hello again, Steve:

I see your penchant for bringing up obscure people, and their obscure logic, as though it MEANS something to the rest of us, hasn't subsided...

excon

PS> (edited) Well, if you think I'm going to follow you around to criticize you, you got another think coming.

Hello again, Steve:

I see your penchant for bringing up obscure people, and their obscure logic, as though it MEANS something to the rest of us, hasn't subsided...

excon

PS> (edited) Well, if you think I'm gonna follow you around to criticize you, you got another think coming.

Coming from the guy that made an issue of Steven Seagal? She's injected herself into the gun control debate in a big way, I believe that makes it quite relevant.

See that's where we disagree, both involve the killing of innocent humans, one with the blessing of the state.

And the other is the failure of the state.

And the other is the failure of the state.

Uh no, the failure is in legalizing infanticide.

XXMan - this is totally plagerized, word for word: “In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay ...” http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/firearms-registration-new-york-city%60s.as

If you didn’t write it, please give credit to the person who did.

XXMan - this is totally plagerized, word for word: “In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay ...” http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/firearms-registration-new-york-city%60s.as

If you didn’t write it, please give credit to the person who did.

Link not working.

XXMan - this is totally plagerized, word for word: “In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay ...” http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/firearms-registration-new-york-city%60s.as

If you didn’t write it, please give credit to the person who did.

I never claimed to have written it. It was taken from an NRA website. Someone asked to see it and I copy and pasted it... I should have just put the link up for it...

Well that's certainly a credible source of unbiased information.

No comment about the NRA.

When something is not in quotes, it is presumed that you wrote it. I only noticed this because the "all legal guns are registered" answer was sent to me and, of course, that is not true.

Oh certainly... all of mine aren't... and they were never required to be when I got them... and they are never going to be either.

You and I have one group of friends; xxman has another (apparently).

Well that's certainly a credible source of unbiased information.

I would think that bias at the NRA is expected, that's what advocates do. Anyway, here is an operable link (http://www.acslpa.org/html/new_york_city-s_lesson.html) to the item.

Sorry - I didn't post the link because the quote was 100% accurate.

No problem, just trying to help.

I would think that bias at the NRA is expected, that's what advocates do. Anyway, here is an operable link (http://www.acslpa.org/html/new_york_city-s_lesson.html) to the item.

Thank you! I will save that link. And yes the NRA is bias... BUT... it is all factual... it does not fold under the scrutiny as does the restrictive gun lobby... anyway... If you wish to see how people really die in the us then check the cdc website Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov)... look at all the pieces of the puzzle and make your own conclusions... Thanks again and a nice weekend

No problem posting the link - I have no idea what Disease Control has to do with a thread on gun control.

No problem posting the link - I have no idea what Disease Control has to do with a thread on gun control.

In my search for true facts... from both anti gun and the NRA... I searched where they get the numbers for all the deaths and injury caused by guns in general... it was strange that the number of shootings the anti gun lobby talk about include accidental shootings ( mostly law enforcement... due to the fact they load and unload their guns sometimes several time a day depending where the need to gain admittance to ) suicides and of course drug related incidents... the actual murder rate with a gun is statistical speaking very low... and extremely low with a so called assault rifle. BUT more people die each year from house hold accidents, accidental poisoning from household chemicals and / or car accidents ( should cars be manufactured that have the ability to break the speed limit laws ?) Unfortunately there is no place to obtain the number of times that having a firearm has saved some ones life... In my humble opinion it all comes down to mental health... crazy people do crazy things... and there's not much anyone can do after these disillusioned people act out against society... we can only try to see the warning signs a bit clearer... maybe look a bit closer... pay a little more attention to the people around us... offer help if we can... of course there are those that are not disillusioned... they are the criminal / violent / evil element strung throughout society... I think we should be allowed to protect ourselves from this type element... a wise man once said... a long long time ago... "Evil cannot be defeated by running from it"... Socrates

I think this has turned far afield - I also saw this: "“The rate of firearms deaths has exceeded traffic fatalities in several states, including Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon, records show. The rate is equal in Ohio and Pennsylvania. In the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1784595/"

How many people drive cars? How many people have firearms? I'd like to see that "user/accident" ratio.

At any rate I have a carry permit for work. I'm not losing anything under any new law.

At any rate I have a carry permit for work. I'm not losing anything under any new law.

I think what you may lose is choice in some areas. As in the changes to NY law should you decide to carry a semiauto instead of a revolver then you are limited in capacity. Just like California has laws regarding capacity. With the type of work that you do why should your choices be limited and not based upon your personal choices?

I agree, and I agree that everyone should have the right to decide. I'm just saying I am happy with what I have, do not intend to arm myself to the teeth.

- although it's not a bad idea.

I agree, and I agree that everyone should have the right to decide. I'm just saying I am happy with what I have, do not intend to arm myself to the teeth.

- although it's not a bad idea.

Its not abut arming to the teeth. Its about choice. Lets say that instead of carrying a Smith & Wesson airweight snubnose which is limited in its capacity but still a good choice for a carry gun. You decide you want to carry/conceal a Sig P250 sc.(semiauto pistol) It only weighs 2 lbs fully loaded and can be a comfortable choice too. But the problen is that in 9mm it has a 12 round capacity. Making it Illegal in NY and California. To me that is not arming to the teeth nor anything extrodinary. Its just a matter of choice.

Would ten rounds (or 7) change that choice?

Would ten rounds (or 7) change that choice?

Yes because as of right now its based on the capacity of the magazine. That choice is currently unavailable.

I think this has turned far afield - I also saw this: "“The rate of firearms deaths has exceeded traffic fatalities in several states, including Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon, records show. The rate is equal in Ohio and Pennsylvania. In the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010.” http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1784595/"

How many people drive cars? How many people have firearms? I'd like to see that "user/accident" ratio.

At any rate I have a carry permit for work. I'm not losing anything under any new law.
That is somthig to research... I'll get back to you...

A manufacturers choice. But if such a choice by them (or regulation) was made is it do able?

Enforcement of anything is always a problem - in my area there is new law after new law, no one to enforce it.
Sad, really.

A manufacturers choice. But if such a choice by them (or regulation) was made is it do able?

Here is the problem and why the manufacturer isn't going to change any time soon:


Enforcement of anything is always a problem - in my area there is new law after new law, no one to enforce it.
Sad, really.


So it makes it more difficult to comply when the laws keep changing.

In my area the elected Sheriff has announced that he will not enforce a law HE deems unfair. It's been a back and forth and back and forth.

What happens next? I don't know - but now politics are piled on top of politics.

This week I've learned that 2 mayors have left Bloomberg's tax exempt "social welfare" anti-gun group, though I know mayors come and go. Both have left for roughly the same reason (and yes I edited the articles for space you nitpickers).


An Illinois mayor said he's dropped his membership with Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the group started by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, because its title doesn't match its agenda. It's too anti-Second Amendment, he said.

“I've dropped out of a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” said Larry Morrissey, an independent mayor from Rockford, Ill. The Daily Caller reported. “The reason why I joined the group in the first place is because I took the name for what it said. Against 'illegal' guns.”

...

Mr. Morrissey said the original mission of the group changed over time.

“So, that's why I dropped out,” he said, in The Daily Caller. “The focus should not be against law-abiding citizens. We should be focusing our enforcement on folks who have no right to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise.”

Read more: Illinois mayor leaves Bloomberg's anti-gun group, citing agenda - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/24/illinois-mayor-leaves-bloombergs-anti-gun-group-ci/#ixzz2XEmsd7q4)
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

And in New Hampshire...


- Nashua Mayor Donnalee Lozeau said she resigned from "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" on May 10, shortly after joining the nationwide coalition, because it went beyond its stated principles of "keeping illegal guns out of dangerous hands." (http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130624/NEWS0602/130629645)

Lozeau said she did not know when she joined the group that it would "unfairly attack" fellow Nashuan Sen. Kelly Ayotte in a $2 million barrage of ads after Ayotte opposed an amendment calling for universal background checks for gun purchases in April.

...

Lozeau told the New Hampshire Union Leader she joined the group after extensively researching it at the suggestion of a neighbor, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut.

She said she felt, "How could anyone have too much heartburn about joining a group that's against illegal guns?"

But when she saw the group's first ad criticizing Ayotte, "I said, 'Wait a minute, I don't want to be part of something like that.' I told them, "You're mayors against illegal guns, you're not mayors for gun control.'

"I left the group immediately upon seeing the first ad. I don't think I even made three weeks," she said.

"I can't imagine there is any mayor in the United States who is not against illegal guns," Lozeau said. "There is no question that I and Nashua's law enforcement community are interested in keeping firearms from those not legally entitled to bear them.

"Nowhere within the literature of this group was there any indication that there would be campaigns against members of Congress, particularly around issues that were not related to illegal guns," said Lozeau. "I have known Sen. Ayotte for many years in many capacities, including her time as New Hampshire's Attorney General. Senator Ayotte is a thoughtful, effective, decisive and hardworking advocate for victims and law enforcement."

Bloomy is having a rough week or so with his group, what with the revelations of using taxpayer funded NYC servers to host the MAIG website and administered by public employees and including terrorists in his list of gun victims. You just can't make that last one up.

Update: Bloomy also got caught sending a NYC employee to Nevada to lobby - not for NYC as claimed but for for MAIG.




Michael Bloomberg's gun control group sent a city employee to register as a lobbyist in Nevada on state-based firearms issues, a use of government resources that raises further questions about the relationship between the city and the mayor's self-funded 501(c)(4).

City Hall confirmed to POLITICO that Christopher Kocher, who works as a special counsel for Bloomberg's office, registered as a lobbyist for the 2013 legislative session in Nevada, to push a background checks bill there.

The news was first reported by the New York Post.

“With 85 percent of guns used in crimes here coming from out of state, gun policy everywhere has an impact on the safety of New Yorkers,” said Bloomberg spokesman John McCarthy, insisting it's a governmental issue. “The mayor's top priority is keeping New Yorkers safe and that includes seeking sane gun laws in other states and D.C. to help reduce the flow of illegal guns to New York.”

But Nevada lobbying forms show it was not City Hall, but the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Action Fund, for whom Kocher was registered as working. The “action fund” is the 501(c)(4) through which Bloomberg has personally paid for more than $12 million in campaign-style ads against senators who did not back a gun control bill in the Senate, part of a national effort he is waging.

City Hall had insisted last week, when Ace of Spades (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/341178.php) blogger John Ekdahl first raised questions about the MAIG website being hosted on city government web servers, that there was separation between MAIG as the coalition of mayors involved, and the 501(c)(4), which has tax-exempt status.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/michael-bloomberg-guns-lobby-93315.html#ixzz2XEwMUI1k

Fast & Furious notwithstanding, what happens if the government gets hold of our guns?


Park Police lost track of thousands of weapons, inspector general’s report says
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/park-police-lost-track-of-weapons-inspector-general-report-says/2013/06/27/ac7fc58a-dcf9-11e2-85de-c03ca84cb4ef_story.html)
The U.S. Park Police has lost track of thousands of handguns, rifles and machine guns in what a government watchdog agency concluded is the latest example of mismanagement on a police force trusted to protect millions of visitors to the city’s iconic monuments.

There is no indication that police guns got into the hands of criminals, but the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that the Park Police might not know if they had. In a scathing report, the authors said there is “credible evidence of conditions that would allow for theft and misuse of firearms, and the ability to conceal the fact if weapons were missing.”

The probe was launched in part because of an anonymous tip that Park Police officers were improperly taking weapons home. Investigators discovered two instances in which that had occurred, but they found many other troubling examples of mismanagement, according to the report.

Investigators found 1,400 guns that were supposed to have been destroyed or melted down. An additional 198 handguns donated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are sitting in a building in Anacostia but don’t show up in official records.

Hello again, Steve:


Fast & Furious notwithstanding, what happens if the government gets hold of our guns?I agree. We should take away ALL the weapons the government has.

Excon

At least the automatic weapons the police have... why exactly do the police need machine guns anyway?