Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics

July 31st, 2012   Submitted by Davi Barker

Firearm prohibitionists love to use tragedy to leverage their agenda. So, it’s important for gun rights advocates to stand their ground and fire back (proverbially) whenever this happens.

I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere. I honestly don’t even remember where. I presented the case studies in a blog post on the Silver Circle blog and I did the math myself.

The graphic was met with great enthusiasm and much skepticism. Leave it to Facebook users to demand an audit on a meme. So, I started over, only much more meticulous this time. I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data. But here’s a spoiler… It’s not that different.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

I was so close! Here’s what I think accounts for the difference. In the first sample there was likely a selection error based on what grabs headlines. Larger shootings get more press, so if you take a small sampling you’re going to be working with a data set of the worst shootings. As for the consistency of the civilian statistic, it makes perfect sense if you think about from inside the mind of a heroic civilian with a concealed carry permit. It goes something like this:

BANG!
“Holy crap! that guy shot that other guy.”
BANG!
“He’s just going to keep shooting people.”
BANG!

And the shooter goes down.

Quite a few cases went something like that. In fact, I found only one example of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than three people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. An astute reader informed me that at least one of the civilians that helped stop Jared Loughner was carrying a concealed weapon, but he did not use his gun out of concern for innocent bystanders.

I want to be perfectly clear. I am not much of a firearms enthusiast. I don’t own a firearm. I’ve only ever been shooting twice. For me it’s not an issue of gun rights. It’s about property rights. A person has a natural right to own a hunk of iron in any damn shape they want, and they shouldn’t be criminalized until they use that hunk of iron to harm someone. People can argue crime statistics ’till they’re blue in face. I frankly don’t care about people’s ideas for managing society.

What I am is a math enthusiast. So, without further delay, here’s how I arrived at these numbers.

Step One: Amassing a data set

I searched for timelines of shootings and selected 5 that appeared the most comprehensive.

  1. Info Please
  2. CNN
  3. Denver Post
  4. News Max
  5. TruTV

While doing this I learned some important vocabulary. A “spree shooting” is when a killer murders in multiple locations with no break between murders. As in the Virginia Tech killer who began shooting in one hall, and then walked across campus and continued shooting in another hall. A “mass shooting” is when a killer murders multiple people, usually in a single location. As in the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people at one military base. A “school shooting” can be either of these as long as one or more locations is a school. As in the Columbine shooting, which is also classified as a spree shooting because they went from room to room. The term “rampage shooting” is used to describe all of these, and does not differentiate between them. So that is the term I’ll be using from here on out.

As many have pointed out, none of the weapons involved are “automatic weaponry” or “assault rifles” but they are often misreported as such by media outlets that lack knowledge of firearms.

I selected these lists because they were the most comprehensive of those that I found, and I was seeking as large a data set as possible. I combined them all, including the first 10 from my previous post, and removed all redundant data for a total list of 100 shootings.

Step Two: Trimming irrelevant data.

While the list was comprehensive, the details about each shooting were not. In each shooting I had a date and a location, but often important details, like the number of people killed, or how the shooter was apprehended were missing. So, I set to the long task researching each incident to fill in the missing data. I didn’t incorporate the number of wounded people because so many were not reported. But the reason they call a single death a shooting rampage is because there were many injuries. All relevant data is contained in the links in the finished list below or in the timelines linked above. Most of the data came from either Wikipedia, a mainstream news article about the incident, or a handy resource I discovered called Murderpedia.

Next I removed incidents that did not fit within the scope of this analysis. Even though every incident on the list was a shooting, not every incident was a rampage shooting. So, I selected for incidents that included at least some indiscriminate targeting of bystanders. I removed incidents like Dedric Darnell Owens who shot and killed his classmate Kayla Rolland and then threw his handgun in a wastebasket (*meaning I removed incidents where the shooter killed all he was going to kill and stopped, because neither police or civilians actually reduced the deaths at the scene.) And I removed incidents like Michele Kristen Anderson who killed her entire family at a Christmas Party. So what remained were specifically rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public and began firing at random people.

Suicide presented a tricky variable in the analysis. Roughly half of the remaining rampage shooters ended their own lives. So, I removed all incidents where the shooter killed themselves before police arrived reasoning that they had killed all they were going to kill and police had no impact in stopping them. Theoretically these incidents could have been stopped sooner by a civilian, but let’s not speculate. What I left in were incidents where shooters commit suicide after engaging the police, either during a shootout with police, or after a chase. I included, for example, Jiverly Wong, who witnesses say stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard sirens but before police arrived, crediting the police’s response time with stopping the murders. But I did not include the shooters themselves in the total number of people killed.

I also removed cases like Edward Charles Allaway who shot up a library, then fled to a nearby hotel and called police to turn himself in, and cases like Darrell Ingram who shot up a high school dance and fled the scene only to be apprehended later after a long investigation. I was only looking for incidents when intervention from police or civilian saved lives.

What remained was 32 cases of gunmen firing indiscriminately whose rampage was cut short through the intervention of either a civilian or a police officer.

Step Three: The List

I divided the remaining cases into two categories, those stopped by police and those stopped by civilians. I included both armed and unarmed civilians for reasons that will become clear in the final analysis. I also removed cases like Dominick Maldonado and Charles Joseph Whitman. Moldonado went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, and ultimately surrendered to police but was confronted by two legally armed civilians who interrupted his shooting. They did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders. Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. The police who stopped Charles Whitman were assisted by a civilian with a more powerful rifle. I’m calling incidents like this an assist from civilians and removing them from the analysis as anomalies.

  • 9/6/1949 – Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.
  • 7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shot and killed him.
  • 10/16/1991 – George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He committed suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.
  • 12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed six people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.
  • 11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed two people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.
  • 2/2/1996 – Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed three people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.
  • 10/1/1997 – Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed three students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.
  • 12/1/1997 – Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing three girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.
  • 4/24/1998 – Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed one student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.
  • 5/21/1998 – Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing two students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.
  • 4/20/1999 – Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. Fifteen people died, not including the shooters.
  • 7/31/1999 – Mark Barton was a day trader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.
  • 1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. Three people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by three students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.
  • 8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed six people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.
  • 9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed two people before PE teacher Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.
  • 2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
  • 3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed seven people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.
  • 11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.
  • 9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed one person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.
  • 4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually committed suicide after murdering 32 people.
  • 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed two people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing two more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and committed suicide before police arrived.
  • 9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed six people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.
  • 3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed eight people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.
  • 4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. Thirteen people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.
  • 11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.
  • 2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed three people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed her out of the room and blockaded the door. Bishop was arrested later.
  • 1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.
  • 2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. Three students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.
  • 4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. Parker killed one person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.
  • 7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opened fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Twelve people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.
  • 8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing six people. He committed suicide after being shot by police.
  • 12/14/12 – Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a rifle, going room-to-room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and committed suicide after police arrived.

Step Four: Final analysis

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far fewer people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?

* Updated 12/15/2012 – This article was originally posted shortly after the Dark Knight premier shooting in Aurora, Colorado, but I have continued to refine the data set and update the statistics. I am especially grateful to all the knowledgeable commenters who have helped correct my errors. I was also contacted by a college professor who I supplied with all my research notes, so they can be peer-reviewed and perhaps published in a more academic setting. So, in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut that has left 27 dead, including 20 children, I updated this article to reflect shootings that have occurred since the Aurora, Colorado shooting, and corrected the errors that readers brought to my attention. I have preserved the integrity of the original analysis and have only updated the raw numbers and a few factual errors.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

12,776 Responses to “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics”

  1. ChrisNo Gravatar says:

    I think this comment page has turned into a flame-war; we really should start over from some kind of central point, I’ll start.

    So the goal of any legislation is to reduce the total homicide rate. The question is: Does gun control reduce the total homicide rate? In this case, let gun control literally mean reducing the number of firearms. http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/guns-neither-increas e-nor-decrease-crime-rate.html

    This information is presented in a blog setting. That does not imply the information is skewed; we can recalculate the lines of best fit and redo the hypothesis tests for correlation. The point is that gun ownership has no effect on homicide, robbery, and assault.

    Now, let gun control be background checking and legislation concerning convicted felons. I do believe in background checks for all sales except for those with concealed carry permits, whom have already been evaluated as a well-qualified candidate for gun ownership. As for felons, reformed felons who make a stable living and are otherwise not likely to go back to crime should be able to purchase a firearm; the exception may be those who were convicted for murder.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      “Now, let gun control be background checking and legislation concerning convicted felons. I do believe in background checks for all sales except for those with concealed carry permits, whom have already been evaluated as a well-qualified candidate for gun ownership. As for felons, reformed felons who make a stable living and are otherwise not likely to go back to crime should be able to purchase a firearm; the exception may be those who were convicted for murder.”

      This seems reasonable.

  2. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark says:

    “Congratulations on 3 women a day being murdered by their husbands, ex husbands, and boyfriends. It’s a wonderful gun legacy.”

    This coming from the man who danced on the grave of a woman who was unsuccessful in defending her life against her ex husband.

    You are a despicable hypocrite.

    You care nothing for the lives of the innocent who are murdered by criminals, angered spouses, or terrorists. You only use the body count to try to disarm more Americans (despite your feeble protests to the contrary).

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      You’re very confused about who is enabling these killers.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        I am not confused at all. It is your ilk that is for open borders that allow in foreigners, including criminals and terrorists, without any scrutiny at all. It is your ilk that is soft on crime and against the death penalty for murderers. It is your ilk that wants criminals released from prison.

        Nope, I suffer from no confusion whatsoever. It is your ilk that bears responsibility for so many deaths.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          So you’re ok with easy access to guns for terrorists, criminals, wife abusers, insane people, and foreign nationals. Congratulations, you are part of the gun problem in this country.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        “You’re very confused about who is enabling these killers.”

        Eric Holder comes to mind.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          I didn’t know Eric Holder was a gun worshipper or with the NRA.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Mark The Troll,

            Eric Holder intentionally sold (or, caused to be sold) guns to known Mexican drug criminals, and then let those guns “walk” across the US/Mexico border, where they would subsequently be used to kill hundreds if not thousands of Mexicans, as well as at least two US Border Patrol agents. And then he claimed, along with Hillary! Clinton and the Dinosaur Media, that Mexican gun violence was caused by gun shows and criminal gun dealers – who incidentally were very suspicious of the people trying to buy guns, and who didn’t want to complete the transactions, but were ORDERED to proceed by the ATF.

            Of course you know this and are just dissembling, as is your habit, Mark The Troll.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Nope, just has nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment and gun worshippers.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                No, it doesn’t have anything to do with the 2nd.

                It has to do with the criminal and treasonous behavior of Obama, Holder, and the ATF.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  It would be interesting to hear the facts that would come out if holder were to be suspended over a slow fire……

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “It would be interesting to hear the facts that would come out if holder were to be suspended over a slow fire…”

                    I’d rather turn him over to that Estonian MSG we had on my last tour.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “Leave him alive as a visual for those who might think to emulate his activities?”

                    Our Estonian augmentees did’nt kill any detaineees,that I know of.They did tend to become quite co-operative though.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      The dead never talk, but the living can eventually be made to talk by one means or another.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            By the way, it’s also pretty offensive that you falsely imply that only ‘gun worshippers’ and the NRA are responsible for gun violence. It’s not like Chicago or Detroit is packed with either, but yet they are full of ‘gun violence.’ What they *are* packed with, is democrat voters.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Any person who sells a gun to someone who should not have one is, in part, responsible for enabling their misdeeds. I’m sorry you can’t comprehend the concept of responsibility. At a minimum, those insisting that “shall not be infringed” means anyone can have a gun IS playing a large part in enabling them.

              Urging me to buy a gun to (potentially but probably not) stop what they have enabled is highly unfair.

              Gun worshippers and the NRA are criminal enablers.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Is anyone at all, anywhere buying this latest talking point?

                I would say that based on gun sales that no one is buying your BS. They prefer to buy guns.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  I have recently done my part to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I just bought a .32 “pocket pistol” revolver made in 1925 and another 12 gauge shotgun of 1941 vintage. Both are beautiful examples of the gun maker’s art, fully functional, and they’ll be used when appropriate.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    LOL. “Get a gun off the streets. BUY IT. *Know* that it is in good hands.”

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Damned right!

                      That Ithaca Model 37 shotgun is a gem! I’ve got to get a recoil pad or a shooting jacket though. It weighs just over 7 pounds, so you can imagine how it kicks compared to a 8 1/2 pound Remington 870.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “I have recently done my part to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I just bought a .32 “pocket pistol” revolver made in 1925 and another 12 gauge shotgun of 1941 vintage. Both are beautiful examples of the gun maker’s art, fully functional, and they’ll be used when appropriate.”

                    Gotta love those early to mid 20th century guns

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      What makes? Love those old weapons. Even the replicas. The middle boy picked up a 1944 High Standard Military HD .22 and later that same week he scored an Italian replica .44 cap and ball Navy Colt. Sea battle scenes engraved on the cylinder.
                      My newest gun is a Rock Island Armory 1911A1 chambered in 9mm Parabellum (9 x 19mm). I got it cheap enough that I checked four different stolen weapons sites to verify it’s clean.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “What makes? Love those old weapons. Even the replicas. The middle boy picked up a 1944 High Standard Military HD .22 and later that same week he scored an Italian replica .44 cap and ball Navy Colt. Sea battle scenes engraved on the cylinder.
                    My newest gun is a Rock Island Armory 1911A1 chambered in 9mm Parabellum (9 x 19mm). I got it cheap enough that I checked four different stolen weapons sites to verify it’s clean.”

                    Well,you know how I love my mil-surp bolt actions.My NEWEST,my RFI Enfield from Ishapore,India,dates to the Johnson administration.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      I was at an auction today and passed up bidding on a VERY early 1900s Mauser. Unfortunately I didn’t have enough cash to bring home the rifle and pistol I did bid on.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “I was at an auction today and passed up bidding on a VERY early 1900s Mauser. Unfortunately I didn’t have enough cash to bring home the rifle and pistol I did bid on.”

                    Be carefull on those early Mausers.Some of that ammo is scarcer than ethics at a DNC convention.

                • dragonlive64No Gravatar says:

                  You are totally wasting your time arguing with this idiot! As soon as you show his statements are full of shit he obfuscates or brings out another talking point!

                  Criminals do not go to stores or gun shows to “buy” their guns …. they break in and steal and rob from stores and citizens they know have guns…. or they buy off those who do.

                  And there are already more than enough laws on the books to deal with the thugs in the big cities who are by far doing the lions share of the murders in this country, it’s just that the bleeding hearts in those same big cities and the scumbags in the White House and the DOJ refuse to prosecute them and even want to give them the right to vote!

                  In 2010 the Obama Justice Department only prosecuted 44 fugitives and felons out of 15,700 who tried to illegally purchase a firearm. Yet they are wanting to cram more and more gun laws down the throats of law abiding citizens! So cry some more about the NRA while giving made up excuses for the thugs doing the killing ….. just another idiot spewing trash!!

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    Can’t disagree with you one iota.

                    The reason that most of us do respond is to not let his BS go unchallenged. If we did, other, less informed readers just might believe their (mark and babs) crap.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “Criminals do not go to stores or gun shows to “buy” their guns …. they break in and steal and rob from stores and citizens they know have guns…. or they buy off those who do”

                    You’ve been drinking the Kool Aid. Most guns used in crimes are not stolen.

                    http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

                    “Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you’re likely to hear this hard boiled response: “They steal them.” But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners’ homes and cars. “Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,” Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.”

                    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.ht ml

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “Says of 80,000 people who were denied a firearm in 2012 due to a failed background check, only 44 were prosecuted. ”

                    You won’t get any argument from me. Prosecute these people to the full extent of the law. Every last one of them

                    ” Our ruling:

                    On the numbers, Ayotte is on track. In one year, more than 80,000 background checks were denied at the state and local level and federal authorities pursued 44 charges in court, as the senator claimed. However, the report she cited is based on 2010 numbers, not 2012, but that’s small potatoes.

                    More to the point, Ayotte confuses state and federal numbers in her statement, using state rejections (80,000) and federal prosecutions (44). Looking at state enforcement alone, just four states had more than 1,500 arrests. While those are arrests, not prosecutions, it stands to reason the number of state prosecutions is vastly higher than the figure Ayotte cited.

                    That ratio is not nearly as dramatic as Ayotte suggested, but her larger point remains valid: the majority of failed background checks do not lead to criminal charges or prosecutions. With this in mind, we rate her claim Mostly True.”

                    http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/ke lly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      The absolutely disgusting irony is that it’s the pro gun states which are declining to prosecute these cases where firearm laws have been broken.

                      They are so pro gun/freedom that they refuse to prosecute criminal violations of firearm law.

                      Districts with the most unlawful possession cases

                      Arizona 154
                      Texas Southern 86
                      Georgia Northern 81
                      Missouri Western 80
                      Kansas 79

                      Districts with the most case declinations

                      Arizona 240
                      Kentucky Eastern 192
                      Kentucky Western 161
                      South Carolina 158
                      Missouri Western 152

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Hey babs, isn’t that a FEDERAL law?

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  “I would say that based on gun sales that no one is buying your BS. They prefer to buy guns.”

                  and empty ammo shelves nationwide speak volumes

  3. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Markr says:
    June 23, 2013 at 11:39 pm

    “Better than worshipping a gun.”

    We don’t worship guns. We simply respect the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and against tyranny. Your problem is that you do not have respect for any rights.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      You also respect the right of foreign nationals, wife abusers, the insane, felons and criminals.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        You insist on their ‘right’ (of foreign nationals — what we call illegal alien invaders) to be in this country, roaming free, and to not punish (swiftly and harshly) the criminals for the heinous acts that they commit.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Not all foreign nationals are here illegally. U.S. law makes that distinction quite clear. It’s typical tactic of the right to twist words….attach a negative label to something or someone so you can discriminate against it.

          Right wingers are soft on gun crime as evidenced by their insistence on interpreting “shall not be infringed” as a free-for-all when it comes to gun sales to ANYONE including non-citizens.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            You have been using the term ‘foreign nationals’. I used it for consistency but added illegal alien for clarification.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Illegal alien is a subset of foreign national. Under the guise of “shall not be infringed” we arm all these people by handing them guns without asking any questions about their legitimacy.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                I want closed borders and harsh punishment for criminals. You don’t. You want criminals to be coddled and released from prison. Bad people are the problem, not the inanimate tools that they use.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back his actions with his life.” Robert A Heinlein.

                More true now.

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back his actions with his life.” Robert A Heinlein.

                  Is that why our crime stats are so low in my neck of the woods?

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Heinlein’s Lazarus Long quotes were often great. I love athe “Be wary of strong drink. It can cause you to shoot at tax collectors…and miss.”

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      One of my favorite quotes!

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “Heinlein’s Lazarus Long quotes were often great. I love athe “Be wary of strong drink. It can cause you to shoot at tax collectors…and miss.”

                      My family roots are in the hollers of East Kentucky-I’m sure a few of my kinfolk have the occasional revenooer.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      Heinlein’s Lazarus Long quotes were often great. I love athe “Be wary of strong drink. It can cause you to shoot at tax collectors…and miss.”

                      oops-meant to say,SHOT the occasional revenooer

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Shoot, shovel, and shut up!

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    An armed citizen can afford to be polite, and he’d better be polite when everyone else is armed as well.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “An armed citizen can afford to be polite, and he’d better be polite when everyone else is armed as well.”

                      I’ve noticed that the keystone kops have gotten MUCH better behaved since CCW passed.

  4. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    The highlight of this Weekend Gun Report is the adorable story of a 5-year-old girl who died after shooting herself in the head while playing with a .38 revolver in her New Orleans home. Her mother had left her alone while going to a store.

    Since Adam Lanza exercised his precious Second Amendment right at Sandy Hook, the gun industry has killed 5255 people in America.

    http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/weekend-gun-report-jun e-21-23-2013/?_r=0

    That is, 5255 people plus about 10,000 suicides.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Why do I not see a 5 year old girl being able to pull the trigger? Something about this story stinks.

      Those people died at the hands of criminals, not guns. The gun formed no intent and didn’t pull it’s own trigger.

      People commit suicide by various means. That they choose to use a gun does not make the gun at fault.

      Your agenda is simply to demonize guns, not to deal in facts and reason.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        You didn’t hear about the 5 year old kid in Kentucky who shot his 2 year old sister with a cricket rifle, one of those rifles marketed for children?

        Or do you just deny it and think it’s a big conspiracy? Maybe Soros staged the crime scene?

        How about these stories? Also just made up?

        – On July 19, 4-year-old Dylan Jackson shot himself to death after finding a loaded gun at a friend’s home during a birthday party.

        – A 3-year-old Southeast Washington boy shot himself in the foot and grazed his hand while playing with his father’s gun — which he found lying on the floor.

        – A 2-year-old Tampa boy shot himself in the chest with a loaded 9 mm he found in his parent’s couch while playing.

        • http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?id=9008345

          And a child dies of alcohol ingestion, so lets ban all alcohol based products.

          http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-child-d rown-apopka-police-20130624,0,3759689.story

          Another one drown, let’s ban pools!

          Should I keep going or have you gotten the point that A) Accidents will happen even to the best parents, and B) some parents are shit and there should be licenses required to put your dick in something?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Neither of those are designed to kill people. You argument is no better than the ” ban cars ” argument. BTW, guns are about to overtake cars in the number killed. 2015 is the projected date.

            You been taking lessons from Brucey.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              To paraquote your goddess Hillary:

              “What the fuck difference does it make?”

              You still cannot grasp the irony of an item (car or pool) that is intended for pleasure and convenience still kills so many people.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Guns are designed to kill. They should fall under a different rule than pools or rubbing alcohol. Maybe you can’t tell the difference between a killing tool, an entertainment tool, or a medical tool.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  Good people don’t shoot to kill. They shoot to stay alive.

                  I will type this more slowly for you.

                  Your products and devices that are meant to entertain and to heal are killing more people than the ‘killing’ instruments that you hate so much.

                  People are expecting a good outcome, yet end up dead. Hmmm.

                  That’s called irony. That you can’t see it is called stupidity.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Back to the 4th grade mentally of “good people” vs “bad people”. What a joke.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “Good people don’t shoot to kill. They shoot to stay alive.”

                    my thoughts exactly during my first combat action,with a Remington 870.I walked away alive.The terrorist did’nt.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “That’s called irony. That you can’t see it is called stupidity.”

                    As ironic as the leftist idjit who was texting another leftist idjit about how dangerous guns are,when he smashed into a tree,killing himself.And Darwin smiled.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      And a hypocritical leftist idjit to boot. In killing himself, he also tried to kill and innocent tree.

                      I wonder if the idjit leftist tree huggers went to his funeral.

        • And I can’t believe I forgot this one: Ruby Ridge.

          Ban Government from having guns.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            LOL. Yea. Ruby Ridge. 2 civilians and 1 marshal dead. That’s like a week’s worth of child gun deaths.

            What would you guys do without Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Chicago? Hahaha. You guys are too funny and predictable.

            So, let’s get back to your point about the decline of crime in LA due to politics that just, for some bizarre reason, happened to coincide with a nationwide decrease in crime. Do you enjoy being dishonest? Or do you think that people won’t catch on? What’s the deal? I’m honestly curious.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          You are so steeped in your anti gun beliefs that you could hurt yourself jumping to erroneous conclusions.

          I did not mean to suggest that there is a conspiracy or that the child did not get shot. I meant that I do not believe that the baby pulled the trigger. More likely it was a drunk/high/stupid/careless adult that did it accidentally (or on purpose) and the blame was place on the child to avoid prosecution.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Pure conjecture. You have no proof.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Of course it is conjecture. I said as much. I think it makes more sense than the reported story.

              For you, I suppose it has more value if the baby killed herself than if some negligent adult did it.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                And maybe the homicides committed by blacks are actually done by whites and the blame was put on the blacks?

                Heck, maybe all facts are wrong. Let’s just accept conjecture as the new fact. Wouldn’t you like that, Ray?

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  You are a troll and an idiot.

                  I made a comment on one particular story and you bring non related nonsense, to do what, refute my speculation?

                  As for black on black crime, no less than race baiting poverty pimp Jesse Jackson says that he becomes afraid when he walks down the street and sees a bunch of black youths, but isn’t afraid when he sees a group of white youths.

                  That fear is based on reality. Blacks know that they are more at risk from other blacks. Only one as stupid and ignorant as you would even try to deny that truth.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    No, I commented on your process of reasoning. The logic you used is dumb. So I used your dumb logic to give you a similar dumb example.

                    And then you started crying. Waaaaaaah!

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    You’re in such denial that guns aren’t bad that you just dismiss the facts. The facts say that young children often kill themselves or others with firearms. But you don’t like that. It doesn’t fit in your world view. So it has to be foul play. Right? That’s the only possible explanation.

                    Idiot.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Guns are neither good or bad by themselves. They are a tool. Period. How they are used — by good men or bad — is what is important.

                      More guns in the hands of good guys mean less crime. Fewer guns in the hands of good guys mean more crime because good people will not have the means to repel an attack. Bad guys don’t need guns to attack, but good guys sure need them to protect themselves.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Ray, you might as well attempt to teach Boolean algebra to a jackass. This anology is especially apt, considering the political associations and logical ambiguities of our resident trolls.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Think how much better things would be if we didn’t let private sales go to criminals, wife abusers, felons, foreign nationals, and the mentally ill. Guns were designed as killing machines to be used to either kill or make the threat of killing. In that sense atomic weapons are neither good nor bad, yet we sure want to do all we can to keep Iran from getting them and the world is quite threatened by North Koreas.

                      So keep up with the imbibilic “shall no be infringed” rant. It makes SO much sense.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll engages in the Broken Record Fallacy again. No matter what the topic is, his response is always about mandatory background/registration checks.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Admit that there needs to be universal background checks and I’ll stop. Lots of shooting by people who shouldn’t have guns. A sane response is to, at a minimum, not hand a known criminal a gun… but you can’t know if you don’t check…hence…

                      You do realize you are engaging in the same behaviour (only to zero effect because you just made it up) that you are condemning right?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      One of the root causes of gun problems in the U.S. is we let any jackass buy one through an unchecked private sale. Don’t bitch about prisons and executions while we escalate the problem by avoiding prevention.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Admit that background checks amount to firearms registration, and that registration is both dangerous from the point of view of government abuse, and therefore, unacceptable from the point of view of gun owners (who are interested in liberty… yourself not included, obviously.)

                      If there were a way to *ensure* (even against the NSA’s snooping) that background checks could be done in a way that absolutely prevented registration, I could go along with them. But at the moment they almost *ensure* the opposite. As such, they are utterly unacceptable. If someone with a carry permit could buy a guns with no other questions asked, and the phone call was merely to ascertain the validity of the permit, but not record the gun make, model, and serial number, that might be ok.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Here’s one I could go for without modification: If a US citizen has a voter registration card, they can buy a gun, no other questions asked. If they are foreign nationals, do a background check. Lets the Ds and Rs come together in deciding which crimes should exclude people from being able to vote, knowing that if they can vote, they can buy a gun. And allow that noncriminal foreigners can also buy guns, but not vote. Demand to see the card to vote, too, because voting is a right of citizens just like the right to keep and bear arms is also a right of citizens, at least. (But, the right of survival is higher than the right to select representatives, so non-citizens should also have that.)

                      Deal?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Brucey, do you not know that the info provided by background checks gets deleted the next day? So how can you claim there is a registry?

                      Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day.

                      You don’t know much about background checks, do you?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “If there were a way to *ensure* (even against the NSA’s snooping) that background checks could be done in a way that absolutely prevented registration, I could go along with them.”

                      So now that I showed you the law that ensures this, I assume you are OK with background checks?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Not at all, you idiot. The law also *requires* the 4473 to be kept by the FFL for at least *20 years* and, made available to the BATFE for “inspection” (possibly including copying) during normal business hours, and, if the FFL should ever go out of business, to surrender ALL copies of the 4473s directly to the BATFE. Those forms have name, address, DL and/or SSN, as well as make, model, and serial number of the gun(s) bought. A *complete* registry. The registry is distributed amongst all the FFLs, but it still exists, and, despite laws banning a registration from being compiled from the information, the BATFE has *already* been found to have been doing exactly that.

                      Not acceptable. Show your voter ID card, allow the card to be authenticated, and then proceed with the sale. Perhaps the *buyer* gets a copy of the transaction, to prove the gun was legally bought, but he would only have to show it if his gun were used in a crime and the police wanted to see whether it was “legal”. But the police would have to show a warrant to demand the info. No registry.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      In case you haven’t been following the news, the NSA has been snooping *in violation of law*. I don’t want only a law to be the sole thing that keeps a registry from being made, because government agencies have proven they don’t follow the law. (Hey, you yourself aren’t satisfied that there is already a *law* against criminals buying guns – no, you want much more than just that. You want to actively prevent criminals from buying guns. Well, I want to actively prevent the government from compiling registration information.) If the buyer got the purchase record, but The State only knows that a certain voter registration card holder was verified (which might have been done for reasons other than buying a gun) then the government has no way to connect any particular gun to any particular person. Something they can easily do now by “inspecting” all the 4473s that all the FFLs possess. “Inspecting” them with a Xerox machine, that is.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Firstly, it’s the companies like Facebook, Yahoo, Google, etc who have been collecting the information. The NSA just asked to use their information, they weren’t the ones collecting it, so please get your facts straight. Free market baby! Wooooo!

                      Secondly, what they were doing was not illegal, it was in compliance with the Patriot Act.

                      So your facts are wrong, as usual.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Irrespective of the NSA, the BATFE has already been shown to be collecting registry information. (And, causing guns to be knowingly sold to known Mexican gang members, and knowingly walked across the border to Mexico.) The IRS knowingly targeted political opposition. Laws do little to stop government agencies acting in secret. Even if some mechanism were in place that prevented the BATFE from collecting information, the NSA might still be able to do it, hence my mention of them specifically. (Do you deny that they have been collecting information far in excess of what anyone thought?) So my criterion for an acceptable system must even prevent *the NSA* from being able to collect registry information.

                      So I ask again, is showing a voter ID card (which you are free to validate) enough to buy a gun, no other questions asked? Is that acceptable to you, yes/no? Do you think wife-beaters, mentally unstable people or violent criminals should be able to vote? Under what circumstances do you think someone should be able to vote, but not buy a gun? If you can’t trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them to select representation and leadership?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Hahahaha. Yes. Irrespective to the 2 lies you just told, is what you mean.

                      “The IRS knowingly targeted political opposition. ”

                      Oh, really? What facts are you using here? Certainly not the IG report. Do your facts come from the same source that informed your NSA comments?

                      Your stupid comments about voter ID cards to buy guns is, like I said, stupid. You are saying that you need to be registered to vote to buy a gun. Which goes against the second amendment. Why are you comparing the lethality of a gun to someone’s vote? Seriously, how retarded are you?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You forgot to answer my question. Under what circumstances should someone you can’t trust to own a gun, should be allowed to select leadership?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Bruce, do you think I need to answer all your stupid questions? The two aren’t related in the least. So why are you trying to compare the checks required?

                      The question doesn’t even mean anything. Are you asking under what circumstances, people prohibited from owning a gun, should be allowed to vote? People should be allowed to vote no matter what. Your criminal background shouldn’t disqualify you from a political opinion. Your criminal background should disqualify you from owning a gun. Was that hard to understand? Did your efforts to have me answer that very difficult and profound question pay off?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      But, voting isn’t merely “having a political opinion,” it’s inflicting one’s will upon society to the extent that the outcome is swayed by that vote. Why would anyone be willing to allow criminals to have their way with you, me, or society at large, given that they are criminals? In fact, federal law prohibits felons from voting (although proof that you aren’t such isn’t demanded nearly anywhere). Would you want an insane person telling you how your state or country is to be organized? (REALLY?)

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      *** BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:
                      June 28, 2013 at 10:31 am

                      Brucey, do you not know that the info provided by background checks gets deleted the next day? So how can you claim there is a registry?

                      Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day.

                      You don’t know much about background checks, do you?***

                      Do you also believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny? We already have too much proof that atf, irs, and (in)justice disobey laws they find inconvenient.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Apparently the new ad hominem of the day is “troll”. It seems to have grown in popularity. I’m sure it’s a label used when one has no recourse. They have no defense against the “private sales” to criminals that arm those who should not be armed. Bereft of morals… at the expense of gun victims, most of which are law abiding citizens, and those doing the victimizing, armed mostly by the “shall not be infringed” crowd.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Broken Record Fallacy. This particular thread is not about private sales to prohibited persons. But you don’t seem to have anything else to say, do you Mark The Troll? You will just keep pounding that, falsely, and incessantly.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “This particular thread is not about private sales to prohibited persons. ”

                      Really Brucey? What’s it about then…you proving your point with ad hominem? Aaah yes, that must be it….

                      How about you fess up to the truth about easy access to guns for criminals because “shall not be infringed” makes it so. One should always know who they are selling to and penalties for selling anyway should be very stiff.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll,

                      That’s the Broken Record fallacy, again! Are you going for some sort of record? (There is such a fallacy, there’s precedent for it on this very website, even if you claim it doesn’t exist.) Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals won’t stop irresponsible people from leaving guns where children can find them, in case you were wondering what you posted. Neither is posting about the criteria for prohibited people topical, are you going to do that next?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Nirvana fallacy. Not a made up one like you.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Save yourself the keyboard wear and just call him troll. He knows who he is.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    I’ve asked what the outcome should be for “private sales” to prohibited individuals. No one can give an honest answer. Facing the truth causes a lot of pain. So sorry you’re having to struggle with this moral dilemma.

                    Oh yea, the answer is more guns…forgot that one…

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “Apparently the new ad hominem of the day is “troll”.”

                    I get called a troll,often,on leftist radical FB pages,if I cite facts,rather than the latest rant from rachel Maddow,whoever THAT dude is.I was savagely attacked on State Senator Chris “Sticky Fingers” Larsen’s page,when I asked leftist radicals why they re-elected a convicted thief.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Of course a 5 year old can’t pull a trigger. Everything that shines a negative light on the “Wonderfulness Of Guns” must be just made up. There can be no other explanation.

  5. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “On an average day in the U.S., guns are used to kill more than 80 people, injure almost 300 more, and commit approximately 3,000 crimes. Since John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, more Americans have been shot and killed on our own soil than in all the 20th-century wars combined.

    What’s not well-known is that the vast majority of the approximately 12,000 annual gun murders and 66,000 non-fatal shootings are committed by people who have no legal right to a gun. How do criminals and other prohibited people get guns so easily? Through a highly efficient, organized, and profitable business of gun trafficking that moves guns from legal manufacture to dealers to criminals and young people who can’t buy guns legally. ”

    http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-tra fficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      What’s also not widely known is that the vast majority of criminal gun homicides were perpetrated by Obamericans, and for that matter against Obamericans. If you take out the crimes committed by democrat voters, the USA looks pretty much like Canada and Europe in terms of violent crime and homicide rates.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Pulled straight from your ass.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          No, it’s true.

          Black Americans have the distinction of being the highest victim category and the highest criminal category. Black on Black crime is rampant.

          Why do you want law abiding Blacks to be disarmed?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            No one wants law abiding blacks to not have guns. Anyone selling a gun to an individual who has broken laws in a way to disqualify them from gun ownership is enabling more crime.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              You say (despite all of the evidence to the contrary) that having a gun to defend oneself is useless and causes more problems. Thus, you believe that Blacks should not be armed (just like you don’t want anyone else to have them).

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Mark The Troll writes: “No one wants law abiding blacks to not have guns.”

              On the contrary, a rare agreement is found between the NAACP and the KKK, in that both support measures to disarm blacks. It’s obvious why the KKK might, but incredibly, the NAACP agrees in no small part.

              http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/why_blacks_and_women_shoul d_not_have_guns.html

              (The linked article also describes how at least one democrat politician thinks women shouldn’t have guns either, an interesting take on the “women’s empowerment” civil rights crusade that is allegedly one of the missions of the democrats.)

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                I had no idea the NAACP and the KKK were a legislative branch of the government. Where are these laws that prohibit blacks from gun ownership. You’re getting opinion confused with law. No wonder you find it impossible to understand that “shall not be infringed” gives unlimited access to guns for the entire planet including criminals, the insane, wife abusers, foreign nationals, and felons. Indefensible…that’s your view.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  Mark The Troll,

                  Let me remind you what you said earlier. You said: “No one wants law abiding blacks to not have guns.” For some reason you think “No one” somehow only applies to legislative bodies, but as it happens it does not. Hence my response.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  Look into gun control history bucco. The first gun controls laws were written (just as today) by Democrats determined to keep Blacks disarmed and defenseless. In more recent history, the ban of the so called Saturday Night Specials was aimed poor Blacks from buying the only guns that they could afford and thereby, keeping them unarmed and defenseless.

                  You pontificate here about fallacies being real or imagined but you deny the basic principles of free people being able to defend themselves. Sadly, in a free and open society there is no guarantee of safety but if you give up liberty to obtain temporary safety, you end up with neither.

                  I prefer to take my chances with liberty.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Did you just say to look into gun control history? hahahahahahah. Like this history?

                    – Regulation of gun powder, including how much you could keep at home.

                    – Door to door surveys to see who had guns and what conditions they were in. You had to present all firearms you owned, private and those for militia use. They were then inspected and registered.

                    – Mandatory musters (role call) where citizens were expected to show up with their arms (including private ones) to have them inspected and registered. If you didn’t show up or had insufficient arms/ammo, you were fined.

                    – Free blacks often couldn’t own guns

                    – Anyone who didn’t support the war had all firearms confiscated and were barred from even borrowing or using other firearms belonging to friends or family (how would they be able to defend themselves against criminals or the government? Self defense taken away)

                    – Persons involved in Shay’s rebellion were disarmed for 3 years and had to swear allegiance to the state.

                    – Concealed carry was banned in many states, starting with the South. (early 1800s)

                    Some places like MA banned loaded guns from most places in the state.

                    “A 1783 Massachusetts statute declared that “the depositing of loaded Arms in the Houses of Town of Boston, is dangerous” and provided for fine and forfeiture for anyone keeping a loaded firearm in “any Dwelling-House, Stable, barn, Out-house, Ware-house, Store, Shop, or
                    other Building”

                    And please learn about the soutern strategy and the Dixiecrats, so you can stop misrepresenting history. Those democrats all went to the Republican party, where racism and bigotry is king.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Is that why the Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, against the Dems, and why Robert Byrd (D) was a KKK leader but never resigned his long-held seat? (And why the Ds never called him on it? – No, they honored him.) Your attempt to rewrite history here has failed, although I don’t doubt that you will try to do it again.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Ah, Brucey, always up for more walloping.

                      The format is Yay – Nay, for the votes on the Civil Rights Act.

                      The original House version:

                      Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
                      Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

                      Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
                      Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

                      The Senate version:

                      Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
                      Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
                      Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
                      Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

                      Byrd was no longer a part of the KKK after 1952. The fact that he was in it is public knowledge, so I don’t know what you mean by no one called him on it. Is anyone denying his racist background? Or that he was racist in his later life with some of his comments? Nope. Do you think that pointing out Byrd somehow detracts from the racism and bigotry in the Republican party?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      By party[edit]
                      The original House version:[16]
                      Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
                      Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
                      Cloture in the Senate:[17]
                      Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
                      Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
                      The Senate version:[16]
                      Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
                      Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
                      The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
                      Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
                      Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

                      Robert Byrd filibustered the bill.

                      More support from Rs than from Ds.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Why are you so dishonest? I broke the votes down for you. But you didn’t like that, did you? Because it proved my point that it was the southern democrats who voted against the Act. Which is what I said above, about the southern democrats who went over to the Republican side. Too bad, Brucey. You’re just going to have to deal with it.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I posted from the same source you did – Wikipedia.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      What does that change? You are still trying to deny that it was the southern democrats that were voting against it. Why do you live in such denial? It isn’t healthy for you.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              “No one wants law abiding blacks to not have guns”

              Apparently the Chicago City Council has’nt gotten the memo.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            An interesting article that lays out the history of the destruction of “black” family and society, and the resultant increase in gangs, crime, and murder.
            http://sumpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/just-how-great-was-th e-great-society/

            Thanks, lying bastard johnson. You are responsible for millions of deaths and ruined lives here in the United States as well as the 58,267 killed in the war you declared we are not in to win.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              We didn’t find any WMDs either. Had they been found they’d have been on every channel, 24/7 for a week!

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Bullshit.

                The lamestream media does not report on items that do not find their agenda. Even now, they are barely covering the Obama scandals. They will never report anything to make Bush look justified in going to war.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Faux news would still have it on 24/7 rotation. Hannity would be reduced to a blubbering WMD, WMD mass of stuttering flesh. You’re delusional. No WMDs…period…

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    The most sublime Faux Newz moment for me was when Carl Rove sent reporters to refute the election call only to finally admit it, only to say “we’ll he still didn’t win the popular vote” only to be cut off by the announcement that Obama had won the popular vote too.

                    Talk about propaganda…

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    Keep on believing and promoting that lie.

                    As for Karl Rove (in your next post) never ever confuse him for being on the right. He is just another power broker who cares not for principle.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s no wonder you can’t tell lies from truth.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “During its investigation, the ISG reported that “[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components.” These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it’s likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends’ beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:

                      “Saddam Husain ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.”
                      “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.”
                      “In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.”

                      http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    ***Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

                    It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News.***

                    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html#ixzz2XTBmdv1f

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Look, if you’re gonna invade a country on the pretense of WMDs, you better damned find WMDs and fucking show them to us, otherwise you end up with thousands of soldiers dead and several times more injured for absolutely no good reason.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    “Thousands of dead soldiers”? The great majority of the dead troops happened AFTER the war, during the botched “occupation”, officiated by the state department.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I guess that makes them not dead.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “Thousands of dead soldiers”? The great majority of the dead troops happened AFTER the war, during the botched “occupation”, officiated by the state department.

                      Let’s not forget that the vast majority of KIAs occurred on Soteoro’s watch,but the daily broadcasting of the body count ceased,effective immediately,the day he illegally took office.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    It’s sure convenient to have multiple definitions of WMDs. The surviving Boston Bomber is charged with “use of a weapon of mass destruction” which amounted to a pressure cooker full of fireworks, which had less explosive power than a typical roadside IED. By that criterion, there were plenty of WMDs in Iraq.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “By that criterion, there were plenty of WMDs in Iraq.”

                      according to the EOD guys who examined it,the one I got hit by contained a soviet 152mm arty round,and 130mm arty round,or 170 pounds of ordnance

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “I guess that makes them not dead.”

                    much like homicide victims killed with knives?

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Actually, there were WMD found. Most went to Syria on Russian transport aircraft and trucks. You dodn’t hear about the tons of uranium that were shipped to Canada after they were captured? The stories were quashed by the media. They could not allow the ‘warmonger’ Bush to justify his invasion of Iran, and they sabotaged the occupation in order to cause more American casualties.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Actually no they weren’t.

                  “Consider this: in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion, as the economy collapsed, and people were struggling to survive, not a single Iraqi informant came forward to tell investigators where the Iraqi WMD had gone inside Syria. Not a single, credible (credible, as in the report yielded additional evidence) one, even though intelligence operatives were handing out thousands of dollars for information. There wasn’t a single piece of evidence found by thousands of investigators in Iraq. Of all the spies and operatives in Syria, not a single one gave credible evidence to any intelligence agency of the locations of WMD in Syria. ”

                  http://onviolence.com/?e=498

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  “Actually, there were WMD found.”

                  I sat in as the acting S-2 NCO during a brigade intel brief in 4ID in OIF1-tons of spot reports of WMDs

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  You dodn’t hear about the tons of uranium that were shipped to Canada after they were captured

                  One of the guys I served with in 2nd Dragoons told me of his squadron finding a dirty bomb

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                I guesss that explains the chem IEDs we got hit with

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            “Why do you want law abiding Blacks to be disarmed?”

            Is that why my PSG at Fort Hood after Desert storm said he had no plans to return to inner city Houston?-“Man,I got shot at more in Houston than in fuckin’ Viet Nam”

  6. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    Babooshka writes: “How can you say we don’t have a gun problem when 70% of homicides are committed with a firearm? That literally makes absolutely no sense. All other factors you mention like demographics, poverty, gang activity, etc contribute to VIOLENCE. If they didn’t have easy access to guns, they’d have to use less lethal means. How is that hard to understand?”

    This is pretty easy, so even you might be able to grasp it. Let’s say there exists a country full of Blue people and Red people. And let’s say that the firearms homicide rate of Red people is about 2 per 100,000 per year, and let’s say the firearms homicide rate of the Blue People is about 60 per 100,000 per year, a scant 30 times higher. (N.B. Look up the firearms homicide rate in Detroit.)

    Let’s further suppose that vastly more Red people own guns, and multiple guns, belong to the NRA, read gun magazines, have gun racks in their pickup trucks, holsters in their dresses, etc. In such a land, it would be foolish to say there’s a *gun* problem, when half the population has guns and only a few problems, while the other half has far fewer guns, and incidentally far more problems. It’s the Red people who have “easy access to guns,” what with gun shows every Sunday and gun shops on every block, (and handguns on every hip) while the Blue people can’t find stores anywhere within city limits, there are no gun shows for hundreds of miles, and every gun purchased needs to be inspected, licensed, permitted, approved, and triple-checked for “safe operation”, whatever the hell that means in the context of a deadly weapon.

    Even you might be able to admit, if you thought about it, and it really isn’t that difficult, so you should give it a try, that such a hypothetical land wouldn’t be properly characterized as having a gun problem, but rather a Blue people problem. Because for some reason, the guns don’t seem to be especially dangerous in the hand of Red People, in such a hypothetical land that isn’t so very different from what America actually has become.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      So your ok with a private seller handing a gun to a felon, wife abuser, foreign national, or insane person.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        Mark The Troll,

        I posted this in an attempt to get Babs to understand a point that had eluded him, namely, how it could possibly be that America can be more properly described as having a Blue people problem, and not a Gun problem. For the purpose of this exposition, it doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is that Babs understands.

        But of course you entirely and completely miss the point, and engage in distraction, something you accused me of just one or two days ago.

        Mark The Troll, you are a hypocrite, a liar, and odious besides. Did I mention your being a troll, too? I might have forgotten that, Mark The Troll. So let me add that you are a troll too, Mark The Troll.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Once again, you delve into meaningless drivel. Whether one is Red or Blue changes nothing about whether a gun should be handed to them. I don’t care what demographic you come from. If you are a criminal you should NOT be able to buy a gun from a private seller merely because he doesn’t have to run a background check on you and thus become a law breaker as well.

          You’re really good at dancing around the root cause of gun problems in the U.S.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Mark The Troll,

            I asked you to be gone from this thread, which isn’t about you. But instead you come back with the Broken Record fallacy about selling guns to criminals, which this thread isn’t about. At all.

            Be gone, Mark The Troll!

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Have you gone off your meds again Brucey?

              Question: would you sell a gun to a known felon?

              Question: if you didn’t know would you be ok selling to them?

              Question: if you could know would you try to find out?

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Bruce says you just have to ask them. Literally. He said that.

                hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

                hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Pod course, asking and a background check always give same results…

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  You mean like “pretty please, tell me if you are a criminal”? … the same criminal that is doing a criminal act by trying to buy a gun? Why not just consult a Ouija Board and if it says he’s clean then the seller didn’t knowingly sell to a criminal.

                  They are bereft of logic.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Ya know, the do have effective meds for that Tourettes problem you’ve got.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Yes, Mark The Troll

                Indeed I have gone off my meds. I was taking stupid pills just to be able to bear your idiocy, but they have run out and now once again I find it (and you) unbearable. Hopefully I can find more. Wish me luck, Mark The Troll.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Well, you know, it’s kinda sad that you guys are OK with “private seller” handing their sales over to those who have proven they can’t abide by the law. You know, wife abusers, criminals, foreign nationals, felons, and the insane. It’s a truly immoral stance you’ve set up with your precious “shall not be infringed”.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Mark The Troll,

                    Once again you lie. I am not at all OK with handing guns to people who have proven they can’t abide by the law. If they have proven that they are unable to abide by the law, at least with respect to violent crimes against others, then they should be in prison, for life. After all, their predilection is PROVEN! (Your word.) So, no, I’m not at all OK with such a person being out on the street and asking to buy a gun from me. Not in the least. So please stop lying by saying that I’m just fine with that.

                    Oh, and by the way, you’re committing the Broken Record Fallacy again, by posting this same thing over and over again on nearly every recent thread, including this one, whether it has anything to do with the thread or not.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      .
                      Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year; in prison for life.

                      Fugitives from justice; in prison for life

                      Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance; in prison for life.

                      Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution; in prison for life.

                      Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa; in prison for life.

                      Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces; in prison for life.

                      Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship; in prison for life.

                      Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; in prison for life.

                      Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; in prison for life.

                      Ever been guilty of any of these? Here’s your new permanent home.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      That’s yet another Broken Record Fallacy there, Mark The Troll.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Broken Record Fallacy”

                      There is no such fallacy. There is the “I can’t honestly answer that question” fallacy… the “shall not be infringed” bunch chokes on it every time!

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Really? Incarcerate the insane for life? That’s your solution? Incarcerate wife abusers for life? I’m sure glad you don’t have any say in it. Half the country would be in prison for life. You’re calling that a workable solution? How about just check on whether that person you’re selling to is an American who loves his wife, is mentally stable, hasn’t had run-ins with the law, and isn’t being charged with any crimes. Sounds much cheaper and more fair to those of us footing the bill for life terms for offenders. You’re making this MY problem again just for your “shall not be infringed” convenience.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Your words… you want to permanently incarcerate those who do not qualify. You can’t say “shall not be infringed” means everyone and then turn around and let those that have yet to commit a crime have a gun despite clear proof they should not have one.

                    The cognitive dissonance must be frying your brains right about now.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    The sad part is that you libs have closed the assylums, released violent felons, and blocked every attempt to seal the border and remove illegal immigrants.

                    If they’re armed, we have an excuse to shoot ’em. End of problem.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Danny, this isn’t ‘Nam. You can’t just shoot people for having a gun.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      They’re armed because gun worshippers want it that way, otherwise they’d ask that they be checked for a criminal history. So keep on telling me how I have to pay to I prison all these people that would otherwise be out buying a gun from a private seller. You’re making this my problem because you don’t want to have then checked.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Hey babs, if they pose a threat, I sure can. You don’t approve of Darwinism?

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “Danny, this isn’t ‘Nam. You can’t just shoot people for having a gun.”

                      So,why do cops regularly shoot homeowners who defend their homes against no knock warrants,or warrants delivered to the wrong address?We had a case here,where some Darwin nominee deputy sheriffs served a misdemeanor warrant-at 1AM-in the wrong county.When the homeowner heard his dog barking,he came out with a shotgun-I would have as well.They shot him in the back,19 times.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “The sad part is that you libs have closed the assylums, released violent felons, and blocked every attempt to seal the border and remove illegal immigrants.”

                      And now the People’s Soviet of Seattle has decreed that “citizen” may be an offensive term.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      “Sealing the border” is a waste of time. If you want to drastically reduce the “{illegal immigrant” problem simply fine heavily and progressively the big companies who hire illegals. The illegals will not come if they can’t make money. If they can there is no way to seal a border as long as our’s without destroying the very liberties we want to keep.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Of course. That has always been the answer. Immigrants are interested in jobs, American companies give them these jobs. Like you said, most wouldn’t be here if they didn’t have a chance to work. But alas, that goes against the free market economy, doesn’t it? These American companies want to exploit labor because they have a financial incentive. Pay as low as you can, keep them undocumented so they can’t have any legal working rights, and watch your profits go up. Immigrants aren’t the problem. Those American companies that hire them are.

                      Ah, the irony.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs, I often have wondered at the kneejerk reaction of Republican types when it comes to a choice between closing the border or enforcing existing laws concerning right to work. I would far prefer totally open bordeers and a real free market rather than the corporate tyrrany we now have. Unfortunately, that would probably destroy us overnight.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      These are the categories of people that gun worshippers and the NRA enable by allowing the private sale of guns with no questions asked.

      The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

      Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;

      Fugitives from justice;

      Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;

      Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;

      Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

      Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;

      Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;

      Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders;

      Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

      With limited exceptions, persons under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        Mark The Troll,

        Your response, of course, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a hypothetical land of Red and Blue people, who have widely differing gun violence rates, however defined. Babs apparently is unable to comprehend a point made earlier, and I posted this hypothetical in an honest attempt to get him to understand it. You could help explain it to him, if you wanted to, because you might be able not only to grasp it, but also to frame it in words Babs can understand, you and he aligning in other ways of thinking. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, in that possibly, if he could understand why we and he think differently, he could understand why we think the way that we do, and why it isn’t evil. You, of course, I have given up upon, because your motives have been so clearly demonstrated to be disingenuous and disruptive. So I guess I shouldn’t expect you to explain a point to him at all, should I? It would be a mistake on my part. You are, after all, Mark The Troll, and there is no point expecting you to give any quarter to the ideas you oppose, even if you understand them. But for Babs, maybe there is still hope. In any case, listing the conditions that make someone a prohibited person under current US law has, of course, nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothetical scenario I laid out in an attempt to get Babs to see a point that presently baffles him. Which is why you are Mark The Troll. So please leave this thread to Babs and to those who can help him grasp my example, which incidentally isn’t so very far from what America has presently become.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Nobody gives a shit about your red / blue fixation. Red and Blue Gerymanderd districts have nothing to do with easy access to guns for criminals. The way the second amendment has been hijacked by gun worshippers and the NRA guarantees easy sales to anyone, no questions asked.

          It’s very easy to see why there are so many deaths attributed to criminals and so few deaths attributed to self defense. We make arming the very people we are afraid of extremely easy.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      What a boring fantasy filled post. Why should I entertain your stupid scenario with made up statistics? Bruce, did you forget that the top 10 states for murder are mostly all red states?

      Top 10 states according to homicide rate:

      Louisiana 9.6
      Maryland 7.3
      Missouri 7.0
      South Carolina 6.1
      Nevada 5.9
      New Mexico 5.7
      Michigan 5.6
      Mississippi 5.6
      Tennessee 5.6
      Arizona 5.5

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        The reason you should “entertain my fantasy-filled post” is because it answers a question you asked. You yourself posted that LA is the #1 state for firearms homicides, which is a red state. But most of the firearms homicides are in and around New Orleans, a deep blue enclave within the red state, which proves my point (and the validity of my hypothetical scenario).

        Hey, if you don’t actually want the answers to your own questions, just let me know and I can then consider you a troll instead of someone with whom I have an honest disagreement and am honestly trying to answer.

        It’s up to you.

        Regards

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Right. The point is they vote a certain way. Which, according to your excellent reasoning skills, makes them more homicidal. And has nothing to do with the easy access to guns granted by their lax gun laws. Gotcha. Thanks for your contribution and valuable answers.

          Bruce, has anyone told you recently that you’re an idiot?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Funny thing is that becoming a criminal or other prohibited types, in many cases, means you can’t vote.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              You neglect the fact that democrats routinely ignore the voting laws. A little trivial inconvenience about felony convictions did not stop over 1099 felons from voting in the 2008 senatorial election in Minnesota, and franken supposedly ‘won’ by 312 votes.

              ***There were a lot of irregularities in that race, where a blizzard of magically appearing Franken ballots put the old notion of squeaky-clean Minnesota elections to rest forever. But one specific data point has become inarguable, thanks to the work of authors John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky: the number of outright illegal votes cast by felons in the election far exceeds Franken’s margin of victory.***
              http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/07/al-franken-and-the-felon-vo te/

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “You neglect the fact that democrats routinely ignore the voting laws. A little trivial inconvenience about felony convictions did not stop over 1099 felons from voting in the 2008 senatorial election in Minnesota, and franken supposedly ‘won’ by 312 votes.”

                Don’t forget all of the dems from Illinois and Minnesota voting in our recall election for popularly elected Gov. Walker.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  But voter ID is such an inconvenience…..

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Sorry, Republicans, Your Own Investigation Proves No Dead People Voted In South Carolina

                    By Rebecca Leber on Jul 8, 2013 at 4:29 pm

                    South Carolina never found a single dead voter in recent elections. At least, that is the final word from the State Election Commission investigation into whether 900 people voted using a dead person’s name, according to the Columbia Free Times.

                    The report found that whatever issues existed were usually due to human error, like a clerical mistake or scanning problem, and not because anyone intentionally impersonated a deceased person. For example, hundreds of errors were due to mistakes like confusing a father and son who share the same name.

                    When Attorney General Alan Wilson demanded the original investigation, he cited “an alarming number” of cases reported by the DMV that “clearly necessitates an investigation into criminal activity.” The initial report surveyed 200 “suspicious” names and found nothing, but Wilson insisted “no one in this state should issue any kind of clean bill of health in this matter” until officials “finished with their work.” Republicans, including Wilson, held up the initial claim that the voting rolls were packed with dead voters to argue for a voter ID law. Rep. Alan Clemmons (R) wrote at one point, “It is an unspoken truth in South Carolina that election fraud exists.”

                    Even though South Carolina has never found any election fraud, that will not prevent state Republicans from redoubling strict voter ID efforts, invigorated by the recent Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act. In fact, Wilson celebrated the decision, calling the Voting Rights Act an “extraordinary intrusion” and pledging to implement voter ID “without some having to ask for permission or being required to jump through the extraordinary hoops demanded by federal bureaucracy.”

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***Even though South Carolina has never found any election fraud,***

                      It’s difficult to find fraud when ya refuse to see the evidence.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Hey Danny, these are Republicans who led an investigation yet they couldn’t find any of your evidence. Weird. Is it some top secret thing that only idiot right winger posters know about?

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    as inconvenient as showing a photo ID to board a military aircraft to Iraq?

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            considering that 93% of murderers are self described leftists,I’d say that is a valid argument

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              LOL. Right. Self described leftists. Why don’t you feel shame when you make up this stuff? I don’t get it.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              The majority are men too. Not sure political affiliation weighs any heavier than that. They forfeit the right to vote in many cases. I’d hazards a guess that gun worshippers and the NRA, gun crime enablers you know, are mostly righties. They should be so proud of themselves.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            You’re kind of venturing into an answer on the “are you a troll?” question there, but I’ll set that aside for a moment. The fact is, irrespective of my reasoning ability, that democrat voters have much higher violent crime and firearms homicide rates than non-democrat voters do. I could speculate on why that might be the case, but because you’re probably not interested in my speculations, I’ll just leave it there as a fact.

            That being the case, the fact that democrats have much higher gun violence rates than republicans, for example, (to say nothing of independents), indicates that America doesn’t have so much of a gun problem as it has a democrat problem.

            What we should do about that is a different issue. But taking away guns from republicans (or even merely further restricting them) because democrats kill each other with them doesn’t make any sense.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          “But most of the firearms homicides are in and around New Orleans, a deep blue enclave within the red state, which proves my point (and the validity of my hypothetical scenario).”

          Much like here in the land of cowshit and beer farts,where the vast majority of homicides occur in three urban counties in the SE corner of the state.

  7. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Markr says:
    June 24, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    “Two contributors to reduced crime (even in Chicago). Roe V Wade generation born after its start came of age during this period, and the Brady Bill.”

    Ir is widely acknowledged that the Brady Bill has been wholly ineffective in reducing crime.

    Your other point is quite ironic. While both the number of potential predators and victims have been reduced because of the slaughter of 55 million pre born babies, it it the culture of abortion and death fostered by R v W that has cheapened life.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Crime started falling dramatically just after the bill was enacted. Gun worshippers and the NRA have done their worst in trying to make it ineffective and cripple efforts to make universal checks on gun purchases a reality. Gun worshippers and the NRA are the enablers of criminal society.

      A unwanted pregnancy or, as Republicans would have it, an unwanted poor uneducated child growing up to renew the cycle of death.

      It’s high time humans quit being a pestilence on the planet and learn how to work withing the limits of our resources. We don’t need a country full of baby factories.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Humans are a pestilence on this globe? With that argument, I would expect you to be championing the arming of everybody above the age of ten.

        Work within the limits of ‘our’ resources? What limits are there when you liberals are engaged in denying access to those resources?

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          He is a hypocrite of the highest order.

          He hates guns, but owns guns. He just doesn’t want anyone else to have them.

          He believes humans are a pestilence and loves abortion, but yet he continues to breathe. He just wants babies and other people to die.

          It is as we have always said, it isn’t about gun control or crime control. Pure and simple it is people control by self annointed elitists.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          “Humans are a pestilence on this globe? ”

          Such notables as Ayers and Kazinski embraced that view

  8. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark says:
    June 24, 2013 at 10:40 pm

    “A prohibited person buying a gun is a crime, just like buying illegal drugs is a crime. The difference is we go after drug dealers but not criminal enablers.”

    Okay, you now admit that it is a crime but why is there no followup by police at any level to catch and prosecute these criminals? It is not like a bank robbery where the suspect is unknown. They filled out paperwork with their name and address. Otoh, you claim that there are 140,000 people who are denied and then you say that there is not much of a payoff to apprehend the bad guys. Rather than focus on the good guys, why don’t the police focus on these prohibited persons?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      A gun should have never been handed to the criminal a nd anyone doing so should be liable in one degree for enabling them.

      Restaurants are now being shut down that enable drunk drivers by serving them well beyond the point of reasonableness.

      There are plenty of parallels where we realize a responsibility for enabling misbehavior.

      By all means, increase the penalties for breaking gun laws. You won’t find me arguing against it. Jus quit with the after the fact solutions as the only recourse. It’s no wonder most shootings are a crime and not self defense…

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      The whole background check program is nothing but smoke and mirrors intended to delude the public into believing that there is an attempt by “our” government to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

      ***The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors.

      This is the same problem experienced with the “No Fly” list. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy was “initially denied” flights because his name was on the anti-terror “no fly” list? His name was just too similar to someone that we really did want to keep from flying. By Obama’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.

      For gun purchases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of “initial denials” after just the first preliminary review. The annual National Instant Criminal Background Check System report explains that these cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent were still false positives.***
      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/09/fact-vs-fiction-on-back ground-checks-and-gun-control-debate/

      Of course mark and babs will sneer at the source, but there’s over 5.5 million other hits in that search.
      http://www.bing.com/search?q=false+positive+gun+purchase+backgrou nd+checks&FORM=PERNSB&PC=PE05
      They are free to refute rather than denigrate, but that would likely not be approved by their zampolit. They might become irrecovacably contaminated (love that phrase from the TV series Farscape) by exposure to unapproved information.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        You’re absolutely right. We should take away the background check system and put up signs saying criminals can now legally buy guns. That would make the most sense.

        Shouldn’t your argument be that we should invest more into the background check system to make sure it’s most up to date and error free?

        What is there to disprove here? The Fox news article spins it clearly if you go to Jon Lott’s page which is linked in the Fox article. Lott’s article, says “As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.””

        Which means that 66K denials were either not referred on, meaning no action was necessary, or were overturned. There is an appeal process if you are denied, and you can clearly see in Lott’s link that 14K are overturned after appeal, which would fall under the “additional information received”.

        Then Fox says “At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent were still false positives.” What does that even mean? What are they basing this on? 1/5th of 6 percent? Of 70k total denied? And they want to make a case that false positives happen all the time and are an argument against background checks? Are you serious? All of this is moot since there is a speedy appeal process if you are denied for a false positive.

        What I find absolutely HILARIOUS is that you are so computer illiterate (border line retarded) that you think hits in a search proves something.

        Here, I searched bing for you. I looked up “danny melton is an idiot”. 4.3 million hits!

        http://www.bing.com/search?q=danny+melton+is+an+idiot&qs=n&form=Q BRE&pq=danny+melton+is+an+idiot&sc=0-18&sp=-1&sk=

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        I didn’t even realize it was a promo piece by Lott himself. LOL!!! He plugs all his material, even his books. He literally links his facts to his amazon pages for his books. So in case you want to verify them, just buy his book!
        hahahaha
        hahahahahahahahahaha

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Also found this bit of info in the report Lott linked.

        Districts with the most unlawful possession cases

        Arizona 154
        Texas Southern 86
        Georgia Northern 81
        Missouri Western 80
        Kansas 79

        Districts with the most case declinations

        Arizona 240
        Kentucky Eastern 192
        Kentucky Western 161
        South Carolina 158
        Missouri Western 152

        And then people blame the federal government for not prosecuting more of these cases, when it’s the districts who have the power to accept or decline the case. All the ATF and FBI can do is refer the cases for prosecution.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Weird that nobody responded to this. I thought everyone was about enforcing the firearm laws. But this is proof that the same states that are pro gun are the ones who are refusing to prosecute these cases.

          Bueler?

  9. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Huapakechi says:
    June 28, 2013 at 8:51 am

    “Ray, you might as well attempt to teach Boolean algebra to a jackass. This anology is especially apt, considering the political associations and logical ambiguities of our resident trolls.”

    Of course, you are right. Sometimes I just cannot stand by silently and let their nonsense go unchallenged by those who are reading these threads. I never believe that I will get through to them but hopefully, I can reach others who are merely uniformed and not steeped in radical ideology as these trolls are.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      I just enjoy poking ’em sharply once in a while, just to hear ’em squeal. The uninformed will be painfully educated, and painful lessons impart knowledge that is remembered longest. I learned this on both sides of the education process.

  10. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark, the troll says:
    June 28, 2013 at 8:58 am

    “Think how much better things would be if we didn’t let private sales go to criminals, wife abusers, felons, foreign nationals, and the mentally ill. Guns were designed as killing machines to be used to either kill or make the threat of killing. In that sense atomic weapons are neither good nor bad, yet we sure want to do all we can to keep Iran from getting them and the world is quite threatened by North Koreas.”

    Any weapon is only as good or as bad as the person holding it. The US used atomic bombs to end WWII. Iran and N Korea want them to threaten their neighbors and extort favors from the US. Besides that, their leaders are just plain insane.

  11. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    In Houston on Sunday afternoon, three armed men entered a home and demanded payment. They got payment. The owner of the home grabbed his gun, shot two of them dead, and scared off the third, who ran.

    This is the kind of welcome that should greet all such intruders in America, every time. It should greet all such intruders, all over the world, every time. If there were more greetings like this, there would be fewer intruders like this.

    The case will automatically be referred to the grand jury, but authorities will tell the grand jury that this force was justified. In Houston, the voters believe that armed resistance to armed intruders is the proper response. This opinion has filtered down through the political system. In Houston, people are armed. Intruders may be armed, but they know that they may meet others who are even better armed inside the homes which they invade.

    The two dead intruders will not be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail for several years at the public’s expense. They will simply be buried. From a a tax-efficiency standpoint, this is surely the way to handle armed intruders.

    In Houston and in Texas generally, this is the prevailing opinion. Intruders in Texas take their lives in their hands. This is where intruders should take their lives. Briefly. Then, the remains of the intruders can be taken to the appropriate resting place.

    In some parts of America, this opinion would be regarded as barbaric. Especially among intruders. Illinois, New York State, and Connecticut side with the intruders. The third intruder, assuming he remains in the same line of work, would be wise to move to Illinois, New York State, or Connecticut. He should move out of Houston.

  12. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/rachel-quigley/breaking-news-z immerman-is-not-guilty/

    And the radical left and race pimps go insane-in the meantime,since Thug Treyvon was justifiably shot and killed in self defense by ar armed citizen,11,106 people have died in black on black violence,without a bit of outrage from Jesse Jackass and Al Simpleton.

  13. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Yqk-6KKM8

    Yet another happy ending,with no loss of life among the law abiding citizens.

  14. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8Ie2C9Uaw

    this cop belongs in prison.In general pop.With a Police Benevolent Association T-shirt.

  15. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    This edition of the Gun Report is brought to you by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which promotes “stand your ground” laws and other fine pieces of legislation that make America safer.

    Since honorary ALEC member Adam Lanza stood his ground in Sandy Hook, 6146 people have been shot to death in America.

    Noteworthy: The owner of J & C Automotive in Jacksonville, Fla., shot and killed a customer after an altercation Friday afternoon. 40-year-old Barry Moore shot and killed his ex-wife, 43-year-old Pamela Moore, and injured 22-year-old Ashley Wright before fatally shooting himself in Green County, Ky.

    http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/weekend-gun-report-jul y-12-14-2013/

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Mark The Troll,

      It is of course an ugly, despicable and disgusting straw man argument to claim that what Lanza did or what a domestic violence murderer did had anything to do with the Stand Your Ground law. That you would either think they had anything to do with one another, or that you would knowingly misrepresent them in that way to neutrals who wouldn’t know and would (stupidly!) take you on your word, indicates in either case, that you share a vision with the mass media in attempting to inflame a population against the Stand Your Ground laws, self defense, and indeed even race relations, in this country. FYI Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case, for the simple reason that he was, being flat on his back and being pummeled into the sidewalk, in no position whatsoever to choose between fleeing and Standing His Ground, and deciding, under the provisions of the law, to do the latter. In fact the defense team announced long ago that Zimmerman would claim no defense under that law. But, of course, you seek to conflate murders (the domestic violence case) including mass murders (Sandy Hook) with lawful armed self defense, and even throw a bone to the blossoming race riots. All of that is also disgusting and despicable, but, then again, you *are*, after all, Mark The Troll, so this is what we have come to expect. The lion is known by his claw, and you are known for stinking, fetid rot, which oozes out from within your soul nearly every post you make, Mark The Troll.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Bruce,

        I would like to make one change in your otherwise excellent post.

        I suggest that instead of Mark, the troll that he shall forever be known as Mark, the despicable lying asshole.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Bruce, I too dislike much of what Mark posts, but I think you demean yourself when you start insultling him instead of dealing just with what he states. I would prefer to see these pages full of thoughtful commentary rather than invective.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          I try to do both, but you make a good point. It is my intention to both refute his arguments but also call out his overall behavior to any neutrals who might later read it. The fact remains that he has patterns of deception, which I believe deserve their own attention separately from the specific points in need of addressing in any one of his posts, taken in isolation.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Thank you. I do understand, I just do not wish for these pages to become stupidly emotive as I see Mark to be but to remain largely rationally oriented with an innate bias towards individual liberty. As Ray Horvath points out, it is difficult ato remain objective when your adversary uses invective. But I grew up in a family where winning an arguement meant outshouting everyone else. I can ado that. I prefer rational discourse. Live free.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          After almost a year of dealing with Mark (and later, babs) it is hard to maintain any level of civility.

          He has posted some vile and nasty comments, not just to and about his detractors here but also about victims of violent attacks.

          I too try to address his points, not to convince him, but to any readers out there who may not be familiar with his pattern of lies and misinformation.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Succinct.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          “I wonder what the outcome might have been had the homeowner backed up his refusal with force of arms? Has this citizen consulted a lawyer about puntive damages against the cops?”

          The Las Vegas PD have been sued in federal court over this.I hope they have the checkbook ready.

  16. When you are finished with the online backup reviews server.
    Homeowners at Australia, who wish to restore earlier versions of their SQL Server, in order to protect your business or detect fraud and unauthorized changes to your files.
    The software that you cannot restore your computer as soon
    as the expected heavy rains and gale-force winds make landfall.
    Don’t avail a free trial for 15 days, so i signed up to an external drive into.

  17. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Beyond Statistics: Intimate Partner Homicides 2005-2007
    The High Price of Domestic Violence in New Hampshire.

    Thank you NRA enablers!

    http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Beyond%20Statistics.pdf

    Brenda Hewey Barnum (34) was shot in the chest and killed by her ex-husband, Jacob Smith (34), who later killed himself. On Friday, March 2, 2007, Jacob went to the home of the Bamford family where his ex- wife and their 11 year old son were staying.

    Jennifer Huard (26) and her brother Jeremy “Jay” Huard (29) were shot and killed by Jennifer’s ex-boyfriend, Kirkman Cassavaugh III (27). Jennifer had lived on and off with Kirkman for the past year and had recently left, after he tried to strangle her. There was long history of drugs and alcohol, and Kirkman had a violent history with a previous ex-girlfriend.

    Janet Tourtellotte (56) was shot by her husband, Thomas Tourtellotte (63), at their home, in a murder-suicide.

    Jennifer Zani (32) was shot by her live-in boyfriend of several years, Shawn Hill (27), who then turned the gun on himself. Jennifer died from gunshot wounds and her death was ruled a homicide.

  18. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Georgia Commission on Family Violence | Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence 2012

    GEORGIA DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
    FATALITY REVIEW

    Key Points (CHART3)

    Firearms continue to be the
    leading cause of death for victims
    in cases we track and review,
    greater than all other methods
    combined. This finding indicates
    the urgent need to use all legal
    means possible to remove firearms
    from the hands of perpetrators.

    Key Points(CHART4)
    In 36% of the cases reviewed,
    the perpetrator attempted or
    completed suicide at the homicide
    scene or soon thereafter, in
    addition to killing or attempting
    to kill one or more persons. This
    finding indicates a significant
    correlation between domestic
    violence perpetrators’ suicidal
    thoughts or threats and their
    danger to others.

    A perpetrator’s threat of suicide is
    one of the strongest indicators for
    imminent lethal violence. The Project
    promotes training of first responders,
    advocates, attorneys, parole officers,
    court personnel, social services, and
    health care personnel to increase
    vigilance and recognition of this
    extreme risk factor.

    In 16% of the cases reviewed, the
    perpetrator killed, attempted to kill,
    or injured someone other than the
    primary victim. Perpetrators do not
    limit their violence to their intimate
    partner. Often, other people close
    to the primary victim are targeted
    either because they are with the
    primary victim at the time of the
    attack or because the perpetrator
    intends to cause additional anguish
    to the primary victim by harming
    her friends or loved ones.

    http://www.ncdsv.org/images/GCFV-GCADV_2012-GA-DV-Fatality-Review -Annual-Report_5-2013.pdf

  19. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “Many “crime guns” move quickly from legal sale into criminal use. Research has shown that one of every five guns that is used in a crime in Los Angeles moves very quickly from its initial, legal sale into criminal use.[2] This suggests that many legal gun purchases in the city might be what are called “straw purchases” — that is, a gun bought by an adult with a clean record expressly to give or sell it to someone who could not have otherwise gotten one.”

    http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/trafficking/ille gal-markets.htm

    Close the gun buying loophole…

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Mark The Troll,

      And then close the gun ownership ‘loophole’ too? So now we know where you’re coming from. (Not that we didn’t already.)

  20. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “At the conservative estimate of 270 million guns, Americans have stockpiled almost half of the privately owned firearms in the world,” Bennett writes. That averages out to about 88 guns for every 100 American citizens. The next closest country is Yemen, which has 55 guns per 100 citizens.

    Given those numbers, America should be the safest place on earth. Funny how that’s not the case.

    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/americans-own-about-h alf-worlds-privately-owned-guns

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Mark The Troll,

      If your narrative were correct, we should be the most dangerous place on earth. Funny how that’s not the case either.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        That is correct. The U.S. is behind only third world countries with heavy drug trafficking and civil unrest. Thank you for agreeing with me.

        Only Honduras, El Salvador, Swaziland, Guatemala, Columbia, South Africa, Brazil, Panama, Uruguay, and Mexico lead the U.S.

        First-world countries that are stable are well below the U.S.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Yes Mark, guns do make it easier to kill people so more murders, suicides, accidental deaths, etc will occur in a society with lots of weapons available. It is a cheap price to pay for freedom. The whole idea behind the 2nd amendment was for the average citizen to have available the same weaponry that the average soldier has. Thus it was thought that even a large army of professional soldiers could be fought by a similarly armed populace with the “home field advantage”. I personally fear guns and have never owned one, but I fear far more the society where government decides who can and can’t be armed. Why does that not seem to bother you? Do you actually TRUST government?!!!

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Lets take trust of the government out of the mix. You tell me whether a man who has had restraining orders against him and charges of spousal abuse should be sold a gun after his wife files for divorce.

            Regarding government. Abuse is rampant but there needs to be some authority that coordinates what is and is not allowable in a society and what the penalties are for disrupting others lives. Please remember that the second amendment was established by the government when you find fault with government trust.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              It is the hallmark of the Fabian Socialist to deny with his left hand what his right hand is doing. Here we have Mark The Troll asserting, in the first line, that we should “take trust of the government out of the mix,” who then proceeds to argue in favor of background checks, which rely on trustworthy governments to do! Even this obvious conflict aside, if the purpose of the Second Amendment is to specifically act as a check on government power, then having the government decide who is, and who is not, allowed to own guns is an explicit conflict of interest. So in any case saying “let’s take trust of the government out of the mix” is somewhere failing to recognize the conflict at best, to deliberately deceptive and mendacious at worst. Coming from Mark The Troll, my guess is the latter, but even the most innocent interpretation has one expecting to accept an impossible request: “Let’s take trust of government out of the mix, and therefore trust the government to conduct background checks.” Sorry, no can do.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                So then you would prefer a private company to conduct all those background checks?

                Oh wait, you just don’t want any background checks. Like you said in a previous post, you think asking criminals if they are a criminal is a good enough check for you.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  No, my position is that if someone is so dangerous that they can be presumed to present a deadly threat if they were to become armed, they should be locked away at the time of this determination. Because there is *no* way to otherwise be assured that they cannot obtain access to deadly weapons (guns, knives, bats, cars, broken bottles, tire irons, gasoline, etc) upon their release. The idea that one can keep weapons out of dangerous criminal’s hands by means of a background check (that incidentally invades the privacy of the law-abiding) is simply insane. In particular, a much harsher and stricter prohibition against drugs nevertheless fails to keep them out of almost anybody’s hands, who really wants them.

                  First- or second-time offenders might be given the benefit of the doubt and released as *free* men (i.e. able to arm themselves once again) and the general public should be aware that there number some probationers among them, and be advised to prepare accordingly, but those who prove themselves to be incorrigible repeat violent offenders should never live in free society again. Those people with yard-long rap sheets, in particular, have zero business living among us ever again. (Whether they should even live at all is, of course, a separate question.)

                  But the law-abiding should not be forced to submit to proving that they are not yard-long-rap-sheet criminals every time they try to buy guns, simply because the latter are repeatedly released back into society by badly-misguided policies and/or judges.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    FFLs check backgrounds. Any harm done is far outweighed by those being told they are no longer playing nice in society and “no you don’t get a gun dumbass”.

                    Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at shows.

                    http://smartgunlaws.org/private-sales-policy-summary/

                    I do not see society crumbling in these states nor are lawful citizens prevented from buying guns. No slippery slope has ensued. In other words, the purchase of a gun is not prohibited provided you have no reason to NOT have one. Would you sell a gun to a child? If not why not? Should 8-year-old Jimmy have a gun? Similarly, should a man who has a restraining order and has been brought up on spousal abuse charges be sold a gun when his wife files for divorce?

                    To do so in either case shows a clear lack of morals, responsibility, and rational thinking.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Uh…aren’t you always talking about free until proven guilty? So how long should we lock up long term offenders? For life? Armed robbery at 18 gets you life in prison? Otherwise your idea wouldn’t work, would it?

                    Of course you can’t prevent people from getting deadly weapons. That is what FREEEEEDOM is all about. Did you forget the Constitution? Or do you only use it when it serves your purposes?

                    I hope one day you, or someone you know, gets locked up. Then you would realize you are talking about humans, with rights.

                    Yes, the law abiding should prove they are law abiding. Otherwise, how does anyone know? Scouts honor like you propose? How does it hurt you to go through a background check? Bunch of drama queens, all of you. You just want unlimited access to the most deadly weapons available. Then you wonder why people want checks, are you stupid?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Uh…aren’t you always talking about free until proven guilty?”

                      Yes, which is why I stipulated that repeat offenders, i.e. post-conviction, should be sanctioned. “Those with yard-long rap sheets” is how I put it.

                      “So how long should we lock up long term offenders? For life? Armed robbery at 18 gets you life in prison? Otherwise your idea wouldn’t work, would it?”

                      You tell me, Einstein, what would *you* do if you became convinced that a particular person could not be reformed and would continue to be violent again, essentially forever? It’s not rocket science. LEt me guess: you’d release them and then force others to undergo background checks to prove they aren’t that guy. Right?

                      “Of course you can’t prevent people from getting deadly weapons. That is what FREEEEEDOM is all about. Did you forget the Constitution? Or do you only use it when it serves your purposes?”

                      !? Wow, you’re not making any sense here at all. *Given* that you can’t prevent people from getting deadly weapons, others should be armed so as to become able to meet these miscreants with deadly force, if necessary. I’m almost thinking that you agree with me, except that instead you’ve probably lost your train of thought here, in an attempt to skewer me somehow.

                      “I hope one day you, or someone you know, gets locked up.”

                      Well, glad that’s out in the open. And I hope you are ________ , but I’m not going to express it here. In any case, keep at it. You might just be able to convince the general public into voting to decree me a felon, merely because of what I own, or even because of what I believe. Then I’ll be dragged off to jail and your dream will come true, even though I never lifted a finger to hurt another soul. Then you’ll be happy. Until, that is, you end up ___________, at which point I might have the last laugh.

                      “Then you would realize you are talking about humans, with rights.”

                      Did you miss the part about my giving some extra chances? Yes, I think you did.

                      “Yes, the law abiding should prove they are law abiding.”

                      … because people like you let killers back on the streets. Nice.

                      “Otherwise, how does anyone know? Scouts honor like you propose?”

                      I am not proposing Scout’s honor. (That would be a Straw Man.)

                      “How does it hurt you to go through a background check?”

                      Asked and answered … use of 4473s to create registration databases, for future misuse by a government that has just recently proved it stores an awful lot of information about non-criminal citizens THAT IT ISN’T SUPPOSED TO AND PROMISED IT WOULDN’T. In case you have been out of touch in the last few months.

                      “Bunch of drama queens, all of you.”

                      You’re the one calling for the government to save you from people buying guns at gun shows, Mrs. Drama Queen.

                      “You just want unlimited access to the most deadly weapons available.”

                      Straw man again. The deadliest weapon is a bad idea. I don’t want those, although you seem to.

                      “Then you wonder why people want checks, are you stupid?”

                      First, no, I don’t wonder why people want checks, I know what “useful idiots” means. It means you. So, second, no again.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      1. Your idiotic stipulation means nothing. Once you finish your time, you are free to go. This is America. People have rights, you Nazi fuckhead. I know you want to throw away the constitution when it’s inconvenient. Too bad, you can’t do that.

                      2. You didn’t answer my question. I asked you, but instead of answering, you say “you tell me Einstein?” Bruce, are you stupid? You can’t prove that anyone will continue to be violent. You basically want to lock people up indefinitely by assuming what they will do in the future? Bruce, again, are you stupid?

                      3. Others are armed. Who can’t buy a gun? You’re acting like we live in England. Bruce, again, are you stupid?

                      4. Hahahaha. Oh you drama queen. Oh poor me! They’re going to lock me up for my beliefs! Hey, you know what’s funny? You want to lock people up forever based on you thinking they will be violent their entire lives. Do you not see the irony, you hypocritical right winger moron? You are at home, on your computer, living in a country with the most rights in the world. And you’re bitching about what exactly?

                      5. Oh, extra chances. Oh, thank you dictator Bruce, you are so generous! Thank you, thank you, we are so blessed that you are so merciful!

                      6. People like me let killers on the street? How? Tell me exactly how I do that. People like you are the reason there is crime. There, I’ll also make dumbass nonsensical statements.

                      7. Uh, yes you are. You said that the only background check required is to ask the person buying the firearm if they are a criminal. Don’t be a bitch and pretend you didn’t say that.

                      8. Sorry, your paranoid irrationational fears don’t count. The collection of data recently exposed is all absolutely legal. Remember the Patriot Act? Maybe you should have complained when it was passed 10+ years ago?

                      9. I’m not calling on anyone to do anything. Background checks are the norm. Show me proof that the background check system doesn’t work and we might have a reason to talk about changing it. It stops over 150k criminal firearm purchases every year. Now show me the actual downside that doesn’t involve your crystal ball predictions of the future.

                      10. Hurhurhurhurhur. No you are.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Hey babs, Godwins law. You lose.
                      Here’s another fact you ignore. The majority of shootings and killings are done by career criminals.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-tra fficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

                      Illegal gun trafficking arms criminals & youth

                      On an average day in the U.S., guns are used to kill more than 80 people, injure almost 300 more, and commit approximately 3,000 crimes. Since John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, more Americans have been shot and killed on our own soil than in all the 20th-century wars combined.

                      What’s not well-known is that the vast majority of the approximately 12,000 annual gun murders and 66,000 non-fatal shootings are committed by people who have no legal right to a gun. How do criminals and other prohibited people get guns so easily? Through a highly efficient, organized, and profitable business of gun trafficking that moves guns from legal manufacture to dealers to criminals and young people who can’t buy guns legally.
                      Where do crime guns come from?

                      Virtually every gun starts out as a legally manufactured product, but the
                      Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) points to three common ways guns move from legal distribution channels to the criminal market:

                      Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.
                      Straw purchasing: Straw purchasing is the most common way criminals get guns, accounting for almost 50% of trafficking investigations. A straw purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing guns. Straw purchasers are often the friends, relatives, spouses or girlfriends of prohibited purchasers. The two Columbine High School shooters recruited friends to buy guns for them at Colorado gun shows. One of the buyers admitted she would not have bought the guns if she had been required to submit to a background check.
                      Gun Shows and private gun sales: Gun shows have been called “Tupperware parties for criminals” because they attract large numbers of prohibited buyers. A loophole in federal law allows unlicensed or “private” sellers, many of whom work out of gun shows, to lawfully sell or transfer guns without conducting a criminal background check. Gun show dealers have been known to advertise to criminals with signs that read “no background checks required here.”

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      With more citizens armed, armed robbery could get ya dead, which is a better deterrent than the minuscule possibility of actually seeing prison from the inside.
                      If you are so afraid of freedom and responsibility for your actions, you are encouraged to move to Venezuela, North Korea, or Cuba.
                      Those that engage in criminal activity surrender their rights. That percentage of the non-criminal population who carry weapons have a lower crime rate than those who ‘serve’ as law enforcement officers.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    I am a bit confused as to what constitutes a “free society” to you. Our society is nowhere close to free. With literally millions of laws on the books, our legal system is too complex even were it honest for anyone to knowingly stay within the law. And why should anyone have to stay within someone else’s law? Is “society” somehow infallible and should be able to dictate to the individual? I realize that there is no such thing as “rights” in the physical world, but to my taste at least having government becoming ever more dominant is atithetical to the freedom that I think we both desire. There are reasonable practical questions as to whether or not anarchy could exist for any large group for an appreciable time, but aiming lower than for total freedom (anarchy) seems self defeating to me. Even Rothbard seemed to recognize that and so promoted the gradual changeover to a free society. Unfortunately we are going the other way quickly. Your advocating that some folks are so dangerous that they should be locked up forever is antithetical to a radiacal reduction of government towards the ideal of anarchism.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
                      Robert A. Heinlein

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              ***Regarding government. Abuse is rampant but there needs to be some authority that coordinates what is and is not allowable in a society and what the penalties are for disrupting others lives. ***
              Let’s examine the problem. The executive branch is corrupt and has taken to rule by fiat. The judicial branch has all the power of a seven year old car battery at -30, when they’re not exacerbating the nascent dictatorship of the executive branch by rewriting and reinterpreting the laws so they can give an illusion of legitimacy to blatantly unconstitutional laws. The clowns of the legislative branch have been engaged in a farcical tragic comedy for the last six years, and it looks to continue until they are forcibly removed.

              ***Please remember that the second amendment was established by the government when you find fault with government trust.***
              The men who wrote the Constitution did not trust the government either, therefore they included the first ten amendments to the original contract before it was signed, to further place limits, constraints, and impediments to the anticipated growth of government.

              Without the Second Amendment, none of the other Amendments can stand. This is the primary rationale for constant attacks on the right to bear arms by those who would end capitalism and freedom.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Without the first amendment there’s nothing to defend. What else do they teach you in gun worshipping class? The second amendment isn’t some holy creed.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  My, but you are rather selective about those Constitutional rights that you endorse and support. If and when the Second Amendment is eliminated, do you intend to begin the attack on the others? This has been the tactic of those libs who champion ‘gay marriage’.
                  I do not worship guns. They are tools and sporting equipment, nothing more.
                  Being a primary component of the Constitution, the Second Amendment is as holy as the Constitution entire.
                  I’m doing my part to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Bought another handgun from a private party last week.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    You seem confused. I have never advocated eliminating the second amendment.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “My, but you are rather selective about those Constitutional rights that you endorse and support. If and when the Second Amendment is eliminated, do you intend to begin the attack on the others? This has been the tactic of those libs who champion ‘gay marriage’.”

                    I saw an interesting piece the other day,about a federal lawsuit being filed,over a violation of the 3rd amendment.Some Las Vegas cops had requested to use an apartment for a surveiillence station,and the resident told them no-they barged in and occupied his residence for 48 hours,and raided his fridge.How DARE the mere citizen and taxpayer tell them no……

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      I wonder what the outcome might have been had the homeowner backed up his refusal with force of arms? Has this citizen consulted a lawyer about puntive damages against the cops?

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Your reply to Mark about trust of government was well written.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Thank you. I strive to make my statements clear and concise for those who are perusing the thread. It makes the lack of logic on the part of mark and babs (sometimes I wonder if they are not the same person) that much more obvious.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              “Please remember that the second amendment was established by the government when you find fault with government trus”

              As were ‘the final solution to the Jewish question”,and the Gulag.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Excellent!

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  So,you believe that the Holocaust and Gulag were a good thing?Gotcha.As long as we know where you stand.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    No, you believe the second amendment is no better than any other action taken by a governing force. That’s why your response is so priceless.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      Obviously,you’ve been asleep at the switch.The 2nd amendment was one of the checks and balances instituted to keep a “governing force” in check.Better get to the library and study that,once the Soros foundation you work for says that it’s OK.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Your ignorance is astounding.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Cav:
                      If he were to study the Constitution he would likely be found to be irrevocably contaminated and given a dirt nap to prevent his spreading unapproved ideology.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Basically I agree with Bruce’s reply to you. However I do want you to realize that I only support tahe Constitution and the 2nd amendment as approximations to the real freedom to be found in an anarchistic society which would have no government to check on anyone. As for your example of selling a man with a restraining order a gun, I think all free people should be able to have weapons. So both he and his wife should be able to have weapons. Perhaps either or both of them will misuse tjhose weapons, but that is what freedom is all about. You do not eliminate freedom for your citizens because someone may misuse that freedom.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Really? That’s weird. Because that’s EXACTLY what our founding fathers did to those who refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the revolution. They confiscated all their arms and barred them from buying or borrowing anyone else’s. Crazy, isn’t it?

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Though I did not know that, it does not surprise me. Most of the founding fathers were kind of crooks who wantaed the bigger crooks of England out of their hair. I respect the concept that the Constitution represented of the common man being somehow equal to the nobility, but it does not represent true freedom. Law and freedom are antithetical. One approximates freedom by reducing government to the lowest possible level.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  After winning a revolution, it only makes sense to disarm one’s enemies, especially if they refuse to swear allegiance.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    “to those who refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the revolution.”

                    Can you read? Why would they ask them to swear an oath to a revolution that is over? Danny, why are you so stupid?

                    I love your rationalizing of gun confiscation. You sure aren’t hypocritical in the least. Danny, why are you so stupid?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      You need to be more subtle when you edit a direct quote in order to twist the meaning. It’s you socialists who swear allegance to “the revolution”, as your loyalty is to continuing and unending revolution.

                      Not having the oaths immediately available, the former enemies could have sworn an oath that they would not bear arms against the newly formed government of the United States, not the revolution. Apparently, those who had their arms confiscated refused to swear any such oath. A great many of the “Torries” fled to Canada. No great loss.
                      The remainder of your blather does not rate comment.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      What are you talking about? Don’t be mad at me that you’re a fool who can’t read. Even if you could read.

                      Here is my post, which is still there.

                      Babooshka says:
                      July 23, 2013 at 11:30 am

                      Really? That’s weird. Because that’s EXACTLY what our founding fathers did to those who refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the revolution. They confiscated all their arms and barred them from buying or borrowing anyone else’s. Crazy, isn’t it?

                      Danny, why do you support firearm confiscation? As well as a ban on purchasing or borrowing any other firearm? Why are you such a fascist? Why don’t you believe in freedom, Danny? Bahahaha

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      The entire post I responded to:
                      ***BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:
                      July 25, 2013 at 9:30 am

                      “to those who refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the revolution.”

                      Can you read? Why would they ask them to swear an oath to a revolution that is over? Danny, why are you so stupid?

                      I love your rationalizing of gun confiscation. You sure aren’t hypocritical in the least. Danny, why are you so stupid?***

                      In the first line, my original statement made no reference to an oath to “the revolution”
                      Your second sentence continues on that meme.
                      I do not rationalize disarming a declared enemy.
                      I am not a fascist. I am a Constitutionalist/ Libertarian.
                      ***”Bahahaha”***?
                      You should seek treatment for your Tourett Syndrome.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “After winning a revolution, it only makes sense to disarm one’s enemies, especially if they refuse to swear allegiance.”

                      “I do not rationalize disarming a declared enemy.”

                      Danny, why do you enjoy embarrassing yourself so much?

                      I hope you support every war we are involved in. Otherwise, according to your logic, you are the enemy and we should confiscate your weapons. Please report to the nearest office of homeland security to swear an allegiance to our wars. Thanks!

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Your statements are even less coherent than usual. Did you miss your medications or did you overdose?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      When you don’t have anything to support your point just start launching personal attacks. Straight from the right wing play book. Did you have a point? No you didn’t.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      No, the personal attack strategy is pure saul alinsky. You’ve used it often enough. Since the comment was addressed to babs, I assume that particular personality is dormant until triggered?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Apparently you’ve studied under him quite a lot. You cite and use his tactics quite often. Ill remind you again that ad hominem is a fallacy.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      “Know your enemy as well as you know yourself and you will win every battle” Sun Tzu.
                      I’ve studied alinsky because he exemplifies the enemies of this nation.

                      ***ad hominem is a fallacy***
                      And you’re a socialist whore. I’d almost bet you don’t believe a tenth of what you post here, but you do it for pay.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Ad hominem again? Man, you sure like to demonstrate how you have nothing to say other than insults.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    *ad hominem is a fallacy***
                    And you’re a socialist whore. I’d almost bet you don’t believe a tenth of what you post here, but you do it for pay.”

                    Much like Soros,and other Jews who worked for the Nazis for pay and killed their fellows?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      A fallacy rebuttal with another fallacy. How humorous.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      mark should change his nic to “fallacy”. It’s his fall back response when he’s caught in a prevarication or contradiction.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Rather than spending so much time pouring over something someone wrote about guns 200 years ago you ought to learn how to present material that is false because of bad logic. I can’t help it that you guys love muck raking with fallacies. Try learning something new.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Emulate you? No.

                      Are you so dismissive of everything else in the Constitution, or only the Second Amendment? Is it your position that the entire Constitution should be discarded simply because it’s old?

                      We have learned something. We have learned you will cry fallacy at the least excuse. I’ve come to think that you invent ’em at whim rather than engage in honest discourse. Really, what courses delve into the study and cataloging of fallacies?

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Mark, there is a lot worse than rampant misuse of authority in government. The system itself nearly assures that misuse of authority, for the purpose of government is to protect the power and perqs of the ruling elite in perpetuity. So government even in theory is the problem unless you happen to be in the ruling elite. There will not be a perfect system for society for human beings are fallible. I support the concept of anarchism as the only theoretical system which allows for almost everyone to do their own thing. There is no reason that communists can’t live down the road from individualists so long as both parties respect each other’s freedom. But all government uiltimately holds its power by violence or the threat of violence. Unfortunately, that means that the only practical way to get away from government is to have enough power to tell it to fuck off. In the real world that means weapons. I dislike guns and have never owned one, but I sure do not wish for government thugs to be the only ones who can legally carry weapons which is what the degradation of the 2nd amendment will lead to. Your assumption that “criminals” (who are determined by government) are undeserving of having weapons leads eventually to the general disarming of the population. That historically leads to ever more government oppression. I think a few individual murders, suicides, or accidents are a cheap price to pay for keeping the potential to throw off government ties. Without weapons, that is a virtual impossibility.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Frits, you and the rest of the enablers are unable to answer the simple question. As usual everyone dances around it. Talk about slippery slopes all you want. It doesn’t negate the core issue of who should and should not have a gun.

                Gun lovers are enabling the following:

                Under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, certain categories of persons are not eligible to possess a firearm or ammunition. These include

                Fugitives from justice

                Illegal aliens

                Unlawful users of certain drugs

                Those committed to a mental institution

                Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (which generally covers felonies)

                Those convicted of crimes of domestic violence

                The federal law not only creates a permanent ban on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a felony, it even applies to those under indictment for a felony.

                – See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/who-can-ow n-gun?page=all#sthash.GxWOJD15.dpuf

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Make it easy. Get the government out of the business of determining who may or may not have weapons and let Darwin sort things out. The criminal element will either choose to change their ways or they will become an endangered species.
                  I wonder how long some political figures would survive in that scenario?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    By far one of the dumbest replies yet. Congratulations, you’re beating Bruce now.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      I must have hit a nerve. Condemnation and ridicule by you is an award I strive for. It only proves the effectiveness of my posts.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “I wonder how long some political figures would survive in that scenario?”

                    Like our former house member here in WI-8 who required a LARGE police escort to his car,at a town hall meeting,after he told the mere citizens and taxpayers,that despite the fact that a huge majority of the constituents opposed Obamacare,he planned to vote for it anyway?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      I wonder if he would have survived a recall vote, much less surviving the gauntlet run to his vehicle? Has he voted to exempt himself and his co-conspirators from obamacare too? I read that former union supporters are now “reading the bill to find what’s in it”, and they ain’t happy.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  But Mark, I have answered your question. Again, everyone should be able to have weapons. I really don’t care who is legally not allowed. I am only for the Constitution to the extent that it protects indivildual liberty. Where it does not I am against it.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    You’ll never answer a question to mark the troll’s satisfaction. He’ll have a quibble, a nitpick, or attribute a deliberate misquote, or even outright lie in order to refute your arguments.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You can answer the question, you just don’t want to. It’s too painful to admit your faulty stance.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      I think you may be correct. However I owe it to myself to make appropriate effort in a venue such as this. It reminds me of what Filthy Pierre wrote iln The Connection many years ago to an avowed communist who would not respond to other’s comments to him. Filthy noted that in the real world whoever got the other in his gun sights first would win the debate but in this venue verbally debating was the way to go.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  If you are truly interested in dialog ,responding to what I actually write instead of harping on the same subject might get us a lot further. I suspect that we have a priori differences in assumptions concerning the relative merits of individual liberty vs. the dangers of popular ownership of weapons, but wilthout answers from you I can’t tell for sure. To me the dangers of common gun ownership pale beside the advantages of individuals having weaponry to protect themselves from an ever more intrusilve government. I do agree with you that weapons being readily available to the common person makes killing people easier. But that can be an advantage. Do you consider yourself an anarchist and if so of what variety? To the extent that my position can be labeled I suppose I am an individualist anarchist with a penchant for the survivalist mentality. I would be interested in comparing philosophies.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “But Mark, I have answered your question. Again, everyone should be able to have weapons. I really don’t care who is legally not allowed. I am only for the Constitution to the extent that it protects indivildual liberty. Where it does not I am against it.”

                    I would urge you to read the book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow” to understand why you are not answering the question. You are answering a different question. I have stated the question before and in many ways so I will not cite it here. No one has honestly answered it.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      OK, perhaps I am at fault for misunderstanding you. I thought the question was essentially “Who should abe allowed to have guns?” If not I apologize. Since I have very limited computer skills would you please repeat your question once more. I honestly am not trying to avoid ilt. I am trying to uinderstand where you are coming from so we can have a cilvillized discukssion of what is I believe a very important topic. I do not want to play debating games or oneupmanship. I enjoy mental stimulation especially on the topic of individual liberty. I would hope to discuss such topics with you and other interested parties.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    You are not misunderstanding. You’re just not answering the question. I am thinking that it is often difficult to answer my question because it puts a face on the matter. So rather than talk about some nebulous faceless entity like “everyone” I choose to ask about concrete examples because in doing so it becomes much clearer to me where the problem lies.

                    A foreign national, such as a person on a work visa, an illegal alien, a tourist. These are NOT U.S. citizens. Should they be able to buy a gun from a private seller who is not in any way required to run a background check.

                    Same question, this time with a man who was convicted of spouse abuse and is now facing divorce.

                    Same question, this time a felon who has served his time.

                    Same question, this time someone with a restraining order against them.

                    Same question, this time a fugitive.

                    If you can honestly say it’s OK to sell to these people then we have arrived at an impasse. I would gladly sacrifice 10,000 people being falsely denied the right to a gun than sacrifice 10,000 lives. With 10,000 lives these people have lost all rights. With 10,000 denied guns, no one is dead and there remains a chance for appeal.

                    Gun owners seem to be in love with a concept much more than the practical application of gun ownership.

                    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/19/the-nra-fights-to-keep-guns -in-the-hands-of-wife-beaters/

                    http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/c rm01117.htm

                    If you wish to come to a more rational way of making decisions, read the book I recommended.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Let me see if I have your position correctly: It is preferable to have in place measures that will save the lives of thousands, but prepare for the future genocides on the order of millions, than it is to allow the deaths of thousands, but sparing the millions. (Because “you care.”)

                      N.B. Over a long-enough averaging period, historically, governments kill far more of their own citizens than criminals do, and when these democides happen, they *always* are first prepared for it by having said governments determine who are the gun owners and then dealing with this category of people first, e.g., though confiscation.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “future genocides”

                      I see you are back to sniffing glue.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I tell you what bucko, if there is a coming genocide then you’ve got lots more problems than a few thousand less gun owners. Stay in school and stay off drugs.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      I guess we are at an impass. I do think all you mentioned should be able to buy and carry weapons. I think that both pragmatically and ethically the ability to own and use weapons is beneficial to the vast majority in society. I guess our apriori assumptions differ. Too bad.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Unfortunately, we don’t make our public health policies based on what we “think” but instead of hard scientific evidence. Good thing that Obama has finally resumed firearm research that the NRA froze in the mid 90s.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Fritz, that is a rather absurd and dogmatic stance. Is this the hill you wish to die on?

                      I find it especially disturbing that you would allow foreign nationals to enjoy the same rights as American citizens.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      My a priori assumption is that background checks should universally be use to prevent:

                      1) Non-citizens from buying/owning guns while in this country
                      2) Violent offenders from buying/owning guns
                      3) Those who have renounced their citizenship from buying/owning guns
                      4) Felons from buying/owning guns

                      I am puzzled how you think this slice of society deserves any second amendment rights. Do you somehow think the good outweighs the bad?

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Absurd and dogmatic eh. I suppose that we human beings do tend to see a priori assumptions that dilffer from our own in such a light. I guess that one could make pragmatic arguments for keeping citizen rights separate from foreigner’s rights. But I tend to look at people as people . If there is such a thing as “rights” they would be human rights not legal rights.It is unfortunate that that the world is too screwed up for the open borders libertarilans desire.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Please comment bon what I have written. Discourse should go both ways not just answering you.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      http://eaglerising.com/838/roderick-scott-the-black-george-zimmer man/
      ***Did you notice during the George Zimmerman trial how the media kept repeating the salacious question “What if Trayvon Martin had been white?” They acted as if this question was the perfect response to Zimmerman defenders. They pretended that this was a question without a “safe” answer, but in reality, the question had already been answered.
      In April of 2009 Mr. Roderick Scott awoke at 3am to the sounds of three young men breaking into cars on his street. He called the police and went down to the street to make sure the young men did not flee before the police arrived. ***
      ***That’s when Christopher Cervini (17) rushed at Mr. Scott uttering “I’ll get you” or “I’ll get him.” Roderick Scott fired twice, killing the teenager. The trial that followed was again a case of prosecutorial overreach, as they tried to charge Mr. Scott with manslaughter. Fortunately for Mr. Scott, a jury of his peers agreed with him that he did only what was needed to protect himself.***
      ***While the Cervini family may now be in much pain over the loss of their son, he brought himself to his tragic end through a series of terrible choices. Roderick Scott had every right to protect himself; he did what he should have… and a jury of his peers agreed.

      Oh, and Roderick Scott was a 42 year old black man about the size of an NFL linebacker. Christopher Cervini was a skinny, 17 year old white kid with a little bit of marijuana in his system. Scott was justified in the killing of the younger man not because of the crime that Cervini had committed, but because Scott rightfully feared for his own safety.
      There was no “white uproar” over the shooting of a young white man at the hands of a black man with a “hero-complex.” The NAACP didn’t show up to argue that the shooter should be jailed, or that the Justice Department should pursue charges of civil rights violations against the man for killing Cervini. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and all of the other race hate baiters stayed home for the trial. The trial was treated as a tragic situation that a young man brought on himself by turning to violence.***

      What you thought about that? Scott wasn’t even a “white negro” and he got off. Rightly so.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        And now it seems that Zimmerman pulled a family of four out of a burning vehicle.And the radical left goes insane…….Who does he think he is,some sort of wannabe paramedic?

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          There will be some ass claiming that the only reason Mr. Zimmerman stopped to aid the family in the overturned vehicle was that they were not black, in spite of his mentoring black children.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Thank you for this post. It does get tiring seeing blacks and white libaerals constantly playing the “race card”.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          “Thank you for this post. It does get tiring seeing blacks and white libaerals constantly playing the “race card”.

          I’m a few shades darker than the lily white leftist radicals who buy into the race card bullshit.It gets old.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            I am a bit unsure as to the meaning of your reply. I meant that so often blacks use their ethnicity to try to get advantage from the social and legal system. Left liberals tend to promote their doing so. I think government should not exist, but since it does it should be totally colorblind, not willy nilly givilng advantages to one race or another for supposed misuse of their ancestors by my ancestors. I used to work for a black contractor who for many years got the contract for redoing city sidewalks not by competitive bidding but because of his race. Our Supreme Court won’t allow businesses to use IQ tests because blacks can’t compete. Colleges are accepting inferior students in the name of racial dilversity. It ils about as antifreemarket as we can get.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Karma has bitten Zimmerman in the ass big time. Glad he will spend the rest of his (hopefully short) life looking over his shoulder. What a dumbass.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          Karma has bitten Zimmerman in the ass big time. Glad he will spend the rest of his (hopefully short) life looking over his shoulder. What a dumbass.

          So,you support mob violence against an armed citizen who legally defended himself against a thug and was duly aquitted by a jury of his peers.Gotcha.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Thank you for once again revealing yourself to be a despicable low life piece of shit. You do it better than any of us could hope to.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            I think defending a neighborhood cop wannabe vigilante using his “great equalizer” on a man armed with a bag of skittles and his fists shows a lack of a moral compass. Stalking and provoking someone to protect themselves and then killing them is the exact reason stand your ground laws are misguided. The law, not surprisingly, favors the gun nut fantasy of the Wild West where everyone is shooting everyone. Too many cowboy westerns.

            BTW, people who know me describe me as one of the nicest people they’ve ever met. Your opinion of me is shaped entirely by your bias toward gun loving and a misshaped view of the world. Keep the fallacies coming.

            • Mark once again you show us your an idiot.

              Let’s look at some facts:
              1: Trayvon Martin fit the description of the people breaking into the neighborhood houses.
              2: Trayvon Martin was a wanna be thug (at best, at worst a real thug)
              2a: In support of the conjecture of 2 do you know why he was suspended from school? Jewelry theft and drugs
              2b: In further support, texts from his own phone indicating he liked to fight people.
              2c: Photos of himself looking like a thug, and acting like one.
              3: Trayvon Martin was an Athletic 17 year old, who probably could have kicked your ass.
              4: Trayvon Martin was obviously winning the fight, and the shot was clearly in self defense. Any person with at least 1/2 a brain who watched the trial would come to the same conclusion.

              Why don’t you stop drinking the stupid-aid and pull your head out of your rectum, then join us in civil society where we recognize the bad guy from the good guy, and don’t call thugs ‘kids’ because they are young.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                1. So now any person wearing a hoodie is fair game to be stalked and killed?

                2. He was a KID. What were you like at his age? A scholar and nice guy who never did dumb shit? Again, you are trying to make an excuse. Zimmerman had no idea he was anything but a black person with a hoodie in the night.

                3. If you want to attack his character, we can do the same for Zimmerman (molested his family member, restraining order from his wife who said he was often violent, attacked a police officer) However, none of it played a role that night, so it would be dumb to use.

                4. You’re getting repetetive. He is a thug. He is a thug who likes to fight, or maybe just talks big? Do you have any proof to confirm that he fought a lot? I don’t think you do. Looks like half of your points are just saying the same thing over and over. All completely irrelevant to that night.

                5. And Zimmerman was trained in self defense and had weight on him.

                6. Self defense? How do you know Martin wasn’t the one who was defending himself? How do you know Zimmerman hadn’t threatened him? Pointed his gun at him? How do you know Zimmerman didn’t start the altercation? You don’t. We have to take his word for it because a dead man can’t speak.

                • 1. If you fit the description of criminals in the area, YES.

                  2. He was no kid, he was 17 years old. Young adult, sure, kid hell no. There is a difference between being a scholar who did dumb things, and someone who goes out and commits crimes. Martin’s own phone could have been used against him for a variety of charges, from assault, to get this : illegally selling weapons. (There is evidence he discusses selling a hand gun in texts.) Fuck you he was a kid, you bought the sob story hook line and sinker, you bought the picture of the 12 year old boy, not the 17 year old thug. You were deceived by the media. This MAN was a THUG not a kid.

                  3. Martin was known to be two things: Violent, and a Criminal. This DOES play into it.

                  4. We have is own words, so was he an angel just pretending to be a thug? And no, I was not repeating myself, I was making a point, the police reports from the night of the incident clearly indicated that Zimmerman was getting his ass handed to him. Evidence that he had been on his back, a doctors report that he had a broken nose, lacerations to the back of his head. Your conjecture is that he hurt the back of his own head to make him look innocent? Why do you hate hispanics?

                  5. Bull shit, Zimmerman topped out at 170, Martin 160, 10 lbs means nothing in a fight, as much as boxing might have you convinced otherwise. Martin was also taller giving him more reach. Oh and BTW, I am a fighter, so go ahead and tell me how wrong I am. I am trained in Wa-lum tam-tui and Shaolin Kempo, I can vouch for having my ass kicked by better fighters who were lighter and faster than me. You have obviously never been in a real fight in your life.

                  6. Ballistics evidence, at the end of the day is all that mattered, the prosecutions ‘expert’ couldn’t explain certain things and the defense’s did. Will I ever know for a fact, no, but the evidence and the odds support self defense overwhelmingly. Because neither of them were perfect people we can’t ever know for certain, what we do know though is that Martin’s crimes were covered up by a police policy change in Miami. Had that never happened, Martin wouldn’t have been there to be shot, he would have been in jail.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    1. Say it. Wearing a hoodie is good enough to get you stalked and killed. Come on. Say it. Sorry guys, you’re going to have to dress a certain way in America or else, well, sorry, but you’re gonna get shot. What? It’s your fault. Better note what the latest fashion is for the criminals in whatever area you walk in. Otherwise, well, too bad, it’s your own fault. What America do you live in? The freedom one?

                    2. 17 is a minor. A minor is a kid. I know you don’t like it, but that’s just the way it is. A grown man shot a 17 year old KID. What do any of the things on his phone have to do with the night he was shot and killed? Oh yea. Nothing.

                    3. Really? Because he got in a fight or two at school? Well, guess he deserved to get stalked, shot and killed. A criminal? Based on what? Your dislike of him. Oh yea. See, in the real world, criminal is reserved for people charged and convicted of a crime. What do you have other than text messages?

                    4. He was not pretending to be anything. He was walking home and was shot and killed. The police reports say no such thing. Serino was the lead detective of the case.

                    “From the very beginning, Serino said that Zimmerman had a “little hero complex” and accused him of profiling Martin:

                    “You wanted to catch him. You wanted to catch the bad guy, the f—–g punk who can’t get away,” Serino said.

                    Zimmerman replied, “I wasn’t following him; I was just going in the same direction he was.”

                    Serino responded, “That’s following.”

                    *************Serino referred to Zimmerman as probably being a “good guy,” but found it suspicious that his minor injuries didn’t match his account of being viciously beaten by a “child” carrying candy and an iced tea. He also noted that Zimmerman had no defensive wounds on his hands, as one would expect from such a violent struggle.*******************

                    During his testimony Tuesday, Serino repeated that he believed Zimmerman followed Martin, who was doing nothing wrong.”

                    Regarding the injuries:

                    Dr. Valerie Rao, the Jacksonville, Fla., medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, testified that she reviewed Zimmerman’s photographs and medical records. She was not involved in the autopsy of Martin.
                    The wounds displayed on Zimmerman’s head and face were “consistent with one strike, two injuries at one time,” she testified. “The injuries were not life-threatening,” she said, adding they were “very insignificant.”

                    Not sure what you’re talking about. I never said he created his own injuries and I don’t hate hispanics. Your theatrics are unbecoming and pathetic.

                    5. Hahahaha. That’s great, tell us more about how much of a badass fighter you are. The facts stand. Zimmerman was trained in self defense, MMA, and had weight on him. Here is the police report that says he claimed his weight was 194 pounds. Martin weighed 158 pounds. Not 10 but 40 pounds. Where do you get your facts from?

                    http://www.scribd.com/doc/98332017/Pages-From-Police-Reports-With out-Statements-Redacted

                    6. Ballistics evidence didn’t mean crap. It was not a contested piece of evidence. The bottom line is in that state, with those laws, and considering the evidence available, it was extremely, extremely hard to prove without reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Because we don’t want to put the wrong people in jail, sometimes the right people walk free. Justice is never perfect.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    Six for six! Your arguments are explicit. mark/babs only counter will be emotionalism.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    . “Bull shit, Zimmerman topped out at 170, Martin 160, 10 lbs means nothing in a fight, as much as boxing might have you convinced otherwise. Martin was also taller giving him more reach. Oh and BTW, I am a fighter, so go ahead and tell me how wrong I am. I am trained in Wa-lum tam-tui and Shaolin Kempo, I can vouch for having my ass kicked by better fighters who were lighter and faster than me. You have obviously never been in a real fight in your life.”

                    exactly.We had a guy in one unit who had been Golden Gloves in Chicago before enlisting in the army,and weighed in at around 140 pounds soaking wet-saw him wear out plenty of big apes twice his size.While doing training support at Knox for allied officers,I saw the same thing,with a skinny Nigerian Captain totally dominating the combatives pit against others much larger.

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  “. He was a KID. What were you like at his age? ”

                  I was on patrol along the Iron Curtain when I was barely older than him.Next question?

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    Similar situation. I was humping the boonies in VN. Turned 19 half way through my first tour.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “Similar situation. I was humping the boonies in VN. Turned 19 half way through my first tour.”

                      I was slightly older-still,I was’nt attacking security guards in a residential neighborhood,but helping to keep the Red Army out of Western Europe.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      And you had just as much chance to be put in a kill or be killed situation if you were posted to a hot spot of the “cold” war.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “And you had just as much chance to be put in a kill or be killed situation if you were posted to a hot spot of the “cold” war.”

                      The Cold war was hardly cold,with my first combat action being against Euro-terrorists.Yesterday I was talking with a guy who’d been MI in Germany in the mid ’60s,and his team lost a guy to small arms fire along the border.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      But those incidents are never acknowledged, and the dead are quickly forgotten..

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                ***Any person with at least 1/2 a brain***

                That excludes mark.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Zimmerman was stalking Martin with a gun. But it’s OK because he had a gun and he had profiled Martin and needed to follow him despite the dispatchers admonition not to.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  Liar.

                  Propagandist.

                  Spinner.

                  Dissembler.

                  Mark, DLA.

                  It’s all the same.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Uh….these are all facts confirmed by Zimmerman.

                    – He was following him. He was even chasing him at one point.
                    – He profiled him based on appearance. He was “one of those punks”.

                    So what are you going on about?

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Following, while on patrol, is not stalking.

                      Firing in self defense is not murder.

                      Those are your accusations to try to discredit a man already acquitted of all charges.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Hahaha. On patrol. Just volunteer in the patrol watch! You can stalk/follow whoever you want!

                      Those aren’t accusations. Those are the facts of the case that were all introduced as evidence. Zimmerman followed him and chased him, fact. He profiled him as “one of those punks” in the phone call, fact. What are you disputing here?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    As usual. If you have nothing meaningful to say just go for ad hominem.

                    As always, some people should never have guns, Zimmerman comes to mind, and lack of consistent background checks enables them to get guns without any brushes with the legality of the situation.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              You are an idiot (apologies to the “mentally challenged” who actually rate that diagnosis).
              This thug (martin) who assaulted a citizen was no flower child. Aside from his criminal record, he was 6 feet tall, weighed 170 pounds, and the autopsy showed liver damage from ingesting “lean”, a mix of cough syrup, skittles, and fruit juice that has long term behavioral effects:

              *** “…High doses … are sometimes compared to the effects of other dissociatives such as PCP or ketamine…”

              This stuff is compared to PCP ? This is no exaggeration! DXM in higher doses is actually a very volatile and dangerous drug, and they are quite right when they compare DXM to PCP and Ketamine!

              In fact, the drug has come to be known in some circles as “Poor-Man’s PCP!” ***
              http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/24/update-26-part-2-t rayvon-martin-shooting-a-year-of-drug-use-culminates-in-predictab le-violence/

              I’ve seen ‘angel dusters’ on a rampage. The only way to stop ’em is with a fatal wound, and if it’s not a head or heart shot, they don’t even notice until they bleed out.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                ’”ve seen ‘angel dusters’ on a rampage. The only way to stop ‘em is with a fatal wound, and if it’s not a head or heart shot, they don’t even notice until they bleed out.”

                We had a guy in Germany who was a former deputy sheriff in S. Carolina,who had responded to two incidents with someone who was dusted-in one case,they had to literally take him apart with shotguns,and the other time,they ran him down with the Crown Vickie.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Did they run out of ammo or did they observe how ineffective the pistol rounds were against the druggie?

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “Did they run out of ammo or did they observe how ineffective the pistol rounds were against the druggie?”

                    From the sound of it,it was akin to when soldiers would shoot Moro insurrectos with a .38LC round,with no visible effect.That’s why they started forming 3 man teams,one with a shotgun,one with a Krag,and one with a .45

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Obviously, nobody really knows you.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          I can’t read this man’s mind, but it seems that had he not trailed the kid and minded his own business that the whole incident would have been avoided. I am not saying the black kid was an innocent either. Seems like he was a punk who should have been home in bed. But the verdict was appropriate for there was plenty of reasonable doubt here.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            If, only, and might have been.
            There had been numerous robberies in the GATED neighborhood, with one ‘suspect’ closely matching martin’s description having already been captured. martin was wandering around in the rain, close to the buildings, and acting suspiciously.
            Z. was a member of the Neighborhood Watch. He was licensed to carry his weapon concealed. In many states there is no restriction on OPEN carry, as long as one is not a convicted felon or has not violated the plethora of regulations recently invented by the hoplophobe crowd.
            martin had FOUR minutes he was unobserved to get to his residence, but he chose to circle back and attack Z. A fatal mistake.
            I would fault Z. for not having his weapon in his hand while he was out of the car. It has been my experience that having a weapon visible tends to discourage aggressive tendencies in all but those who are suicidal or on drugs. Having the weapon in hand also reduces response time.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              “In many states there is no restriction on OPEN carry”

              OC is spreading like wildfire here.I saw a facebook post today from an employee at a suburban Milwaukee retail store,who saw over a dozen OCing customers-before lunch.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                And everybody was considerate and polite. With that many OC weapons, there have to be a like number of concealed weapons. Anyone thinking to pull a robbery would have to have a death wish. Recall the Northfield Minnesota raid by the James-Younger gang? Not a success.

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  “Anyone thinking to pull a robbery would have to have a death wish. Recall the Northfield Minnesota raid by the James-Younger gang? Not a success.”

                  Much like the Darwin nominee who tried to rob a gun shop in Tacoma when I was at Lewis.It was full of off duty sheriff’s deputies,off duty soldiers,and armed citizens.He was shot 77 times,and pronounced DOA.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            I can’t read this man’s mind, but it seems that had he not trailed the kid and minded his own business that the whole incident would have been avoided. I am not saying the black kid was an innocent either. Seems like he was a punk who should have been home in bed. But the verdict was appropriate for there was plenty of reasonable doubt here.

            So,what exactly are members of a neighborhood watch supposed to do?

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        *Did you notice during the George Zimmerman trial how the media kept repeating the salacious question “What if Trayvon Martin had been white?”

        totally irrelevant

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Apparently standing your ground only applies if you are not black and have a gun.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Liar.

            2/3rds of the SYG cases have been blacks who defended themselves.

            SYG disproportionally has benefited black citizens defending themselves more than whites. This could have been foreseen since blacks are frequently targeted by other blacks. The law is good and the law seems to be working and it is helping intended victims (all of them) defend their lives.

            Why do you have a problem with that?

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            You ignore my post of the 22nd where I recount the shooting of a white teenage thug by a black homeowner, and his trial and not guilty verdict. Why? I suspect this is deliberate because it does not fit your agenda…….

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Holy shit…are we counting ignores now? You have some catching up to do.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                If I were paid to haunt this site I would frequent it more often than every few days. If this forum had an ignore option I would not even see your posts.

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  “If this forum had an ignore option I would not even see your posts”

                  my iggy bunker over at Delphi is gettin’ full

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    Does it warm your heart to go over that list from time to time?

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “Does it warm your heart to go over that list from time to time?”

                      I sent some augmentees the past few days.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            Another calculated lie. If you could provide any numbers to that statement, you would be placing ’em in every post. Black on black and black on white incidents, both legitimate self defense and unwarranted assaults, are much too common to make the news.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              What you can’t count?

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              The calculated lie is you refuting it. Get to counting bro…

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Easy enough.

                Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males.
                At midyear 2007 there were 4,618 black male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,747 Hispanic male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 Hispanic males and 773 white male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 white males.
                In 2005, Homicide offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites
                Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison
                This Special Report presents lifetime chances of going to State or Federal prison by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Using standard demographic lifetable techniques, and assuming that recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 20 persons (5%) can be expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. The lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for men (9%) than for women (1%) and higher for blacks (16%) and Hispanics (9%) than for whites (2%). At current levels of incarceration newborn black males in this country have a greater than a 1 in 4 chance of going to prison during their lifetimes, while Hispanic males have a 1 in 6 chance, and white males have a 1 in 23 chance of serving time. 3/97 NCJ 160092
                The US Dept. of Justice Website also reports that in England and Wales, blacks are 2% of the population, but 11% of inmates.

                http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1994/06/ 01/88911/index.htm
                ***THE FACTS: Blacks, who represent just 12.5% of the U.S. population, account for a disproportionate share of violent crime. Still, the fact remains that whites commit more such crimes — 54% vs. 45% for blacks, (even though blacks are 12.5% of the population) according to FBI arrest statistics. The numbers also vary widely depending on the crime, with blacks responsible for more murders and robberies (55% and 61% of these crimes, respectively) and whites committing more rapes and aggravated assaults (56% and 60%).
                The bottom line: While a white person is far more likely to be victimized by a black than the other way around (21% vs. 7%), the chances are three times as great that a white person will be victimized by another white than by a black.
                The exception here is robbery. Whites are held up by blacks 49% of the time and by whites only 37%. Still, though violent crime is predominantly white on white or black on black, it is also true that black criminals commit more crimes against white victims (nearly 1.1 million in 1992) than they do against blacks (just under 1 million).***

                http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/feature s/1999/does_abortion_prevent_crime/_3.html
                ***As you note, African-Americans have three times the abortion rate of whites. You don’t mention, however, that, as Janet Reno’s Justice Department flatly states that “blacks are 8 times more likely than whites to commit homicide.” Therefore, blacks commit more murders than whites in total as well as per capita.
                Everybody acknowledges that incarceration rates among young black males are much higher than among whites or Hispanics. An August 2003 Bureau of Justice Statistics analysis shows that 32 percent of black males born in 2001 can expect to spend time in prison over the course of their lifetime. That is up from 13.4 percent in 1974 and 29.4 percent in 1991. By contrast, 17.2 percent of Hispanics and 5.9 percent of whites born in 2001 are likely to end up in prison.***

                http://www.wnd.com/2007/08/43138/
                ***”Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against other blacks.” Forty-five percent of the victims of violent crime by blacks are white folks, 43 percent are black, 10 percent are Hispanic.
                Blacks are seven times as likely as people of other races to commit murder, eight times more likely to commit robbery and three times more likely to use a gun in a crime.
                “Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit violent crime against a white person than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.” (If decent black folks have trouble hailing a cab, and they do, these numbers may help explain it.)
                Black-on-white rape is 115 times more common than the reverse.***

                http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-02hm.html
                ***’Though blacks, 24 percent of New York Citys population, committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in the city last year, according to victims and witnesses, they were only 55 percent of all stop-and-frisks.***

                http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-wh ite-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas

                ***Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
                Blacks are three times more likely to use a hand gun, and twice more likely to use a knife.
                Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites, but the statistics are nebulous because sometimes they are classified as white, so it could be far higher.
                The best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percent of the population that is black and Hispanic.
                Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.
                Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanic.
                Blacks are seven times more likely to go to prison, Hispanics three times, and the reason is clear, because from 1980 to 2003 the US incarceration rate has tripled, and so proves that Justice is not only hard won, but well served.***

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  All that work for what? What are you really trying to say? That skin color makes someone more homicidal? Is that your argument?

                  I wonder, why don’t you look at other factors instead of skin color? Like the fact that they are mostly all males? Or the fact that they are mostly poor people killing each other?

                  Why is skin color the most important factor for you? I wonder.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    Work? It took about five minutes to post that information.
                    Since you can’t refute the numbers you attack my methodology. Pitiful.
                    Rather than skin color, gender, or financial status, the primary cause of the crime rate among blacks can be laid to the destruction of the black family by lbj’s “Great Society” welfare system, and continuing through the warehousing of “poor” in government welfare warrens overrun by criminals.
                    You should really study the subject before you jump into the discussion. Your ignorance makes you a laughingstock.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Ah, yes, destruction of the black family. Because there are no whites on welfare, right? Just dem lazy no good black folk.

                      Here, check what the New Century Foundation has to say about it. I’m sure they have a great article that you can link, whitepowerDanny.

                      So you want to blame welfare for our crime problems? Then how come countries with much bigger and stronger welfare systems (like most of Europe) don’t have this problem? Kinda weird isn’t it?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      No substantive argument.
                      Your mark personality does much better at these contests, but he still loses.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  It’s also worth pointing out that the New Century Foundation is a white supremacist publication.

                  “The New Century Foundation is an organization founded in 1994 known primarily for publishing American Renaissance. From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund,[1][2][3] and has been described as a white supremacist group,[4] which its founder, Jared Taylor, denies, calling it white separatist.

                  Taylor advocates segregation as a natural expression of racial solidarity while denying that his views constitute white supremacism. Viewing societal problems as racial in nature, Taylor upholds white racial homogeneity as the key to peaceful coexistence. He sees Japan as an exemplar of a racially homogenous society, and views Asians generally as genetically superior in intelligence to whites. He also view whites as genetically superior in intelligence to blacks.[5][6]”

                  Good company you keep! Spent much time checking out white supremacy sites, do you?

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    Didn’t bother to check ’em out. The numbers they provided compliment the other sources that you have not derided.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Do you usually not check out the information in the articles that you use as evidence? Do you think that is a valid excuse?

                      Or are you trying to hide the fact that you subscribe to information by white supremacists?

                      You linked an article with information where the sources go to invalid pages and the info comes from white supremacist groups. And now you’re upset you were called out for the racist, white supremacist you are. Wanna cry about it?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      The numbers were correct, it’s the source that has your panties in a knot. I’ll utilize whatever source is available and laugh when your politically correct sensibilities are affronted.

                      I’m more Mohawk than white, and your accusation of “white racism” does not apply. Go tell your zampolit I refuse to play.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    That’s an attack the messenger fallacy.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            “Apparently standing your ground only applies if you are not black and have a gun.”

            Like Condi Rice’s dad running off klansmen over the barrell of a shotgun,eh?

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Florida stats show that 2 or every 3 people claiming SYG are black.

              Maybe the law applies to intended victims regardless of skin color after all.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          If trayvon had been white the shooting would have rated maybe four lines in the police report section of the local paper and nothing at all on broadcast news.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            I”f trayvon had been white the shooting would have rated maybe four lines in the police report section of the local paper and nothing at all on broadcast news”

            zackly.Shortly after the Rodney King smackdown,there was a similiar incident in Dallas,except it involved a white motorist and several black cops/Remember hearing about it?Did’nt think so…….

  21. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Zimmerman has proven it takes only one armed vigilante to do the job. I hope they stand their ground well.

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      Apparently the jury did’nt see him as a vigilante,but rather as a citizen lawfully using deadly force to defend against a violent assault.You are aware of the jury system,correct?

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        The jury followed the law and the description of the only person left alive at the stand your ground incident. If Martin had been a woman Zimmerman would have been viewed as the stalker he was.

        • ” If Martin had been a woman …”
          ” If Martin had been white … ”

          Oh stop it already.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            No. It’s true. He went from neighborhood watcher to neighborhood stalker. People don’t take kindly to being stalked. Zimmerman was not a cop and he had no business pretending to be one. I love how the right goes out of their way to demonize Martin so they can justify his murder. Instead of calling the real cops and not interfering he decided to take the law into his own hands with deadly results. He may be innocent in the eyes of Florida law but common sense tells you he screwed up big time and somebody is dead because of it.

            Great equalizer my ass. His gun was a murder weapon.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Keep it up with the spurious drivel. It’s already been through the court and a verdict of Not Guilty ends everything but your inane rantngs.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “Keep it up with the spurious drivel. It’s already been through the court and a verdict of Not Guilty ends everything but your inane rantngs”

                but leftist radical scum don’t recognize court rulings and jury verdicts that don’t support their agenda,such as when they got a pet leftist radical judge with union ties to illegally issue an injunction to Wisconsin’s Democratic Party Election Fraud Prevention Act,even though it had already been upheld by SCOTUS,when disgruntled leftists in Indiana challenged that state’s version.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Their intent is to disrupt, delay, and irritate, hoping someone will be triggered to violence. That way they can ‘wave the bloody shirt’ like they did in the trevon case.
                  When there are no consequences for their actions, they become incrementally more aggressive. That judge should be promoted to driving a garbage truck or maybe picking up roadkill.

            • Michael PriceNo Gravatar says:

              He wasn’t a stalker, stalking is REPEATED following someone in a way that reasonably intimidates them. He followed Martin ONCE. I love it how the left now implictedly acknowledges that Martin started the fight and justify it by Zimmerman following him. A neighbourhood watch guy actually watched someone, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Martin thought it was OK to beat someone up because they were following him, because he was a thug. The idea that he was at fault for doing something COMPLETELY LEGAL rather than Martin for doing something completely illegal is absurd.

              • Peter VanburgNo Gravatar says:

                Stalk
                1.
                pursue or approach stealthily.
                “a cat stalking a bird”
                synonyms: creep up on, trail, follow, shadow, track down, go after, be after, course, hunt;

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  quib·ble (kwbl)
                  intr.v. quib·bled, quib·bling, quib·bles
                  1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.
                  2. To find fault or criticize for petty reasons; cavil.
                  n.
                  1. A petty distinction or an irrelevant objection.
                  2. Archaic A pun.

                  nit′pick` or nit′-pick`,
                  v.i.
                  1. to be critical of inconsequential details; niggle.
                  v.t.
                  2. to criticize by focusing on minute details.

                  • Peter VanburgNo Gravatar says:

                    Exactly.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Quibble? Nitpick? The poster straight up lied. He made up his own definition of stalking.

                    These right wing wackos, I tell you.

                    And where are you getting information that Martin started the fight? Oh, yea, Zimmerman’s defense. Who witnessed and confirmed Martin started the fight? Anyone other than Zimmerman? Nope.

                    So, ironically, it’s YOU who is trying to make up facts as to who started the fight.

                    Martin was walking home, at night, while being stalked by Zimmerman who had the opportunity TWICE to identify himself as neighborhood watch. And he didn’t. Martin even walked up to his car and asked what he wanted. Zimmerman rolled up the window without saying anything and continued stalking him. Martin had every reason to fear for his life and if he were alive, he could have easily argued stand your ground as his defense.

                    A 17 year old unarmed minor, being stalked at night, repeatedly, as he walked home. He had every reason to fear for his life and stand his ground. His only mistake was dying. Maybe if he had had a gun on him it would have been different?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      babs/mark:
                      This 17 YO thug was 6’1″ tall, and a very fit athlete (football player) and had ample opportunity to arrive at his residence unmolested if he had chosen NOT to attack George Zimmerman.
                      Peddle your prevarications elsewhere.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      I don’t think you know or understand how stand your ground works.

                      If he reasonably feared for his life, he had the right to defend himself. The law does NOT say you must flee when you are in danger. It says the opposite. But you know this, right? So what’s your excuse for your nonsensical post?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Nowhere does “stand your ground” even imply that a person who “feels he’s been stalked” has the right to attack.

                      Stand your ground states:
                      Title XLVI
                      CRIMES
                      Chapter 776
                      JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
                      View Entire Chapter
                      776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
                      (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
                      (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
                      (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
                      (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
                      (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
                      (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
                      (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
                      (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
                      (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
                      (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
                      (5) As used in this section, the term:
                      (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
                      (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
                      (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
                      History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

                      At no time prior to the time he was shot was treyvon martin being attacked. In point of fact, he was the agressor.
                      Do you have any more idiocy to share with us?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Danny, how retarded are you on a scale of 1-10?

                      This is a serious question.

                      After you answer: re-read section 1 of what you posted.

                      Then slap yourself until you pass out.

                      Thanks!

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            And if frogs wore parachutes they would not hit the ground so hard.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          I see that you got your talking points to attack the SYG laws.

          Trouble is, SYG was not at issue here. It was classic self defense. (not murder)

          GZ was on neighborhood watch,, not stalking.

          GZ DID call the cops and they were on the way. Noting TM’s location is not stalking.

          TM laid in wait for GZ and confronted him. If this ‘poor scared kid’ was so scared, why did he not leave the scene in those 4 minutes?

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            SYG was at issue. SYG is the offical self defense law now, there is no seperation. What you meant to say, but which you don’t understand since you only read right winger spin sites, is that SYG wasn’t use as a tool by the defense. Read the jury instructions.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final- Jury-Instructions

            “The written instructions that sat with the jurors as they deliberated made very clear that under Florida law, a shooter has a right to stand his ground:

            “If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

            Since Zimmerman’s lawyers opted not to invoke Stand Your Ground as a defense, observers have characterized this case as a regular old
            “self-defense” case, rather than a “Stand Your Ground” case. But what
            these jury instructions make clear is that, in Florida, there is no
            longer an effective distinction. Stand Your Ground is the state’s self-defense law, whether or not a defendant opts to hold a hearing specifically on the question.”

            He was following Martin. He said it himself, but he hilariously said he just happened to be going in the same direction as him. What do you call chasing Martin? Not stalking him? Or, that’s right, he wasn’t chasing him. As Zimmerman said, Martin was just “skipping away”. Hahahaha. How can anyone take that seriously?

            “If this ‘poor scared kid’ was so scared, why did he not leave the scene in those 4 minutes?”

            Can’t the same be said to Zimmerman? Why do you blame Martin for not fleeing but not apply the same to Zimmerman, who followed and chased him? Why does no one say that Martin had the right to defend himself. He was being followed, and ran after. If he were alive, he could easily claim he feared for his safety and was defending himself. But no, you don’t think he has that right. Only Zimmerman, the self appointed neighborhood watch wanna-be cop.

            The person who “laid in wait” was Zimmerman as he stalked his prey.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              It doesn’t fit the narrative going on in their heads that this was a “good” gun use. It’s a shame we can’t count all the bad uses of guns. It would make your head spin.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              The jury instructions from the judge are NOT the defense’s case. The defense never used that law.

              The intent of SYG is to prevent the intended victim from being victimized by the bad guy’s family or the state.

              GZ had a right to defend himself and did so properly and effectively.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Bahahaha, you are always up for showing your stupidity.

                “The defense never used that law. ”

                SYG is written into Florida law. It is automatically used, as you can see from the jury instructions, which defines what “justifiable use of deadly force” means in Florida. The whole case used it, the only thing you are pointing out is that they didn’t use it as a defense, which would have meant a different kind of trial where he would have claimed immunity. Instead, they opted for a trial by jury.

                “It was also explicit in the judge’s instructions to the jury before deliberations. The judge said: “If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.”

                Before the Stand Your Ground law, Florida jury instructions in self defense cases disallowed “force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating a person could have avoided the need to use that force.””

                If the result of the verdict directly came from those instructions, how can you say SYG was not at issue?

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  You are just too steeped in your ideology to think clearly.

                  If the defense didn’t claim it, that means that they didn’t make it an issue.

                  IIRC, the jury didn’t factor it in either despite the judge’s instructions. They acquitted him on the grounds of self defense, pure and simple.

                  You just want to undo the SYG laws because you are anti gun, not because you have anything more than emotion and ideology..

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    It has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with facts. And sadly, facts never seem to be in your favor.

                    In Florida, self defense is the same as SYG. There is no distinction in that state. What part about that don’t you get?

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Now we are getting somewhere.

                      You claim that both are the same. You are already on record as wanting to repeal SYG laws. I suppose that means that you also want to repeal the laws of nature and self defense too.

                      You are despicable. Turn in your guns. If you really have any.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Hahahaha – you drama queen. Man, what a sight.

                      No, Ray. I’m talking about reverting to the same self defense laws that we had before 2005 when Florida passed the first statewide SYG law.

                      But you know that. So what are we talking about?

                      Oh yea, your theatrics.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Your sneer does not carry the same weight as the evidence and testimony.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              And the moral of that story is: Don’t be pounding on somebody just because you’re bigger and younger. It could be the last mistake you’ll make.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                The moral of the story is you can do something viewed as entirely within the law and yet still be an immoral douchebag murderer. He got off because of a misguided law, not because he was in the right.

                • Wrong again moron, he got off because a shit head thug attacked him, a criminal by every definition of the word and he defended himself.

                  He would have gotten off in CA, MA, or CT with the evidence presented to the jury.

                  Self defense laws are hardly ‘misguided’.

                  http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/

                  If you have the balls go there and take the survey, after reading FACTS about Trayvon Martin.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Mark gives an important clue here why he believes guns are as evil. By not even allowing self-defense in the case of a thug sitting astride someone and pounding their head into the pavement repeatedly, calling a shooting under the circumstances “murder” (notwithstanding the findings of a jury), Mark indicates that he assigns zero value to the concept of self-defense, and thus it’s hardly surprising that he seeks measures to generally disarm the population, or put in place mechanisms to disarm them in the future. Apparently to him there are no good uses for guns, except perhaps when government agents shoot people.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      If he’d quit following Martin like was told he wouldn’t have a price on his head and Martin wouldn’t be dead. Read whatever agenda you want into my writing but you are wrong.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      mark, mark, mark, you continue to display your iron bound indoctrination and invincible ignorance.
                      Where was Zimmerman attacked? Near his vehicle. Why was he there? He was returning to his vehicle. He was not “ordered” not to follow martin. The words of the dispatcher were “We don’t need you to do that”. Do you need a semanticist to translate that sentence for you?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      What mark does not realize is that the “revolution” will eliminate its’ willing dupes and useful idiots before they realize the enormity of their leaders’ duplicity and become disillusioned and turn their efforts against the very masters they once served.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “Apparently to him there are no good uses for guns, except perhaps when government agents shoot people.”

                      much like a photo I saw once of soldiers “protecting” slave laborers in post revolutionary Russia?

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  I thank the Gods you will not be on any jury.
                  The local authorities did not charge Zimmerman because their investigation indicated that it was a justifiable shooting.
                  The local DA did not prosecute because he saw no criminal act.
                  When a Grand Jury was impaneled and about to make a ruling, a “special prosecutor” jumped in and filed a laundry list of charges to prevent a finding of no true bill.
                  The end result is that the ‘authorities’ of the state of Florida spent millions and forced Zimmerman into hiding in order to accomplish nothing.
                  Where are the indictments and trials for those who have been publicly threatening Zimmerman and his family with murder before, during, and after his trial?

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “Where are the indictments and trials for those who have been publicly threatening Zimmerman and his family with murder before, during, and after his trial?”

                    Don’t hold your breath.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “And the moral of that story is: Don’t be pounding on somebody just because you’re bigger and younger. It could be the last mistake you’ll make”

                It was the last mistake that he made.And Darwin smiled.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “Don’t be pounding on somebody just because you’re bigger and younger. It could be the last mistake you’ll make.”

                Like the young wannabe thug on a city bus in Milwaukketan who got the shit kicked out of him by a 68 year old marine?

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  That boy got off easy. Back before I got busted up, I’d have unscrewed an arm or two, just so he’d have a permanent reminder. Now I’d just shoot him.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    There was an incident in my area the other day where an 89 y/o man shot and killed a man half his age. The two apparently had some history. After a bit, the old man got a gun and shot the younger man.

                    I was reminded of an old rule regarding gun fights.

                    Never fight with an old man with a gun. Since he can’t beat you, he’ll just shoot you.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      The lesson was delivered. Others might benefit by observation and extropolation, rather than experience.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “Never fight with an old man with a gun. Since he can’t beat you, he’ll just shoot you.”

                      One of my Korean war guys is a firm disciple of that philosophy.I suppose after the Frozen Chosin and multiple tours in Viet Nam,he learned to value his own life over that of a thug.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “What mark does not realize is that the “revolution” will eliminate its’ willing dupes and useful idiots before they realize the enormity of their leaders’ duplicity and become disillusioned and turn their efforts against the very masters they once served.”

                Much like the Red Army liquidating the German and Polish communist parties after WW2-they’d served their purpose,and were no longer needed.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  Likewise, the compliant (and complicit) media now kissing his ass will be eliminated once they are no longer needed.

                  The willfully stupid never learn from the mistakes of others or themselves.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              I am curious as to whether SYG was included in the jury instructions at the behest of the administration, to give “o”boy and holder an excuse to rail against SYG laws.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Would not surprise me a bit. Their dirty hand prints are everywhere when something evil is going on.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  Of course you both would. You are both mentally unstable and think that anything that goes against your beliefs is a conspiracy theory of some kind.

                  You are too mentally unstable to realize the obvious truth. Once SYG laws pass, they become part of the self defense laws. That is the whole idea of passing the law. The jury instructions described the Florida self defense laws which SYG is a part of, since they passed it.

                  Do you think you guys could maybe understand something that simple? Or are you too fucking stupid?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    I wouldn’t label them as stupid as much as I would “losers”. They have lost the argument on several issues. Their only recourse is to make (false) accusations, label people with epithets, and generally start accusing others of the very thing they are doing. It’s a classic right-wing tactic. Didn’t work for Romney did it?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      You are either deluded or an inept liar, or both. Considering your history, I would presume both.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Let me try to put this into language that you can understand:

                    There are different fucking elements of the fucking self-defense law. One fucking instance, the fucking “Stand Your Ground” law, has elements in it that one has to be in a position to fucking run away when confronted in a fucking attack. *However,* under this law, one does not have an obligation to fucking run away, but instead, one has a right to fucking stand right where they are, if they are legally allowed to fucking be there, and just fucking stay there. If the attacker still fucking continues, they are allowed to blow the attackers fucking head off right fucking there, insofar as a reasonable fucking person reasonably fucking believes that their fucking lives are in fucking jeopardy. (I hope you are able to comprehend this explanation, now that it has been put in terms which you employ and are therefore presumably able to follow.) The above said, there are other elements of the fucking law, which don’t entail remaining in the same fucking place even though one can fucking flee. In point of fact, Zimmerman was flat on his fucking back, getting his head pounded repeatedly into the fucking pavement, and had somebody astride him who almost weighed as fucking much as he did, employing various MMA moves against him, and was therefore in no fucking position at all to flee, but decide not to anyway, and Stand His Ground. Therefore, the elements of the fucking SYG law were not fucking present, so, ergo (sorry: fucking ergo), the SYG had zero fucking bearing on what GZ did, or did not do, or could or could not do, under the law. Other elements of the fucking law, however, come into play, notwithstanding that the fact that the fucking SYG was part of the law pertaining to self-defense. It was one part of the law that had no fucking bearing on what transpired between GZ and TM, that fucking evening.

                    There, maybe you can grasp that, now that it has been generously translated into your language.

                    Perchance the gilded turns of phrase can repose betwixt thine ears, and settle amidst your fleeting thoughts like a sunset-brushed lily blossom, calling out with its flowery scent and speckled countenance, and thereby reach the deepest, and yet verily unplumbed, shallows of your mind.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Did my language hurt your feelings Brucey? My deepest, most sincere apologies. You wouldn’t be trying to take a moral high ground because you don’t use that kind of language? Is that why you made this waste of a post? Bahahaha, doesn’t change the fact that you are a fucking idiot!

                      If SYG didn’t play a role, why did the jury verbally refer to it when giving her instructions, and why was it part of the jury instructions? One of the jurors herself said that it played a part in her decision.

                      Can you clarify? Please, limit your profanity this time, children are watching.

                      Like I said in previous posts, which I will repeat for those, like yourself, who are fucking idiots. The previous self defense laws state that

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Oops, fucking smart phones. Please accept my fucking apologies 🙂

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Hey babs, haven’t you been taught that gratuitous profanity is a primary indicator of mental inadequacy?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      … asks the Mark The Troll, who is evidently unable to draw any moral distinction between mass murder and lawful self-defense.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You seem to have challenges with both reasoning and communications skills. Maybe you should try thinking slower and speaking less.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    SYG was no part of the defense presented to the jury, therefore there should have been no instructions to the jury on that subject. To have included SYG in the instructions only clouded the issue and increased the grounds for appeal should there have been a guilty verdict.

                    However ‘stupid’ I may be, I can’t compare with you and mark for the depths of vacuousness.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          There’s this thing called “forensic evidence” which has progressed from simply looking for the bloody knife, to fingerprints, to the study of gunshot characteristics right up to dna analysis.
          There was extensive forensic evidence presented in the trial. Even the prosecution witnesses buttressed the defense presented by Zimmerman’s attorneys.

          You are entitled to your own ridiculous opinions. You are not entitled to invent your own facts.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can’t get away from God. And at the end of the day, he’s going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with. [But] the law couldn’t prove it.”

            Juror from the Zimmerman trial.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Of course the state couldn’t prove it. There was no evidence of murder.

              This juror may just be trying to save her own ass for doing the right thing.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            “There was extensive forensic evidence presented in the trial. Even the prosecution witnesses buttressed the defense presented by Zimmerman’s attorneys”

            All the more reason that disgruntled leftist radicals are playing the race card,when prosecution witnesses helped gain an aquittal……

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              The persecution (deliberate choice of word) did not have law, or logic, so they went with emotionalism. After the verdict, all they had was the unjustified rant of racism, of which they are guilty.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Haha I love it when fucking idiot right wingers think that falsely accusing someone of racism is the same thing as racism. Too funny. Do you guys know the definition of racism? I wonder.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Of course, all definitions are mutable and ethics are situational to you socialists.

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  And it’s amusing watching idiot mentally ill leftist radical scumbags incessantly play the race card,for any slight,real or imagined,such as Jesse Jackass claiming that Gov. walker only won the recall election-against another white candidate,due to racism.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          “If Martin had been a woman Zimmerman would have been viewed as the stalker he was.”

          If Martin had been law abiding,he’d be alive.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Martin was breaking no laws.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Except for assaulting Zimmerman, getting astride him, and bashing his head repeatedly against the pavement. Yeah, sure, other than that Martin was breaking no laws whatsoever, Mark The Troll.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              No, not yet but he was acting suspiciously. He did then break the law by attacking Zimmerman and beating him.

              Or doesn’t that count as law breaking?

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Being stalked puts one on the defensive. Zimmerman instigated the whole thing with his cowboy mentality. Guns… great equalizer my ass…

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  D E F E N S I V E.

                  Martin took the offensive position when he attacked Zimmerman.

                  How did Martin not know that Zimmerman was not just walking in his own neighborhood at about the same time as he was? Martin attacked. Zimmerman defended himself.

                  And I don’t give a rat’s ass if the colors were reversed. Martin was in the wrong to attack. Period.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Yea, Martin should have not been so freaked out about being stalked.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      If he was so freaked out, why didn’t he flee instead of laying in wait for Zimmerman? He had a cell phone. Why didn’t he call 911?

                      Remember, he confronted Zimmerman.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      The same can be said of Zimmerman. He stated to the police that he was scared of Martin and stayed in the car at first. But once Martin started to leave, he got out and follow him, then ran after him. If he was afraid, like he said, why didn’t he stay in his car or leave?

                      And secondly, according to SYG laws, all you have to do is believe that your life is in danger to react with force, deadly if necessary. So why is it impossible that Martin feared for his life and was defending himself?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “So why is it impossible that Martin feared for his life and was defending himself?”

                      Because he hid from Zimmerman, and then snuck up from behind and attacked him. That’s an attack, not a defense. He can’t have reasonably thought his life was in imminent, mortal danger, if Zimmerman didn’t even know where he was. Do you think you could convince a jury that your life was in mortal danger from someone you were sneaking up upon? Even if he knew you were nearby, but didn’t know you were right behind him? N.B. Advancing on someone isn’t “standing your ground.”

                      Compare and contrast that scenario with another in which someone who is evidently a superior fighter, is astride you and repeatedly bashing your head into the pavement. Do you think you could convince a jury in that case that you were in mortal danger?

                      This isn’t rocket science.

                      But, then again, you *do* have to be able to grasp the concept of lawful self defense in order to grasp the answer, and you haven’t shown much aptitude for that. Mark The Troll has by his posts only too clearly shown he is utterly incapable of distinguishing murder from self-defense, so the correct answers to the above two scenarios would obviously elude him. You might be able to manage it, though.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      You don’t understand. If he feared for his life, based on SYG, he has the right to use deadly force. You can’t change that by saying he was hiding or anything else.

                      Funny though, because your description matches Zimmerman’s actions. He stalked him from his car, in hiding, snuck up from behind, and chased him. Does that sound defensive?

                      So if I’m hiding from someone, I can’t be fearful of my life? Brucey, you make no sense. Again, the only person who can corroborate the “sneaking” etc is Zimmerman. You right winger morons seem to confuse actual facts with Zimmerman’s testimony.

                      “Advancing on someone isn’t “standing your ground.””

                      Tell it to Zimmerman.

                      How do you know Martin was a superior fighter? You don’t. The medical examiner said his injuries were consistent with one hit on the pavement, not life threatening, and there was no head trauma. The whole multiple bashing thing is not proven, it’s the defense’s argument.

                      Bottom line, if Martin feared for his life, he was entitled to use deadly force. I would say that if a person followed me, then chased me, at night, in the dark, and I was 17 years old, I would definitely fear for my life.

                      But I guess you were some badass Rambo kid at 17 and didn’t mind stalkers following you.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Which begs the question, if martin were so “innocent”, why didn’t he call 911?

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Really? Does it beg that question? Maybe they should re-write the SYG laws and say that if you don’t call 911, you are guilty, have no right to defend yourself, and deserve to be shot and killed.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      SYG does not need to be rewritten. Self defense laws must not be weakened.

                      Thugs need to understand the hazards of their chosen profession and choose a new line of work.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      The only thug is you who thinks stalking, shooting, and killing an unarmed child on his walk home is justified.

                      I should set up a neighborhood watch in your area and stalk you. See if you enjoy it. Can I stalk your children? Careful now, no retaliation allowed, or you run the risk of being shot to death.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***The only thug is you who thinks stalking, shooting, and killing an unarmed child on his walk home is justified.***

                      Six foot tall and 170 pounds is not a child. He had four minutes unobserved when he could have walked home. Instead he chose to circle back and attack. Could the cumulative effects of the ‘lean’ he’d been taking been a factor? The autopsy evidence of liver damage was consistant with long term use of the street drug.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Right up until he assaulted Zimmerman, he had broken no laws THAT night. Repeatedly bashing Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk might be considered attempted murder. If mark thinks it’s not, we could arrange the experience for him, and if he survives without brain damage we could ask if he has changed his opinion.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Well, generally I am anti violence but in the interest of justice and science, I agree with you.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  And since mark is totally anti gun, we would not have the unfortunate outcome that travon experienced. The head bashing could continue until the assaulter was either satisfied with the result or tired.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    Oh no, don’t make that mistake.

                    Mark is only anti gun for everyone but police and him.

                    Remember, he is a hypocrite amongst other things.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      In that case we can locate a suitable thug to do the honors, and if he’s shot, mark can run the gauntlet of legal persecution as well as enjoying death threats from ‘outraged’ racists.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Continue to make up lies to soothe yourself. It’s what the right does best. Fortunately it is becoming easier to expose them.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Lies by the right? HAH!

                      Look at the lies spewed by the left in the media and this administration and tell me that the left is a safe haven for truth. They lie when there is no need to lie and even when the truth is so obvious.

                      I (and others on the right) may get something wrong from time to time, but their is no intent to lie or deceive.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      I guess it saves time and creative energies to accuse others of lying rather than making up your own lies……
                      When have you ‘exposed’ any lies other than your own?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I find a lot of humor in that response.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Mark is only anti gun for everyone but police and him.”

                      This is a flat-out lie. I think it’s intended to provoke (much as Zimmerman did) than to actually convey any other meaning.

                      So continue to lie. It’s what the right does best. Sadly, it even believes those lies.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “If mark thinks it’s not, we could arrange the experience for him, and if he survives without brain damage we could ask if he has changed his opinion.”

                How would one ascertain if he had indeed suffered brain damage?

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              “Martin was breaking no laws.”

              when did the legislature repeal the statute making attempted murder a crime?

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                mark don’t like questions requiring a direct and unambiguous answer.

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  “mark don’t like questions requiring a direct and unambiguous answer”

                  His silence,like that of all leftards,when asked a simple,but awkward question,is deafening.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    In answer to your rhetorical question, no law was repealed. Martin was standing his ground rather than running away.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      GZ called the police. TM had a phone too. Why didn’t he call the police in those 4 minutes that he had? Why didn’t he run home (or even walk home)?

                      TM didn’t stand his ground. He attacked someone whom he believed to be unarmed and unable to defend himself.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      In answer to your rhetorical question, no law was repealed. Martin was standing his ground rather than running away

                      I’ll break this down into simple terms that even a caveman or paid troll can understand.Martin initiated an assault against Zimmerman-therefore he was not standing his ground,but rather,committing a felony.The assault elevated to attempted murder,thereby justifying Zimmerman’s use of deadly force.I’d have done the same.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***Martin was standing his ground rather than running away.***
                      Are you wearing those special glasses that invert everything?

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    ***His silence,like that of all leftards,when asked a simple,but awkward question,is deafening.***

                    And refreshing.

  22. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    The kind of defensive gun acts one has come to expect from gun nuts. These people have no business being anywhere near a gun.

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/24/responsible-gun-owner-ope ns-fire-on-car-full-of-kids-because-dad-tried-to-turn-around-in-h er-driveway/

  23. resourceNo Gravatar says:

    Aw, this was a really nice post. Taking the time
    and actual effort to generate a great article… but what
    can I say… I procrastinate a whole lot and never seem to get nearly anything done.

    Here is my homepage – resource

  24. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    What next? “The guy was standing at my front door so I shot him in the head”

    —–

    Merritt Landry shot a 14-year-old boy who was standing near his car. He shot the young teen in the head. Merritt Landry has been booked with attempted second degree murder.

    This comes less than two weeks after the Trayvon Martin verdict.

    “A Marigny homeowner has been booked with attempted second-degree murder after he shot a 14-year-old boy in the head early Friday, police said. The homeowner’s friends and neighbors said the owner believed the teen was an intruder. The teenager remains hospitalized in critical condition, police said.

    New Orleans police arrested Merritt Landry, 33, a building inspector for the Historic District Landmarks Commission, after conducting multiple interviews and reviewing crime scene evidence, including a single spent casing at the scene, NOPD spokeswoman Remi Braden said.

    Police said the teen was near Landry’s vehicle when he was shot. Landry’s friends said the vehicle was in the driveway behind a gate just a few feet from the house’s backdoor.

    Landry’s attorneys, Michael Kennedy and Miles Swanson, issued a statement after the arrest saying, “This incident is terrible, and Mr. Landry feels terrible about how things have occurred. Nevertheless, we remain convinced our client has done nothing wrong, and we are sure — as facts come to light — it’ll become clear that Mr. Landry will be fully exonerated of any wrongdoing.””

    http://resistviolence.com/connect/archives/87

  25. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Mass shooting. Guns not banned. No gun savior a in sight. Six dead and the shooter makes seven.

    Another win for gun lovers everywhere. All hail the second amendment.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/another-setback-for-gun-owners-br illiant-texas-couple-shoots-and-kills-7-year-old-for-trespassing

  26. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Correction.

    Mass shooting. Guns not banned. No gun savior a in sight. Six dead and the shooter makes seven.

    Another win for gun lovers everywhere. All hail the second amendment.

    http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/07/27/7-killed-including-shooting- suspect-in-hialeah-apartment-complex/

  27. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Another well reasoned article on a favorite fallacy of the gun nuts.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201302/guns-don- t-kill-people-people-do

  28. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography -of-gun-deaths/69354/

  29. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Huapakechi says:
    July 29, 2013 at 1:41 am

    “In that case we can locate a suitable thug to do the honors, and if he’s shot, mark can run the gauntlet of legal persecution as well as enjoying death threats from ‘outraged’ racists.”

    I like the way you think.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      I’ve dealt with liberals before. It’s incredible how their attitudes change when the have the exact same experience. It’s like “I’m special, I’ll never endure what I criticize other people about, but I’ll harrangue them for every word, thought, and deed in spite of my ignorance.
      It’s not surprising that the most vehement “conservative” is a lib who has just been mugged.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        I thought that Juan Williams would have awakened after being mugged by his PBS cohorts, but he only got worse.

        Too stupid to learn or too scared to change?

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Ever study monkeys? Even the lowest ranking and most abused member of the troupe will join in the attacks of a member who has violated the social mores of the troupe.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        I’ve lost far more to the so-called capitalists on Wall Street. We worship money even more than guns.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          At least you realize that crony capitalism is not the same are true market capitalism.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            Crony capitalism, or corruption, happens because of a lack of proper regulation. Which is what you want.

            Or do you want to blame liberals for destroying the fabric of society, loosening morals, and that is the reason for all this crony capitalism? Hahahaha

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Actually, crony capitalism occurs because the regulators are bought and paid for by the industry, “captured” and the threat of this becomes larger the more regulations there are. No company would spend millions of dollars on campaign contributions if there wasn’t anything in it for them. But if government has the power to interfere in the tiniest operations of a business or the marketplace, it becomes extremely important to sway the regulators or the regulations. When the regulators are controlled by the businesses they regulate, regulations get written to the advantage of said companies, and to the detriment of their competitors and everyone else. The cure isn’t more regulations, that makes everything worse (because who writes those regs?) but rather limiting the scope of government involvement. Which is the opposite of what liberal democrats wish to do. (Not that Republicans are enormously better, but they are a little better.) If all government did was protect life, liberty, and property, then companies would have zero incentive to control officeholders, and there would be far less corruption and crony capitalism. But the desire to Be In Charge is too great, and our government does far, far more than it was ever supposed to do.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                ” No company would spend millions of dollars on campaign contributions if there wasn’t anything in it for them.”

                Then remove anything being in it for them. Saying they need less (or no) regulations makes no more sense than saying we don’t need laws such as speed limits or laws about what you cannot do to your neighbor.

                Businesses have NO incentive to do the right thing when they can get away with doing the wrong thing and boost their bottom line, they have only one incentive, make a profit.

                Your right wing agenda is showing.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Hahahaha!

                Yea, it’s all on the regulators. Without them, there would be absolutely no corruption! Humans are naturally not greedy, very ethical people who would never DREAM of corruption. Those pesky regulators FORCE the companies into corruption, right Brucey? They really don’t want to be like that, they try their hardest not to be corrupt, they just have no choice.

                Idiot.

            • You REALLY need an education.

              There is so much uneducated blather in that statement, I didn’t know where to begin. That statement is almost, not quite, but almost as stupid as Melissa Harris-Perry and her “Detroit is what happens when government is too small” So here; you can begin learning on Youtube, then go get in a couple of college level economics classes:

              So here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehn4gxKlT8E
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wy4Sigqd3A
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRb2wBVuX28
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr9iLCR1Usk
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdt6Jj64TVU
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGOj8kBpsD4

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                You’ve missed your target audience. With a few tweaks this all agrees with my view.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  Good for you for actually watching them. I couldn’t help but laugh when he said to get educated, implying we weren’t, then link youtube videos instead of academic works.

                  These guys.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    It’s not that you aren’t educated. It’s more that so much of what you know, just isn’t so.

                    I didn’t watch the videos either but perhaps your own derision will give you some idea of why we don’t read the nonsense that you post.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Crony capitalism thrives on ‘regulations’. It’s what they use (through their hired ‘regulators’) to eliminate competition. One example was the auto industry “bailout”. Those auto dealers who contributed to republicans were singled out for closure, and those in identical circumstances who donated to democrats were allowed to stay open.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          And who is this ‘we’ that you say worship money.

          I don’t worship money or guns. They both have their value but I don’t worship either.

          I think that you are the the cultist that worships both despite your denials.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        I”t’s not surprising that the most vehement “conservative” is a lib who has just been mugged.”

        Or like the hoplophobes in Kalifornia,rushing out to purchase firearms during the LA riots,who were totally outraged when the waiting period laws that they’d championed applied to them,and not merely the great unwashed?

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          It must have galled them severe to discover the laws they championed applied to them as well.

  30. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Babooshka says:
    July 29, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    “The only thug is you who thinks stalking, shooting, and killing an unarmed child on his walk home is justified.”

    You forgot about this ‘unarmed child’ being shot for beating the life out of the man who was only interested in keeping the neighborhood safe for everyone.

    Trayvon might still be alive to take more drugs and steal more stuff if he had just gone home instead of waiting to attack Zimmerman.

    You continue to want to ignore that essential part of the story.

  31. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Beating the life out of the man? Another case of the right wing dramatics.

    Is that why the lead detective in his police report said the injuries didn’t match Zimmerman’s testimony?

    Is that why the medical examiner said the wounds were insignificant and not remotely life threatening?

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      How many more times would it take for GZ to lose consciousness? Once knocked out, would Martin have just stopped and walked away?

      How much of a beating must anyone take (in your opinion) before they are justified in using deadly force.

      The law E V E R Y W H E R E is all that is required is a reasonable belief that you are in fear of your life or serious bodily injury. You don’t have to wait until you are about to pass out to use deadly force to stop an attacker,

  32. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Wrong. Why don’t you know the basics of what you speak? The self defense laws say that if you can retreat you must. Only in SYG states, you not only don’t have to retreat, you can start an altercation, then use deadly force to defend yourself for a situation that was your creation.

    You think it’s okay to shoot to kill over a broken nose and minor injuries.

    So you admit that you lied about Martin beating the life out of him?

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Wrong.

      Some States (immorally) say that you have a duty to retreat. Not all states put intended victims into that situation. IF I AM MISTAKEN, tough. When the law makes what is moral illegal, I will choose morality over the law.

      If Martin punched him once, broke his nose and walked away, no, shooting him would not likely be justified. However, that was not the case. He was on top pounding him repeatedly. When GZ screamed for help, TM’s response was ‘you are going to die tonight MFR’.

      Not only was he being beat (and reasonably feared, to his death) there was the verbal threat to do just that. GZ was justified in shooting.

      I lied about nothing. I don’t have to. The laws and the evidence are on my side.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Again, like the idiot you are, you take Zimmerman’s testimony as fact. He could have said there were unicorns running around nearby, and you would repeat it as fact. Moron.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          The prosecution with all their ‘expert witnesses’ could not refute Zimmerman’s testimony, why shouldn’t we accept it as fact?

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            “The prosecution with all their ‘expert witnesses’ could not refute Zimmerman’s testimony, why shouldn’t we accept it as fact?”

            And the same folks disputing the evidence in the Zimmerman self defense shooting blindly accept that prominent wife killer Orenthal James Simpson defied all statistical odds,a chance of 5 BILLION to one,and it was someone else’s DNA.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              But that was unshakable BELIEF that oj was innocent in spite of all the evidence. Hopefully, another prisoner will stick a shiv in him so he can get an inkling of what it’s like to be stabbed.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        You said:

        “The law E V E R Y W H E R E is all that is required is a reasonable belief that you are in fear of your life or serious bodily injury.”

        Then I called you out for being wrong. And, just like the bitch you are, you tried to hide behind what you think the law should be.

        You were wrong. You pretend to know what you talk about but you don’t. Don’t you feel stupid?

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          A law that requires you to flee is morally wrong. It makes the victim justify his actions.

          Natural law and common sense say that you don’t have to turn your back on your attacker. That is how it should be and that is what SYG restores.

          There are a lot of laws that are wrong and I choose not to obey them.

          During questioning, GZ was told that the whole incident was caught on surveillance tape. His reply to the police officer who told him that was, “Thank God”.

          Does that sound like the words of a man who was lying about what happened?

          Btw, there was no video. It was a police trick to see if he’d change his story.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            “During questioning, GZ was told that the whole incident was caught on surveillance tape. His reply to the police officer who told him that was, “Thank God”.”

            And in what passes for a mind among leftist radicals,thats as good as a guilty plea or confession to mass murder.

  33. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “Natural law and common sense say that you”

    Natural law and common sense say that you should not give a lethal weapon to someone who has demonstrated an inability to recognize natural law and common sense.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      There you go again — trying to deny one their rights because you disagree with what they say.

      You are a Nazi. Or a liberal democrat. Pretty much the same thing.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Fortunately your accusation needs no rebuttal since they are just your opinion. Words carry no meaning for you. You want someone intent on killing their spouse to get a gun. All for your buying convenience.
        Freedom freedom freedom…denied to the murdered spouse…

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Your reply would be comical if it wasn’t so despicable. I remember you laughing and dancing on the grave of the woman in PA who was murdered by her husband because she tried to defend herself and openly carried a gun to ward him off.

          You are a real piece of shit. And that is a fact that cannot be refuted.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Another twisted “opinion” of yours. It’s a handy tactic when one wants to demonize another. Is there anything meaningful you’d like to share or are you enjoying it up there with Humpty Dumpty?

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Are you denying that you laughed that this woman was murdered by her husband and that ‘her guns didn’t do her any good’?

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                I laughed at the prime example cited for DGU, what this woman and gun nuts think their guns are going to “protect” them. If anyone was in such a position, a woman brandishing her gun in public, it should have been her. She put out a lot of bad karma. Looks like it came back to bite her. Hell, she could have had the gun strapped to her arm and her hubby would have still found the opportunity to kill her. Some people have no business with guns, people like estranged husbands who are violent. So yea, the situation is funny, not her death.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  You cannot separate the two.

                  You are still laughing and dancing.

                  Your are still despicable scum.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Oh but I can and I have. Just another one of your valueless opinions,

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      I’d worry about the value of my opinions when they begin to have value with you. Then I know that I’d be wrong.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    And buy the way, it has been noted that gang violence leads to gun deaths and there seems to be a sense if “good riddance” expressed here. It’s just another case where having a gun didn’t “save” anyone. Same situation, different players, so don’t get all bent over me pointing it out.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      First, none of us are making the case that guns always save the gun owners. That’s a straw man on your part. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t; but they NEVER do when the person in question doesn’t have one.

                      As for your your other point about gang members, it is impossible to even attempt to convey an argument to you, when you can’t even draw a moral distinction between criminal homicide and lawful self defense. So long as you are unable to distinguish those cases, there is little point in discussing the difference between criminals killing each other, and criminals killing other people, which is much more subtle. You may recall arguing that Sandy Hook was a case of Stand Your Ground, which it most certainly wasn’t. (Even if you made that argument in jest, it still exposes deep flaws in not only your comprehension of self-defense, but also your moral compass generally.)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “As for your your other point about gang members, it is impossible to even attempt to convey an argument to you, when you can’t even draw a moral distinction between criminal homicide and lawful self defense.”

                      You are unable to separate the proximity of the intent from the action. Observe what happens when two people are involved in armed encounters. Self defense, under those circumstances is very “iffy” as is shown on many but not all occasions.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Gangs would have a lot less weaponry if drugs were not illegal. Drug profits buy the weapons for gang members to kill each other. Just another case of government being the cause of the problem which it then creates more laws to take care of.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      I would even agree that many times what constitutes “self defense is “iffy”. But the major point is that there are many tilmes when one needs self defense and without having a weapon that person is at a huge disadvantage. This is particularly true when the adversary is government thugs . I would prefer to live in a world where I dild not have to be concerned with evil intent of others who are armed. But until one can relilably produce that world it is asinine to oppose people owning weapons to be able to defend themselves.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Gangs would have a lot less weaponry if drugs were not illegal. Drug profits buy the weapons for gang members to kill each other. Just another case of government being the cause of the problem which it then creates more laws to take care of.”

                      I couldn’t agree more. If I’m not hurting anyone, it’s none of their business. This kind of crime has dropped off a lot since cocaine has lost its appeal.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      We agree that if you are not hurting anyone it is no one else’s business. But that is equally true of gun ownership.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Hey Bruce, mark’s ‘moral compass’ doesn’t have a needle on it.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I know handing a gun to a wife abuser or foreign national is immoral.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***it is asinine to oppose people owning weapons to be able to defend themselves***
                      That’s mark/babs right there.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Can’t answer that one can you? Husbands shooting wives in self defense.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      If handing a gun to a foreign national is immoral, then selling F-16s abroad must be positively sickening! To say nothing of giving military contracts to the Taliban, and Al Qaeda.

                      http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/07/31/the-u-s-military-has-awar ded-contracts-to-al-qaeda-in-afghanistan/

                      Gee, looks like Al Qaeda has “due process rights,” at least according to the Obama administration. So maybe they have Second Amendment rights too. Perhaps the only people Obama really wants to disarm is US citizens.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “… then selling F-16s abroad must be positively sickening! To say nothing of giving military contracts to the Taliban, and Al Qaeda.”

                      Thank you. I’ve been meaning to point out your abuse of the Tu Quoque fallacy. You use it almost as much as your straw man.

                      Do you think that handing a gun to a non-citizen, implying no background check, is immoral? How about a wife abuser?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Wait, you thinking selling arms to unstable foreign countries is a new thing under Obama?

                      Hahahahahahahahaha

                      Oh, Brucey. You don’t really understand international diplomacy much, do you?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I agree with the sentiment stated that all people have rights, including the basic right of self-defense. Including non-citizens and wife-beaters. That said, people who commit crimes should be imprisoned, until such time as they are considered to have “done their time” and released as free people once again.

                      As for the Tu Quoque allegation, it was actually a test, which of course you both failed. I can certainly understand the sentiment that governments should be sold weapons, but not individuals: It is a common sentiment that is shared by statists of all types, including yourselves. Somehow, you think that even though individuals (i.e. foreign nationals) can’t be trusted (i.e. to own a gun), somehow, magically, when they form a government, they become ok, not only to own guns but even things much more powerful and destructive than guns. It is a sentiment that I don’t share.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Incidentally, Mark The Troll sez that handing a gun to a foreign national is immoral.

                      Isn’t it interesting that his perception of morality depends upon where someone was born? To the extent that ethnic compositions vary from country to country, the idea is racist, and irrespective of ethnicities, the idea is highly nationalistic, that only People Of The Fatherland can be morally entrusted with guns, leads to the sorts of policies which, when they become dominant politically, lead to Bad Things. I personally don’t think morality is connected to birthplace, nor to which country one swears allegiance to.

                      Perhaps Mark The Troll can school us on why a resurrection of good, strong nationalism would be a good thing for America, or for the world. I’m sure he can guide us to The Path of Righteousness with his moral compass, needle or no needle.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “As for the Tu Quoque allegation, it was actually a test, which of course you both failed.”

                      Don’t fool yourself…that was no test. Looks like you’d like the US constitution to become the world constitution. If you’re going to let foreign nationals have guns shouldn’t we get this over and let them vote too? As for wife abusers, have you ever looked at domestic violence stats?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I guess you’re right, human rights should only be available to, and exercised by, US citizens. You’ve convinced me. Bombs away! All hail the Fatherland!

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      What other parts of the US Constitution are you extending to “humans”.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      What’s wrong with a little “Red on Red” shoot-em-up, as long as there are no bystanders involved? Didn’t the troops in Iraq enjoy the show when the shia and sunni terrorists got into a firefight? It’d be one hell of a reality show for national television.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark, I could debate the very existence of “morality”, but assuming that it does exist there are many cases where I would willingly hand over a gun to a sife abuser or foreign national. What if you had a common enemy shooting at you both and you had extra weapons?

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          ***Words carry no meaning for you.***

          Sez the master of situational ethics and the master of mutable definitions….

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Since you have demonstrated a lack of ethics and a willingness to prevaricate in order to advance your gun control mantra, should we not hunt down that irresponsible individual who sold you a computer and allowed you access to the internet?

  34. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    I had said: “Mark is only anti gun for everyone but police and him.”

    Mark replied

    “This is a flat-out lie. I think it’s intended to provoke (much as Zimmerman did) than to actually convey any other meaning. So continue to lie. It’s what the right does best. Sadly, it even believes those lies.”

    You reaction to everything is to deny gun rights to people for reasons of your own while bragging about your guns. You apparently think that you are better than everyone else and that you get to decide who should be able to defend themselves against thugs and government (but I repeat myself).

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      “You reaction to everything is to deny gun rights to people for reasons of your own”.

      What people? All people? Nope, not even close. Continue to lie to yourself and the rest. What people do you want to have guns? Foreign nationals? Felons? Wife abusers? What “people” do you want to have a gun?

      The only way any of your rebuttals work is if you make false accusations. Quite telling.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        I tend to believe you when you are on a rant rather than any of your denials.

        I’ve never met anyone as anti gun as you.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          You believe and disbelieve me at your convenience.

          More anti-gun than me? You don’t get out much do you?

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Yep, that right.

            I have a tremendous built in BS detector.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              You should try using it. There are a lot of fallacies, sweeping generalizations, and flat-out lies you could eliminate from your writing.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                You call them ‘sweeping generalization’. I call them universal truths.

                There are no lies in my posts. At worst, I may be in error on some facts but I never deliberately misrepresent the facts.

                You are so used to lying that you think that everyone does it.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  There are many lies in your posts, many of which try to falsely characterize me.

                  Did you ever read ” Thinking, Fast and Slow”?

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    Show me my lies.

                    You can’t do it.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You said I want only the military and myself to have access to guns. That is a total lie.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Read back on your posts, mark. Your listed disqualifications remove the right to own weapons from just about everybody except LEO, active military, and yourself.
                      Come to think of it, can you pass a background check?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You made the accusation, you told the lie. Go ahead and back it up. You can’t. I know what I have expressed then and know my intent now. The only reason to make that accusation is to demonize me. A common tactic of the right.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Never an answer when an accusation will serve to divert. Pure alinsky.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Do you even read what you write?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Speaking of Alinsky, what is your fascination with him? I notice it’s a typical right wing attack, but I find it quite ironic, since the Tea Party uses it to train their members.

                      FreedomWorks, one of the huge forces in the Tea Party movement, uses his book to train its members.

                      “Adam Brandon, spokesman for FreedomWorks, which has been organizing tea-party activists and includes Mr. Armey as chairman, says the group gives Mr. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called “Rules for Patriots” is distributed to its entire network.
                      Mr. Brandon called the effort to associate Mr. Obama with Mr. Alinsky “a double-edged sword.” While Mr. Alinsky was an avowed liberal Democrat, “his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective,” Mr. Brandon said.
                      He cited the group’s sending of tea-party activists to town-hall meetings. “When the first five people step up to the microphone to challenge a congressman,” he said, “it completely changes the dynamic of the town hall—he spends all of his time defending himself.”

                      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702046242045771772729 26154002.html

                      “Using the “Rules for Radicals” book by Saul Alinsky as a start, a campaign manager from the Washington, D.C., office of FreedomWorks speaks in Albany”

                      http://www.freedomworks.org/news/albanys-freedomworks-manager-tra ins-group

                      “Two dozen Albany Tea Party members participated in a training session through the national organization FreedomWorks. Attendees learned how to grow their organization and how to have more impactful and educational campaign strategies.

                      Nan Swift traveled from Washington D.C. to conduct the training and says there is one goal to the half day session. “We’re really hoping that at the end of the day everyone leaves with the tools to be able to examine bills and communicate free market issues to their neighbors and teach them how to get involved” says Swift.

                      The book utilized during the training is “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky.”

                      http://potomacteapartyreport.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/freedomwork s-doing-alinsky-strategy-training/

                      Ah, right wing hypocrisy. It is a never ending fountain of bullshit.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You’ll never know what the question is but the answer is always “Alinsky”. I don’t know what his fascination is with the guy.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      As I’ve stated previously: “Know your enemy as well as you know yourself and you will win every battle.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War. You libs have been operating off the alinsky playbook for decades.

  35. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark, the troll says:

    ““According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates…”

    A 22 year old survey of prison inmates? Yes, that’s where I’d go if I was interested in the truth?

    You become more of a joke with every post.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      As usual, a total lack of substance.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Funny ain’t it? The NRA freezes all firearm research in the 90s, then you use the lack of current firearm research to shrug off any evidence that go against your bogus views of firearms. Ah, the irony.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Interesting that during a time that the dems controlled most of government, the NRA was single handedly able to shut down all research on firearms.

        Your claim seems dubious at best, but let’s take that at face value for the moment. Does a study that old, and with a data base of criminals have any relevance today? Did it ever have any credibility?

        No one else thinks that it does either. Just you.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Of course it’s dubious to you. You had no idea about it until I informed you, just like most of the issues we’ve talked about. So you think it’s biased because I’m the one who educated you. You should be thankful! Now you won’t look as uninformed and ignorant on the issues that you care about.

          Let’s pretend for a second that you research this stuff on your own. That you have some idea of what you are talking about. Like I said, let’s pretend. Then you might have stumbled on this fox news piece that confirms what I said: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/01/obama-order-to-resume- gun-research-revives-old-debate/

          There are 100000 other articles that say the same thing. Do you know how to google?

          Regarding the relevance of the study, remember when I linked a piece where Gary Kleck, the author of the 2.5million DGU study said it is as relevant now as it was back then? Probably not. That would be inconvenient for you to remember.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            A study of law abiding citizens who made claims of defensive gun uses is much more credible than any study that used prisoners.

            Do you really believe that these felons would tell the truth?

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              Weird, that’s not what pro gunners say when they use the study, as well as the follow up study in 97, to show that only a small number of criminals reported buying guns from gun shows.

              I guess you use it only when it suits you?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Good to know that we can take your fact-free opinions and summarily dismiss them. Thanks for the info. I will (continue) to ignore your blather, now with a completely clear conscious.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            You? A conscious? It must be brand new and still in the original wrapper and never used.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Another fact-free “opinion” of yours? Still, nothing of substance.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                I used to think that you were 12 years old.

                Now, the way you cling to something that you think is clever, I have revised that downward to 4 years old.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  mark and his alternate personality babs may be adults, but they are operatives of the soros propaganda machine.
                  If it were not so much fun kicking them, I’d ignore them totally.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “If it were not so much fun kicking them, I’d ignore them totally.”

                    Playground tactics. Yea like that didn’t get old after the sixth grade… What a bunch of hypocrites.

                    It’s good to know we’re dealing with grade school bullies.

                    So sorry you don’t like what were saying.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              ***You? A conscious? It must be brand new and still in the original wrapper and never used.***

              His conscience was surgically removed and is kept in a jar on the mantle as a conversation piece, rather like Granddad’s half-pound gallstone.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        The NRA froze ALL firearms research in the 90’s? Got some kind of reference to back up that statement?
        I think it more likely that ‘firearms research’ was not yielding the results that hoplophobes desired, so they ceased federal funding for that research.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Got something to back that up?

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            ***think:
            1 [thingk] thought, think·ing, adjective, noun verb (used without object)
            1.to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
            2.to employ one’s mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation.
            3.to have a certain thing as the subject of one’s thoughts.
            4.to call something to one’s conscious mind.
            5. to consider something as a possible action, choice, etc.***

            Pay special attention to #1 and #2.

  36. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark says:
    July 30, 2013 at 11:09 pm

    “You said I want only the military and myself to have access to guns. That is a total lie.”

    Wrong on two counts. I believe that I said police (or government, but I didn’t say military. I think you want them disbanded and unarmed too.)

    Second, I offered an opinion. An opinion is not a lie, even if you disagree with it. Look it up in your book of fallacies.

  37. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    o·pin·ion
    /əˈpinyən/
    Noun
    A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on FACT or KNOWEDGE.

    You said I only wanted the police and myself to have guns. This is untrue.

    Continue to twist words. It’s what the gun loving right loves to do.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      ***Continue to twist words. It’s what the gun loving right loves to do.***
      REALLY? Isn’t there a fallacy that applies to that remark? You accuse those who oppose your positions of using the same tactics that you routinely employ. You’ve been caught in so many half truths, evasions, and outright falsifications that your posts should have a disclaimer automatically attached.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        If it is, you’ll have to look it up and actually learn something about presenting a valid argument.

  38. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Not NECESSARILY based of facts……

    Read your own words

    Based on your rants and expressed opinions, I have formed my own opinion of your and your beliefs. I might be mistaken, but a mistake is not a lie unless proven that I know it.

    Wanna try again?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Ray offers up another Humpty Dumpty defense. Good to know the weight of your “opinions”.

  39. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Zimmerman, once again showing how much he thinks he’s above the law. What a dick.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/31/1228002/-Zimmerman-stopp ed-for-speeding-had-gun-in-car#

    • I see, so you have never gone over the speed limit? If that is true, then you are obviously a 14-15 year old, and having conversations like this with you is a waste of good brain power.

      Zimmerman has a right to own that gun.
      He has committed no crimes, been found guilty of nothing.
      He was speeding, and he did the right thing, he informed the cop that he was armed.
      He wasn’t arrested because he was doing nothing wrong.

      How is doing your own thing, legally, being a dick?

      It is because you are completely ANTI-GUN, you want them all gone, except from the corporate owned government goons who you see as the ‘good guys who should have guns’, as opposed to the ‘unwashed dangerous people’ who live near you.

      Mark I am really beginning to wish I lived close enough to you to watch you get victimized, because I promise you, I wouldn’t use my gun to help you, I really wouldn’t, I would ignore it and ask you afterwards if you had learned your lesson.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Zimmerman has received many well publicized death threats. He’d be foolish not to carry a gun everywhere he goes.

        And who knows, speeding may just be a way to be sure that there are cops close by in case someone wants to act on those threats. /jk

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Don’t get so bent outta shape old fella. If you look at the transcripts of the encounter, I could see why Mark would call him a dick.

        “According to the police dashcam video obtained by inForney.com, Zimmerman made the Forney police officer aware of a firearm in his glove compartment at the beginning of the stop. After revealing the firearm, the police officer asked where Zimmerman was heading. Zimmerman replied, “nowhere in particular.” “Nowhere in particular, why is that?” responded the officer. “You didn’t see my name?” said Zimmerman. The officer then responded, “wow, what a coincidence.””

        http://inforney.com/home/local-news/item/1182-george-zimmerman-st opped-in-forney-texas-for-speeding

        This guy thinks he can get away with speeding because of his name?

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          You sink to new levels of stupidity daily.

          Zimmerman didn’t want to disclose his whereabouts because — c’mon, say it with me) people have made numerous death threats against him and his family.

          The tape made it online so why would he want to give any specifics?

          You are the dick.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          This guy thinks he can get away with speeding because of his name?

          Acting like a member of a prominent Irish American political family from Massechusets,eh?

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          You’re wearing your prescription perception filters again, aren’t you?
          1) The cop decided to let Zimmerman off with a warning. Z. was not accusatory about being stopped and complied with the legal obligations.
          2)Zimmerman was under no obligation to reveal his destination unless there was investigation of a criminal act. Speeding has not been elevated to “crime” unless there is an element of recklessness.
          3) Zimmerman was fully entitled to posses and carry a handgun, even though the Department of (in)Justice has illegally refused to release the handgun with which he shot his assailant. I suppose you think it’s akin to oj requesting his knife back?

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        “Mark I am really beginning to wish I lived close enough to you to watch you get victimized, because I promise you, I wouldn’t use my gun to help you, I really wouldn’t, I would ignore it and ask you afterwards if you had learned your lesson.”

        I’ve got a leftist radical union thug neighbor who threw a temper tantrum when popularly elected Gov. Walker and the adults in the legislature passed CCW and Castle Doctrine.I would’nt lift a finger to help him.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “Mark I am really beginning to wish I lived close enough to you to watch you get victimized, because I promise you, I wouldn’t use my gun to help you, I really wouldn’t, I would ignore it and ask you afterwards if you had learned your lesson.”

        See, that is where the rights view of right and wrong gets all tangled up in ideology. If I saw you being victimized I would do whatever I could to stop it. You may have a warped view on the second amendment but that’s no reason to turn my back on someone in need.

        It’s too bad your hatred drives you to be inhuman.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          You want to disarm (or make it harder for people to be armed in self defense) people thus creating many, many more victims and you have the nerve to call cav ‘inhuman’. You have balls. I’ll give you that.

          And I doubt that you’d even call 911, let alone help directly. Yes, that is my opinion.

        • You can pick up the phone and dial 911, and then when they show up they can clean up the mess, call for a ME and the victim (presumably me) would be dead. Your ‘help’ amounted to nothing.

          Welcome to reality, where criminals kill, and people like you sell our civilization to them one block and one right at a time.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            “You can pick up the phone and dial 911, and then when they show up they can clean up the mess, call for a ME and the victim (presumably me) would be dead. Your ‘help’ amounted to nothing.”

            we had an armed robbery here a few years ago,at a local bar.The bartender called 911,then called the sheriff’s department,and her husband.The sheriff’s department,40 miles away,beat the keystone kops to the scene.I realize that they had a whopping two blocks to travel,but still,that’s unacceptable.Her husband,12 guage in hand,was first on scene.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          ***If I saw you being victimized I would do whatever I could to stop it. ***
          Perusing your stated opinions, it’s YOU that will likely be the victimizer.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            You should consider not making arguments from an emotional point of view.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Always the unrelated accusation when you have no legitimate response. What part is “emotionalism” when I merely point out your history?

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          It’s too bad your hatred drives you to be inhuman.

          Hardly inhuman.My leftist thug neighbor,and his ilk,would leave us at the mercy of criminals.And they launched a recall of popularly elected Gov. walker five minutes after the polls closed,simply because they could’nt accept that the majority of the electorate had utterly rejected the failed socialist policies that had ruined our state,and that we were taking our state back.The mob violence at pro walker rallies by violent union thugs,and death threats against GOP legislators and teachers who spoke out against the union were also a nice touch.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          ***See, that is where the rights view of right and wrong gets all tangled up in ideology. If I saw you being victimized I would do whatever I could to stop it.***

          What are you going to do, stand across the street and scream “Shame” at the attacker(s)? Oh, I forgot, YOU have determined that you are one of the few who are ideologically pure, sane, and responsible enough to own a gun.

          I love the sanctimonious self righteous idiocy you constantly display. It’s a constant reminder of the corrosive effects of the socialist domination of the education system.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Well then, fuck you. Ill let you die. Feel better?

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              You won’t “let” me do anything. I provide for myself and I’ll defend myself if need be.

              ES&D.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Really? Nobody is an island. Did you magically appear fully formed with all the shit you have accumulated? People let you do lots of things. Like express utterly stupid ideas without taping your mouth shut.

                You have a valid point about the majority of murders being young black males involved in gangs. That seems to be the only positive contribution you’ve ever made.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Each one of us is a product of his environment.
                  The weak minded (such as you) tend to become socialists, believing that the government will be benificent and provide for them. They refuse to study historical evidence about totalitarian government and ignore all efforts to remove the blinders from their eyes.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Do you build your own roads? Do you have your own private military? Do you have your own constitution? Do you have your own science labs to create medicine to eep you alive? Do you enforce your own airspace? Do you have your own reserves when natural disasters occur?

                    Many things must be done as a collective or they don’t get done at all. Only an arrogant person would think they are the sole source of their livelihood.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Each level of government has it’s core delegated authority to act. No one is questioning that. What we oppose is the over reach at every level that tends to impose itself into areas where no such authority was granted.

                      Nice strawman though. Well, not really nice, but a strawman nonetheless.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          ***See, that is where the rights view of right and wrong gets all tangled up in ideology. If I saw you being victimized I would do whatever I could to stop it. You may have a warped view on the second amendment but that’s no reason to turn my back on someone in need.
          It’s too bad your hatred drives you to be inhuman.***

          Why do I doubt that you would exert yourself or put yourself at risk to defend or assist anyone, and shouldn’t one enjoy the spectacle of one’s avowed enemies suffering the consequences of their own attempts to undermine our Constitutional rights? It’s schadenfreudelicious.

  40. Thank you for some other informative site. The place else could I am getting that kind of information written in such a perfect
    manner? I’ve a mission that I am just now working on, and I’ve been on the
    glance out for such information.

  41. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark says:
    August 1, 2013 at 10:18 am

    “You made the accusation, you told the lie. Go ahead and back it up. You can’t. I know what I have expressed then and know my intent now. The only reason to make that accusation is to demonize me. A common tactic of the right.”

    You are hysterical. The left has always been known for accusing their opponents of doing the very thing that they are doing and the tactics that they themselves employ. If you want to know what the left is guilty of doing, all you have to do is look at their accusations. It’s their attempt to make it seem like everyone is guilty. Shameful and worn out. It won’t work against people who know your ilk.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      “You made the accusation, you told the lie. Go ahead and back it up. You can’t. I know what I have expressed then and know my intent now.”

      So rather than answer this question, you accuse me of doing what you are doing. So predictable.

  42. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Now here’s something RICH, straight from one of the Daily Anarchist writers.

    “I cannot in good conscience assist anyone to assume that power, especially over others. Doing so would be akin to providing bullets to a person I knew would use his gun in a robbery.”

    http://dailyanarchist.com/2013/07/31/the-faux-slavery-analogy-to- voting/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed% 3A+dailyanarchist%2Fblog+%28Daily+Anarchist%29

  43. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark says:
    August 1, 2013 at 10:23 pm

    “You’ll never know what the question is but the answer is always “Alinsky”. I don’t know what his fascination is with the guy.”

    Deflect, distract, and deny.

    That is your stock in trade. Whether you know (or would admit) it or not, you regularly utilize Alinsky’s tactics.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Deflect, distract, and deny. Wow, where have I seen this before?

      Do you like it that wife abusers, foreign nationals, the insane, and felons have easy access to guns?

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        When are you going to realize that neither an abuser nor a terrorist or a felon needs a gun to do harm?

        When are you going to realize that if the threat of the death penalty is not a deterrent to someone that an administrative slap on the wrist is not going to stop a bad guy intent on murder (or rape or robber) from getting a gun (or a bat or a knife or a rock) and doing that crime?

        When are you going to realize that making it more difficult for good people to get guns only increases their chances of being killed by the angry ex?

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          When confronted, he begins chanting the mantra.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Do you have any mode of response other than ad hominem? You should try actually saying something.
            Typical right wing baloney.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Why should I waste original thought on your repetative tirade?

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Repeatedly not answering the question, a simple one, will yield that kind of result. Can you answer it or are you chicken?

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Offended that someone would utilize your favored tactic against you?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Can’t answer the question can you. Somewhat painful to admit that the insane, felons and foreign nationals can get guns with no questions asked.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “When are you going to realize that neither an abuser nor a terrorist or a felon needs a gun to do harm?”

          Have I ever said unarmed people are harmless?

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            You hate guns. You want fewer people to have them. The bad guys don’t need a gun but quite often, the good guys do need them for defense. When you take away or diminish the ability to arm oneself, you hurt the good people more than the bad.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              I hate what irresponsible people do with guns. You should too but you’re so hung up on some survivalist mentality you can’t see the immorality in handing guns to people that have demonstrated they can’t act responsibly.

              Go ahead and demonize me all you want. It doesn’t change the facts. Bad people get guns and they should not. Letting others suffer for your convenience is deplorable.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                In a free society, there is no perfect security. The Founders knew that but freedom was preferred over security. As bad as so called gun crimes are, history has shown that when only the government (security) has guns, more people die at the hands of government than were ever killed by (non government) criminals.

                So, rather than deploring the misuse and criminal use of firearms, you actually revel in it as a means to disarming people. You don’t care about safety or security or freedom despite your diatribes and denials to the contrary. You have made that abundantly clear on these pages.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “So, rather than deploring the misuse and criminal use of firearms, you actually revel in it as a means to disarming people.”

                  That is so NOT what I am saying but I’m sure it fits the Mall Ninja logic somehow.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    Of course you will never actually say those words but the intent of your diabribes is well known. You’d be happy if everyone (but you and government) were disarmed.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Your perfect security thing is a red herring. Nobody is electing that except those wanting to disseminate lies.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    My perfect security thing?

                    You got it backwards bucco.

                    You claim that I want perfection in that area but I know that is impossible and even undesirable because the the consequences of such a state.

                    Freedom is not free and neither is it safe and secure. I prefer freedom above all.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      There is a difference between freedom and an unnecessary risk. A point lost on the Mall Ninjas of the world.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  “The Founders knew that but freedom was preferred over security.”

                  Then why did they confiscate the guns of any person who wouldn’t swear an oath of allegiance to the revolution?

                  Then why did they limit how much ammo you could store at home?

                  Then why did they pass laws banning conceal carry in many locations?

                  Then why did they pass laws banning the storage of loaded weapons in states like Massachusetts?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Oh, but that doesn’t fit the Mall Ninja narrative so it must not be true. Here, have some insults!!!! 🙂

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    You cannot seem to differentiate between war time enemies and people who civilly disagree.

                    In a free country, you do not have to own a gun but if you are a perceived threat, you SHALL NOT own one.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Yes,

                      A foreign national is perceived as a threat, besides not being an American

                      A convicted wife abuser is perceived as a threat. They often kill their wives.

                      An insane person is perceived as a threat.

                      A fugitive is perceived as a threat.

                      A dishonorably discharged military person is perceived as a threat.

                      A person with a restraining order is perceived as a threat.

                      A person who has renounced their U.S. citizenship is considered a threat.

                      Maybe you guys are so upset about this because you fall under one of these categories.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh, and here’s another tidbit that may have escaped you. All of the above are THE LAW. Most of us just want this enforced evenly and avoid the “private sales” loopholes.

                      http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/who-can-ow n-gun?page=all

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      THE LAW is that FFLs need to conduct background (registration) checks, but that others do not. Furthermore, a loophole is an unintentional oversight in law. When the above is written into law, it is not a loophole that private sellers do not need to conduct such checks. That is THE LAW. Calling it a loophole doesn’t make it a loophole, it just makes you a liar, Mark The Troll.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      The law is that there is a section of the population that cannot legally have a gun. It is unevenly applied thus creating the loophole where they can buy them anyway without so much as a question. It’s a loophole big enough to drive a train through. Mall Ninjas don’t seem to care that this prohibited group can still get guns with no questions asked. It might hurt their feelings to be asked if they have been bad.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      And of course we know that wife abusers and felons make great defenders of the constitution and Freedum everywhere.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll,

                      Once again, you lie. THE LAW is that FFLs need to conduct background checks and private sellers do not. That law is uniformly applied, contrary to your assertion, so that’s lie #1. Calling an explicit provision of law a “loophole” doesn’t make it so, but does make for lie #2.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Exempting private sellers creates a loophole for those wishing to avoid getting caught. It is applied unevenly to sellers and buyers because of this. It opens the door to straw purchases. If the law were applied evenly there would be no such term as gun straw purchases.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Enjoying this little game of chess?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Exempting private sellers does not “create a loophole,” when the law is specific about what it intends. I’d ask you to stop lying about this, but I no more expect you to stop lying than I expect a tiger to change its stripes, Mark The Troll.

                      Checkmate.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark believes that everyone but himself and government agents are a threat and should not have a gun.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Exempting private sellers allows them to circumvent the background check. You can mince words all you like in this little game of yours.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Mark believes that everyone but himself and government agents are a threat and should not have a gun.”

                      Of course that is just your opinion. I don’t believe that so you must think you are irritating me.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Wartime enemies? Since when does not wanting to go to war make you an enemy?

                      And I see you can’t answer to the ammo restrictions, conceal carry bans, or bans on keeping loaded firearms in buildings in MA.

                      How come? Does it go against your freedom delusion? And your weak attempts at revisionist history?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Wake up and smell the powder burns Bruce.

                      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179210/-Busting-myths-a bout-the-private-gun-sale-aka-gun-show-loophole#

                      This is a hilarious exchange that frames every lame excuse presented by Mall Ninjas.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Posting a list of straw men from the Daily Kos amounts to nothing at all, Mark The Troll, except as further confirmation that you are, indeed, Mark The Troll. In particular, such straw men make no inroads whatsoever into the argument that giving a corrupt government the information it needs to confiscate every gun in private hands is a Very Bad idea. To provide substance to the claim that they’re Straw Men, the first one is that an expanded background check law would “prohibit all gun sales.” I have never made that claim and am not aware of anyone making that claim. But, lo! such an argument stands refuted by the Straw Man article at your worthless link, Mark The Troll.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Can’t face the answer to the question can you?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I have already answered your question many times, but either because you are stupid, intentionally obtuse, or just Mark The Troll, you haven’t quite gotten the answer yet. So, in all its glory, here is the answer yet again. It’s rewritten here to be so clear that, yes, EVEN YOU will no longer be able to deny that I have answered it. So, without further ado, here it is:

                      I *would* support universal background checks when, and ONLY when, (1) they are performed in such a way as to make it utterly impossible for anyone, even including the NSA, to construct a list of who owns what, and (2) it is impossible for the government to expand the criteria of prohibited persons in such a way as to add political opponents of any party to the list of such prohibited persons. (I.e. “gulf war vets might have PSD, and therefore, are dangerous, and therefore, should all be excluded.”) (3) Due process for all: If you are excluded, you SHALL have your day in court to protest the prohibition. Maybe even before a jury.

                      Since you don’t give a rat’s ass about these provisions, I can only assume that you are more interested in tyranny than in reducing ‘gun violence” (although your interest in the latter is already questionable since you support measures that seem to increase the latter).

                      There, your question is answered. Now go away, Mark The Troll.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Since you don’t give a rat’s ass about these provisions, I can only assume that you are more interested in tyranny than in reducing ‘gun violence” (although your interest in the latter is already questionable since you support measures that seem to increase the latter).”

                      Actually I do give a rats ass about those provisions. CONGRATULATIONS we agree on something.

                      Have a nice day. 🙂

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      BTW, apparently I missed the response you gave. My apologies. The signal to noise ratio on this discussion things get lost. 🙂

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You say you are concerned, but have given no indication that you actually do. “Deny with your right hand, what your left hand is doing” is the creed of the Fabian Socialists. You obviously would implement universal checks without any of my provisions in place.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Holy shit. I agree with you and you still bag on me. Do you just like being pissed off?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Oh, btw, besides your straw man determination being totally without base (which part is the so-called straw man?) you have jumped into the slippery slope fallacy again. We have background checks with FFLs and we haven’t slipped into chaos yet.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “When are you going to realize that if the threat of the death penalty is not a deterrent to someone that an administrative slap on the wrist is not going to stop a bad guy intent on murder (or rape or robber) from getting a gun (or a bat or a knife or a rock) and doing that crime?”

          The death penalty is a deterrent in many cases. It’s the nirvana fallacy to require that it be perfect.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            When did I ever say that the death penalty will be a perfect deterrent to murder?

            What I did say was that no law will ever deter a person intent on committing a murder. If the death penalty won’t stop that person, what makes you think that a lesser penalty will stop them from acquiring a gun (if that is their chosen weapon)?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “When are you going to realize that making it more difficult for good people to get guns only increases their chances of being killed by the angry ex?”

          You do realize that both the intended victim and the would be attacker are working with the same rules. The cost of a gun puts it outside many people’s ability to purchase. Why do self defense advocates not work to make guns cheap or free? I don’t have to purchase free speech. Mall Ninjas the world over should set up gun loan programs.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            You do realize that the cheap handgun that was used for self defense by many poor people was first demonized and taken off the market by liberals, don’t you?

            Such compassion you have for the poor. Such racist attitudes too. Because some of these guns were misused, all such guns and all blacks were painted as being criminal in nature.

            Liberal/leftists, you are nothing but liars and hypocrites.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              “You do realize that the cheap handgun that was used for self defense by many poor people was first demonized and taken off the market by liberals, don’t you?”

              And it helped didn’t it?

              “Such compassion you have for the poor. Such racist attitudes too. Because some of these guns were misused, all such guns and all blacks were painted as being criminal in nature.”

              There you go lying again…oh, I forgot, it’s your “opinion”. You should take pause any time you start using the word “all”. Sweeping generalizations are not your friend. I’m not sure where you got the blacks/criminal thing. You must be inhaling.

              Liberal/leftists, you are nothing but liars and hypocrites.
              Reply

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                [Ray:] “You do realize that the cheap handgun that was used for self defense by many poor people was first demonized and taken off the market by liberals, don’t you?”

                [Mark The Troll:] And it helped didn’t it?

                Sure it helped, depending on what you wish to help.

                Police states and other totalitarian societies are *always* helped when freedoms are taken away, because ultimately, the final goal is for The State to be all-powerful and citizens to be utterly powerless.

                But, even not going this far, it is nevertheless sometimes the case that crime drops when freedoms are taken away. Do universal curfews, lockdowns, random searches, road checkpoints, and stops-and-frisks “work?” How about reading everyone’s email, chats, tweets, and posts? Does that “work?” Would it “work” to rescind the right to remain silent, such that people could be compelled to testify against themselves? Or allow the police to use torture? Or ban jury trials? Institute cruel and unusual punishments? Would those measures “work?” Sure, they might reduce crime, but do you really want to go there?

                Some of us value freedom above absence of crime, and are willing to accept higher crime rates in exchange for that freedom. Most of the measures above are entirely unacceptable, even if they “worked.” In that case, making guns unaffordable to poor people does *not* help because it amounts to a principle that poor people should not have access to tools of self-defense. Or, in other words, that their lives are of such little value that it would be preferable for them to not be able to defend themselves. Such an attitude is despicable to those who think that “all men are created equal” and that even the poor (which, are often disproportionately minorities) should have dignity and rights. Of course, to a racist such as yourself, it is of no great consequence that the minorities comprising a significant fraction of the poor are denied basic rights.

                [Mark The Troll:] “Liberal/leftists, [we] are nothing but liars and hypocrites.”

                Couldn’t have said it better myself.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  Thank you Bruce. Well said.

                  I wonder if Mark even knows the origin of the name of the much demonized type of hand gun.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Like I have been saying. You are ok with wife abusers, foreign nationals, and felons having guns, otherwise you’d support universal background checks.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    You are ok with an all-seeing, all-wiretapping, all-eavesdropping, and all-doublespeak, and none-too-honest government knowing about *every single* gun that *every single* citizen owns, otherwise, you’d oppose universal background checks.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      🙂 🙂 🙂 I’m not hearing a “no”. 🙂 🙂 🙂

                      As far as your allegations. Have you been digging around in your ass again?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          The high price of a gun makes its purchase prohibitive to many. Maybe we should pass a law that lowers the cost to fifty cents. Maybe we should have community – funded gun – loaner locations for people to get one quick when they’re poor.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Why didn’t he victim of the angry ex steal a gun from somewhere…she needs to defend herself for cryin’ out loud. Why are you making it more difficult for the the victim to get a gun to defend herself by asking for money? If one peels away the thin veneer of the self-defense logic (and most Mall Ninja logic in general) one finds all kinds of problems.