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. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Doug Nusbaum says:
    December 18, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    “Yes I did. And I did it because you appear to me to be so richly deserving of it. Or I am jealous of your raw intellect that can boil down a paragraph from Stephen Hawking to blah blah blah… However, here I present you with a challenge. Write a post that follows the rules of e-prime.”

    I told you, I do not read your posts all the way through because they are so boring. Somehow though, even when I find myself agreeing with you on a particular point, you manage to come across as an arrogant asshole which almost makes me delight in disagreeing with you.

    I will post as I see fit, not according to your wishes, whims, or challenges.

  2. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    Mark says:
    December 19, 2013 at 12:08 am

    ***Fabricating an argument like this serves no other purpose than to reinforce your own negative opinion of those who desire changes to who gets to own a gun.***

    All I have to argue with are your posts. Have you been lying the entire time?

    ***Remind me, Foreign Nationals, are they allowed guns under the Second Amendment?***
    In those states where there are prohibions, there are lawsuits to change that for LEGAL foreign nationals.

    4/1/2013
    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a motion for injunctive relief against Nebraska officials over a statutory prohibition that prevents non-citizens legally residing in the state from obtaining a concealed carry permit.

    4/23/2012
    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in federal district court in New Mexico challenging that state’s prohibition on the issuance of concealed carry permits to legal resident aliens.

    7/26/2012
    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a Canadian citizen who is a legal resident of Missouri, challenging that state’s statutory prohibition on the carrying of concealed firearms by non-citizens.

    11/4/2008
    BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the National Rifle Association, today filed a lawsuit in federal court against the State of Washington, seeking to overturn a state law that discriminates against legal resident aliens who own firearms by violating their Second Amendment rights under the equal protections affirmed by the 14th Amendment.

    The SAF/NRA suit is joined by three legal resident aliens who face loss of jobs and firearms collections, and possible prosecution for owning a gun for self-defense when their current Alien Firearms Licenses (AFL) expire. Under a statute unique to Washington State, aliens must possess an AFL to legally possess firearms.

    Decision: 3/30/2012
    BELLEVUE, WA – A Federal District Court Judge in Massachusetts today granted summary judgment in a Second Amendment Foundation case challenging that state’s denial of firearms licenses to permanent resident aliens.

    Shall I continue?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Shall you continue to evade the question? Apparently so.

      An Osama Bin Laden-like individual : Gun? Yes / No?

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        What a moronic response. Osama Bin Laden sought to do far more damage than shooting a few people, so even if you had given him a gun, he probably would have put it down and gone back to his planning, having greater plans. (On the other hand, do you really think he wouldn’t already have a gun? Many pictures of him include a trusty AK47, which he didn’t seem to need to use.) Then again, in your wildest dreams (I suppose this is what you are imagining/hoping) suppose he were to take that gun and just started to shoot people. Assuming he weren’t in a location where concealed carry was banned, the likelihood is that he would then presently be shot, with an average number of fatalities of, what did the title article claim? 2.4 deaths. (When mass shootings are attempted in places where carry is allowed.) But say 10 deaths, because Bin Laden is really capable. Say 24, ten times average. And then he’s shot and killed, and that’s the end of Bin Laden. As opposed to 3,000 killed on 9-11.

        Of course if he were to decide to go shooting in a place where carry is banned, such as a school or some inner city (such as New York City) then of course he would probably kill a lot more, but then his blood wouldn’t be on our hands, it would be on yours for banning citizens there from their right to self-defense. But, you’d blame us anyway because that’s what you do. The fact is, armed citizens do a lot more than laws do at reducing the toll of mass shootings.

        Come to think of it, “the law” hasn’t stopped any mass shootings. Because they’re already against the law, but they still happened. But more than a few mass shootings were cut short by armed citizens, to say nothing of the mass shootings that didn’t happen because the shooters feared going to those places where armed citizens could be reasonably expected to be.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          I hope you are capable of answering a simple yes or no question.

          Rather than cause any more frothing at the mouth, let’s consider an individual who crossed the border from Mexico into Texas. This person is not here legally, unlike the examples Ray gave to dodge the question.

          Gun? Yes / No.

          Bonus points for the reason why.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Not here legally, therefore criminal, therefore no gun. But, careful where you take this argument or you might end up endorsing more people to check residency status than you would prefer. After all, if someone doesn’t have the right to be here, then not only do they not have a right to buy a gun, they also don’t have the right to buy chewing gum or gasoline at the corner market. If you think there should be some legal duty for gun sellers to check residency, why shouldn’t there be a duty for grocers, gas station attendants, or any of a thousand other types of people to do likewise? Specifics, please. Also, note in your answer that the perpetrator of one of the largest mass murders in American history used gasoline and a match, so attributing some sort of magical properties to guns won’t cut it. I speak of the Happy Land Social Club fire, which killed 87. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              They should only get their residency check if they attempt to obtain a gun. And that attempt should include ALL exchanges, not just the ones at gun stores. The NRA has made sure that any attempt at a reasonable gun policy is denied. We all know there are reasons to deny someone a gun. We just have all these slippery slope arguments to keep anything reasonable from happening.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                I’m sorry, you didn’t answer the question. _Why_ shouldn’t residency check be applied to all transactions, for example buying gasoline? Which was used in a mass murder far larger than any committed upon American soil with a gun. If someone is here illegally, do they have a legal right to buy chewing gum? Yes/no.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Why should residency be a requirement to buy chewing gum? Does masticating a polymer present a danger high enough to justify liability insurance for the user? How is it one could confuse chewing gum with items that can cause great damage like a car or a gun? Your use of hyperbole is rampant and uncalled for.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    First, it appears that even you think that buying a car should be attended with an immigration check. (!!)

                    Second, that’s some nice flowery distraction there, with “masticating a polymer.” I’m sure there’s some high-school debate term for that turn of phrase, which however I don’t know.

                    But to answer your question, even standing on a sidewalk and not masticating a polymer is something that illegal immigrants have no legal right to do. Nothing changes when they masticate polymer, and still again nothing changes when they attempt to buy a gun, or buy a gun. They don’t have right to do that, either.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        P.S. Osama Bin Laden was, shall we say, under indictment for suspicion of crimes committed, so he doesn’t even have the legal right to stand on a US sidewalk, without facing arrest. Nevertheless you are asking if we think that, if he were on a sidewalk, should we be ok with giving him a gun? No, we should call the police and have him arrested. (I.e. the sort of thing the BATFE doesn’t want FFLs to do when felons try to buy guns.)

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Your logic is so twisted that you must be looking out your own ass.
        You choose to ignore evidence that refutes your argument and then throw in a completely spurious question. bin laden was never a legal alien resident, therefore he could not legally own or carry a gun within the borders of the United States.

  3. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Fritz said:

    “Ray, if you did not actually care at some level you would not waste time responding. My whole point here is that since faith is not based upon logic it is not productive to use articles of faith as a basis of rational discourse. There are so many different faiths which mostly stipulate “my way or the highway”. How could one ever rationally decide on one over the others? The attitude you exhibit here is one reason why so many otherwise rational folks end up in the democratic camp. The anti-rational attitude of the ultra right is too much to take so they choose the other side thinking that rationality might hold some sway where it surely does not with religious zealots.”

    I respond because you misrepresented my words and my position and totally discount something that is important to me and millions of others. Believing in God and having faith is something that this nation was founded upon and is still relevant to the vast majority of people.

    Further, my response to you is not aimed at you but to other readers who might just take your position as having real strength if left unchallenged.

    Being a Christian and having faith does not make one a zealot. You have a decided anti faith and even an anti Christian bias and that makes you the zealot, not me.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      So essentially you are saying that I am a zealot for rationality. Thank you. I do not intentionally misrepresent your words. To the extent that I may have done so I apologize. Of course many of the founders of the country believed in God. Most also believed in slavery. That does not make either religion or slavery right or wrong. There are good rational arguments against the existence of a God and against slavery. I find those compelling not the fact that the authority figures of the founders happened to be religious. The fact that millions of people today believe in God seems to me to show the low class intelligence of most people. Religion is one of the most destructive things we humans have come up with causing innumerable wars and horrible mistreatment of those who dared show their disbelief. It is truly difficult to respect your intelligence when you back up such a destructive concept.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        No, you are not a zealot for rationality. You are an anti God zealot.

        And you are a fool who is ignorant of the wonders of God and his followers and does not understand the difference between a Christian and deceivers who act claiming that they act in God’s name.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Name calling again Ray? Actually I am not anti-God. I simply doubt His existence and recognize that if He does exist then he has set up physical reality so we can’t prove His existrence. Thus my objection to your use of irrational (in this case religious) arguments. Actually If He does exist it seems likely that He would be more pleased for people to use the brains he gave them and be rational rather than take leaps of faith and try to ram them down other people’s throats.

  4. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    BruceNo Gravatar says:
    December 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    “Ray, I agree more with Fritz here. While you and he disagree strongly on religion, he is a friendly when it comes to guns and gun rights, and so it pains me to see you treat him with contempt for reasons unrelated to the forum’s topic.”

    Bruce, Fritz is telling me that I cannot defend my right to self defense because I believe my right come from God. If not from God, from whence do they derive? Man? Government? Sorry. I will not deny either the existence of God or His influence on our Founders when they created this nation. They were not granting rights then and the government that now permeates our life still has no authority to take those rights away.

    As for the ‘topic of the thread’, we have barely mentioned mass shootings in quite some time. This has been a far ranging discussion where nothing has been off limits.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Well, that being the case, let me see if I can help. The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” So, at the very least, the first founding document of this country (1) asserts that rights of men “are endowed by their Creator” (not otherwise specified) and (2) asserts that a main purpose of government is to “secure these rights,” which, notably, is very different from “granting” those rights.

      I would argue that the existence, or nonexistence, of God cannot be proven to anyone’s satisfaction on an internet forum. Therefore, I would suggest that we take it as a given that some people hold the axiom that God exists, and others hold the axiom that God does not exist, and that this particular point will remain unresolved amongst people here. Furthermore, if that larger point is going to be let to slide, then I submit there is little value in attempting to convey particulars of one’s belief.

      The fact remains that the Founding Fathers clearly believed that rights are inherent, and if anything, government has a duty to protect those rights. Note that the belief that rights are “inherent” is agnostic and can equally be held by believers and nonbelievers alike. So, why might the Founders have been thinking?

      In one person is alone in the forest, obviously, he can do anything whatsoever. There is nobody to stop him, or sanction him after the fact. When people get together, however, some might object to the actions of others, and seek to prevent some behaviors. Of course, it is likely that the strong will overpower the weak on this particular point, (e.g. rape) but the fact that the strong will prevail doesn’t make the acts, or the prevention of acts, moral or just. So one could further imagine that the Founders sought to institute a government that would be, in some sense, superior to otherwise strong people, and could act from the interest of the weak, against the strong. (E.g. by prohibiting rape, which is a violation of a woman’s right to control her own body.) So the Founders might have sought for government to protect the rights of individuals, rather than forcing them to do anything. Note that the Bill of Rights is a list of negative liberties, a list of things government agents can’t do (like, restrict speech or take away guns) rather than, a list of things governments must provide, such as health care, or education, or food, or retirement funding, or to bail out banks which lost large, risky financial bets.

      The alternative position is to hold that people have zero rights whatsoever. They can’t do anything at all, *unless* they are allowed by government to do those things. That is the position that rights “come from government.” I submit that a society founded upon the notion that one can’t do anything unless it has been specifically allowed, is not even remotely free in any sense of the word, and can not possibly be (1) what the Founding Fathers intended, or (2) what America actually is. Indeed the presumption of innocence maintains that a person is innocent until proven guilty, which means, the State has to prove that someone broke a law. But, if instead you couldn’t do anything unless it was allowed by the state, the burden should be for defendants to show which provision of law made their accused act actually legal.

      Note that this is true whether someone believes in God or not. So I submit that one’s belief in God has zero bearing on where rights come from, at least in a practical sense of what acts one may or may not do, or what the purpose of government was, is or should be.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Bruce,

        This reminds me of the movie “My Cousin Vinny” in the scene in which Vinny objects to a particular witness and the judge congratulates him on such a well founded, well reasoned, and well articulated argument. The judge then over rules it.

        What you say makes a lot of sense except that you left out the reason for most settlers to come here in the first place — religious liberty. Yes, that liberty includes the right not to believe in God and that right is still protected to this day but the vast majority of people and the vast majority of those that wrote and voted to approve the DoI believe in God and they understood that He was the source of our rights, inherent in our creation. And that is true whether one accepts that belief or not.

        Keep in mind that freedom of religion was in the First Amendment because of the value that they placed on it, even over the right to KABA.

        Believe or not. Like it or not, that is how and why this nation was founded and the rules haven’t changed. Though the sincerity of the practice might now be called into question, Congress has always started with a prayer asking for Divine guidance.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Bruce, I hold that “rights” do not exist in any “natural” sense but are a convenient fiction to work as social grease to help people get along in groups. So all rights are situational in that societies vary a lot. My personal preference comes down on the side of freedom, but that doesn’t mean that I actually have any “right” to freedom other than what I can grab and hold. Thus the extreme importance to those who share my preference for freedom of the continued widespread ownership of guns to help keep the politicians in fear of the people.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          Well, I’ll ask you the same two questions I asked Babs:

          First, in what manner can people positively grant rights, as opposed to merely not infringing them? In other words, what act can other people cause you to become able to do, that you couldn’t in principle do by yourself if they weren’t there or hadn’t done whatever they did? The right do do such an act would then be _granted_ by the others. But it seems to me all other people can do is keep you from doing things that you otherwise could have done, therefore, they can only limit your rights, although it might be the case that a government founded upon individual liberty could proscribe such limitations, threatening criminal sanctions against those people who would act to limit another’s rights in such a way. I.e. the Bill of Rights, which, however, tragically lacks explicit penalties.

          Second, do you feel any voice tugging inside, that says it isn’t just to force black people to be slaves, or to sit in the back of the bus? If so, where does that voice come from? It seems to me that if you have any sort of principles or sense of justice or fairness or morality, that would be enough to give rise to the voice. And wherever those principles come from, the rights also come from.

          That said, I agree with you on a practical level, one only actually has the rights one can maintain, because the sad truth of our existence on Earth is that there have always been and will always be people who, for their own benefit, want to take other people’s stuff, or control their lives or both, and they will do everything that is within their power to these ends. Especially including increasing their own power and authority, as by making mass appeals or promises to approve of such increases in power, or by purging those opposed, or by gradually disarming the general public in the name of ‘commonsense, modest, responsible gun safety measures,’ so as to be able to eventually eliminate the threat of future resistance. Which has historically happened many times.

          That said, my questions come from a position of principles, not practicality. Of course the North Koreans, or Southern blacks in 1830, or even possibly 1930, didn’t or don’t have much in the way of rights in any practical sense. But my argument is that this is because such rights were or are being _violated_ by others (Kin Jong Il and successors, or the KKK or racist gun control proponents, respectively) not because said rights were never _granted_ by others. And if these rights-now-being-violated weren’t _granted_ by others, where do they come from?

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            ” In other words, what act can other people cause you to become able to do, that you couldn’t in principle do by yourself if they weren’t there or hadn’t done whatever they did?”

            Perfect example of you again confusing the ABILITY to do something with the RIGHT to do something. Rights can be protected, ability is just are you physically able to do it.

            I answered your question about the “voice” argument that you brought up but don’t remember seeing a response when I asked you the same question back. Sorry if I missed it.

            If you want to claim that your “voice” is somehow divine, or nature, that’s ridiculous. That’s like saying people are then not controlling themselves and making their own decisions. People’s inner voice changes over time due to the experiences they go through in life. Simple as that, no need to try and make it more complex than it needs to be.

            The inner voice is man’s free will to decide his destiny. And you’re right, our rights did come from there.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              I think I did answer your question.

              “The inner voice is man’s free will to decide his destiny. And you’re right, our rights did come from there.” Sounds like you agree they’re inherent, then.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                No, you didn’t. I checked.

                How are they inherent? Since the voice of equality changes based on how you were raised and how you experience life.

                Inherent is defined as:

                Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

                synonyms: intrinsic, innate, immanent, built-in, indwelling, inborn, ingrained, deep-rooted;

                The voice telling you that equality is what is right is not permanent, essential, etc. It is not something we are born with, it is not innate. It is a product of our upbringing, environment, and decisions we make.

                Not inherent in the least. If it were, then, you say that someone is born with a voice that can never change. If they are racist, then they remain so for their entire lives. Something that is obviously and demonstrably wrong. We have the capacity to change, and as we do, so does our inner voice.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                I wish you would also respond to the ability vs rights part of my post. I think it lies at the center of your misunderstanding of the two concepts. You think they are one and the same.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  I take ability to do things as given. Other people can only prevent you from doing them (i.e. abrogate your rights) or they can prevent others from stopping you, or punish them for attempting to stop you (i.e. protect your rights). No one can _grant_ you the right to do anything. If you disagree, state a counterexample.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Easy. The right to buy. Already went over it a hundred times. You only have the right because it is written into law. Otherwise, any business could refuse you for any reason they chose. But they can’t because they know they would then face the consequence of the law. Right means you have the ability and you have the protection of the law.

                    You have the ability to murder someone. You don’t have the right to. Why? Because it is the law that you can’t.

                    Those are abilities “as given”. Correct? They are only abrogating your rights if you have the legal right to do xyz. You don’t have the right to murder, you have the ability to. If they stop you from murdering someone, are they abrogating your rights? Of course not. Because you don’t have the legal right to.

                    Starting to see the difference? Ability means nothing in terms of rights. Nothing.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I didn’t say ability had anything to do with rights. “I take ability as a given.”

                      I agree that some rights are properly abrogated, murder among them. (But, not killing in self-defense, where we might well disagree.) Other rights deserve _protection_. But protecting a right is not the same as granting it. The right to buy and sell at mutually agreeable terms seems like a good one (not that you support it … you want government intrusion into an entire category of transactions …) and the fact that such terms can’t be found when dealing with some vendors doesn’t abrogate the right in general. You’re just going in circles.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Bruce, the fact that we agree on a practical level is the only important thing here. There is no common idea of what is just, fair, or what rights actually consist of. So “rights” are just a social construct which varies over time and situation. Thus my belief that all ethics are situational. Had you and I been raised in the South prior to say 1840 it is unlikely we would think that slaves had any rights at all. The concept of the “White Man’s Burden” lasted a lot longer and is still implicit in much of socialist thought. I have my own personal sense of ethics which are admittedly largely founded upon my personal upbringing. Read Jack London’s The Sea Wolf for a classic tale from over 100 years ago that discussed these concepts brilliantly. If these ideas were old even then it is unlikely we will come up with any truly novel concepts now.

      • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

        I liked what you said. I saw no information that I believed incorrect, and no errors in logic. I read what said, only because it was directly below your post. I am not sure what the purpose of his post was. All he did, at the end, is point out that at best our politicians are hypocrites, and at worst they are followers teachings that are contrary to what Jesus taught. I guess that would make them followers of the anti-christ. Maybe someone here, perhaps Ray can point to where Jesus told people to pray in public that others may witness their prayers.

        But on to other matters. Evolution is NEVER wrong. It simply is. That is, those most likely to survive and reproduce, actually survive and reproduce. And for the past several thousands of generations, those tribes made up of authoritarian people who preferred to defer to the wisdom of authority rather than think for themselves have almost always won over and destroyed tribes made up of autonomous rational individuals who lived in harmony with nature. This is probably the main reason that the libertarian party has gotten nowhere in 40 years. Its basic premise is contrary to human nature that evolution created.

        I lay this idea out in my #1 ranked article orwells boot. (by number 1, I mean that every search engine returns my article at the top of the list after paid links — usually under the name factotum666)

        But Bruce points out that the constitution and the DoI nowhere state that the rights of individuals come from government. Whether those rights come from a drunken stupor, the invisible flying spaghetti monster, nature, Zeus, Yahwe, or any other place or thing, they definitely do NOT come from government, and come with humans before government. Government is created by humans. One of the purposes of that creation is to protect the rights that humans have, and in certain circumstances to determine which rights are superior to others when there is a conflict.

        the constitution looses none of its validity if god ceases to exist. The teachings and morality of Jesus retain most of their value even if there is no god. As near as I can tell, the only ‘thing’ that the teachings of Jesus loose if god does not exist is their terror component. You know, if you do not do what I (not me really, but god, for whom I speak) want then god will smite you.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Actually Ray I am saying that I do not give a damn what your faith says. If you wish to prove something then you need to deal with rationality. Only a very narrow segment of people who happen to share your apriori assumptions will accept arguments from religious authority.

      • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

        God (the one in which I do not believe), Fritz, how I wish that this were true:
        ” Only a very narrow segment of people who happen to share your apriori assumptions will accept arguments from religious authority.”

        Unfortunately, as I show in my article orwells boot (#1 on all search engines) the vast majority of people are authoritarian and stupid (they do not think for themselves, but defer to authority), and will refuse to learn from the physical world if such learning requires that they go against established dogma.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Good point Doug. I guess I was thinking of our little group here in these pages rather than the populace at large. I was assuming unconsciously that we self selected for rationality which evidence strongly implies is not accurate. My bad. Still, when people do not share apriori assumptions, say Christian ethics, they are unlikely to accept arguments from Christian authority figures though they will accept other authorlity figure’s over rationality. By the way, I do agree that many of the concepts taught as Christian are good ideas from a practical social construct. I just dislike the idea of them as “morality” from on high.

  5. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Except that the second amendment was never written with the intent of giving the right to keep and bear arms to ordinary citizens for the use of personal self defense.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Further, that it is a god given right is in the end absolutely meaningless. If there is no one to protect that right, how much is it really worth? What happens if you having your arms confiscated for no reason? You have legal recourse which will fight for your rights. God given or not, without a mechanism to protect them, it’s pretty useless to argue where they came from. God isn’t going to protect your right if it is infringed, but the government will by having the 2a in place as a legal defense.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        Wait. So you’re arguing that the function of government is to _protect_ rights? That’s nice. Thanks!

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          No, I am saying that people, such as yourself and Ray, who try and make the argument that they come from a supernatural being aren’t really saying much because it doesn’t matter you think they come from if the person or being who gave them to you has no power to protect them.

          My position is that government grants rights. It is obvious because without the Bill of rights, we would not have any of the legally protected rights that it lists. It is obvious because no where in any holy scripture or history does it talk about god given rights to firearm technology. It is obvious because, well, I’m sure you read my other posts on the issue so I don’t need to repeat myself.

          Tell me, which rights in the BoR are given by God and which are given by man?

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Straw man. I didn’t make the argument that rights came from God. I made two arguments, (1) the Founding Fathers clearly believed rights came from “their Creator,” which I even editorially mentioned “not otherwise specified,” but this isn’t my assertion, it’s theirs. (2) I made the arguments that rights were ‘inherent’ to people, starting from the lone man in the forest who can do anything he wishes, and that this argument leads to the conclusion that rights are protected by governments, they aren’t granted by governments. Furthermore, I explicitly said that this line of argument neither requires a God nor the absence of a God in order to be valid.

            Try again.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              Straw man? Haha. Please.

              You claimed the founding fathers said our rights came from our creator. Do you support this argument or not? If you don’t, then why are you referencing it? Then distancing yourself from it when I challenge it? Are you trying to avoid taking a position?

              You aren’t saying anything and then you try and use your non-position to argue back? Sillyness.

              How are firearm rights inherent? Please explain.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Firearms rights are inherent in that someone out in the forest, who happens to come by saltpeter, charcoal, and sulfur, together with tubes (e.g. bamboo) and small stones, has nobody to prevent him from mixing them together, shoving the mixture in the tube, pointing it at whatever, and igniting the mixture. There is furthermore no one to stop him from making the barrel any length he chooses, or attaching a silencer or a shoulder stock or a telescope or a normal-capacity magazine or anything else. Only governments can come in and decree that if the barrel is too short by 1/8″, that it’s a felony and he has to go to prison. That would be an example of an infringement, not an example of a granted right.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  You are confused. That isn’t a right. It is an ability. A man in the forest has the ability to do all those things. A right is something that is granted and protected.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    You are defining a right as “something that is granted and protected by government.” I don’t define rights that way, and neither does Walter Williams, who defined a right as “something about which one has the sovereignty to act without permission of others.” Such as print and hand out leaflets on a street corner.

                    Neither does the Constitution, which, notably, doesn’t say “You are allowed to hand out leaflets.” Instead, it says, “government is not permitted to restrict freedom of the press.” It’s something you can already do, and government isn’t allowed to keep you from doing this.

                    Let me guess: you think education and health care and housing are “rights.” Whether or not you do, I don’t. They are entitlements, not rights. Rights are what you can do without having to ask others, or pay a fee, or buy a license, or receive a special dispensation to be allowed to do. You can just print up handbills and hand them out, and the government can’t censor them (which would infringe the right to freedom of speech), can’t keep you from printing them (right to freedom of the press) or holding meetings where the contents were discussed (right to peaceably assemble). If you need permission to do something, then it’s a privilege, not a right. You have to ask, and you might (or might not) be allowed to do it. If you are, you have the privilege, if not, you don’t, but rights aren’t at issue here. Unless you are in a social class where, members of that class don’t have to ask, but members of other classes do have to ask. That’s what makes them the “privileged” class. But in a free country based on individual rights, having different classes of people conflicts with the idea that all people are created equal. (Whether they are created by other people, or by God, I should add.)

                    Furthermore, there was about a hundred years where you could just make, buy, or trade guns, without a fee, license, permit, permission, background check, or anything else. That would be a strong right to arms. Today, the right is now merely a privilege in most cases.

                    Must go now.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Like I said earlier, a right is nothing unless it has protection. You can say you have xyz rights, but if you act on it and you don’t have anyone or anything protecting your right, it means nothing. The safeguard, acknoledgement, and protection of a right is all that matters. Whether you philosophize that God, Jahovah, nature, etc gave them to us, that means nothing. It isn’t anything you can prove and it is not very relevant in the grand scheme.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      This isn’t rocket science, but it eludes you. The only thing other people could possibly do, is prevent you from exercising your rights. If not for them, you could do your thing. So your rights existed beforehand, others can only infringe on them. The Constitution prohibits the government from infringing certain rights, some enumerated and some not. But the government doesn’t grant the rights. At best, it could criminalize the infringement, by others, against you or me exercising our own rights. That is not the same as granting rights. Of course, the government could also act to infringe your rights directly. FWIW that’s prohibited, in some cases, by the Bill of Rights, not that the government gives a damn about anything written therein. But you already had the right to, for example, worship whoever you pleased, at least in the sanctity of your own thoughts. That was most certainly not granted by government. As I say, it’s not rocket science. But it does seem to utterly escape you.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Again, you mistake ability with rights. If it weren’t for someone stopping you, you would have the ABILITY to do xyz. But if you want to say, you have the RIGHT to do xyz, that speaks the body that protects the right.

                      Like I said many times already, the whole granting of rights is meaningless, moot, and unprovable. So why even talk about this? It doesn’t matter. We have the ABILITY to do certain things, which correspond to rights that are protected by the government. That is all that matters.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Here’s an example. You want to buy a gun in your town. For whatever reason, you have been blocked because of whatever personal/political issue. If no one fights for your right, your right means nothing. It goes as far as the nearest person who has power and influence to infringe on your right. Let’s say a gun store exists and the guy just doesn’t like you. Only one in town. The big guy wins over the little guy because the little guy has no protection. Meaning his rights mean nothing. Doesn’t matter who you think gave them to you. You still don’t have them respected.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      So, in that town, your rights aren’t _protected_. Although you think your position is the government _grants_ rights, in that town, even if you had the right, it isn’t protected. So the grant would be meaningless. You (theoretically, following your argument) would want, at best, government agents to go in and force the dealer to sell to you. In that case, they would be protecting your right, not granting it. I think you are confused about what it means to grant a right and to protect it.

                      If you want to do something without asking for permission, other people can do only two things: they can try to stop you, one way or another, or, if that happens, they could try to stop those people who are trying to stop you. If they force you to do something you weren’t going to do, that’s not about rights, it’s either calling you to duty, or enslaving you. If they were going to force you to do something you were going to do anyway, their behavior is superfluous and adds nothing to the discussion. But of the people who would prevent or dissuade you from doing that: they are acting to curtail your right to do something. The second group of people, who act to stop the first group, are protecting your right, against interference by others. But neither group “grants” you any right. Tell me, what action could someone, anyone, take, that would grant you a right? At best, all anyone could do is rescind a prohibition that used to prevent exercise of the right, or positively act to protect your own exercise of the right. But that isn’t the same as granting it.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Refer to my previous post:

                      “Like I said many times already, the whole granting of rights is meaningless, moot, and unprovable. So why even talk about this?”

                      Your entire second paragraph is meaningless and nonsensical.

                      Does God grant the right to vote? Or as you prefer, is the right to vote inherent, and how so? How about due process? How about not having to testify against yourself? Or the right to be safe from unwarranted searches and seizures? The right to a trial by jury?

                      Explain how those rights are inherent/could possibly come from a god. They are obviously rights devised by men based on what they concluded were fair rights for their citizens to have.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “You (theoretically, following your argument) would want, at best, government agents to go in and force the dealer to sell to you. ”

                      At best? Is that how you think your rights are protected? No, they are protected in that you have legal recourse if they are violated.

                      Agents going in? What kind of dramatics go on in your head?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “At best” means the strongest possible response, obviously. The most they could possibly do. Less strong responses, such as after-the-fact legal recourse as you cite, would also serve to protect the right, perhaps after some delay. But in any case, you seem to be agreeing that these actions, whether forcing the sale or sanctioning a non-sale, are acts that _protect_ one’s right. They don’t _grant_ the right. So you seem to be conceding my (and Ray’s) argument that governments don’t grant rights, at best they merely protect them.

                      Or are you prepared to argue that arresting the dealer for not selling to me, amounts to a grant of my right? Because that’s all the government did here, in this example.

                      (Suppose “Bob” had his shop before I was born, and I never set foot in it until my 30th birthday, at which point I do, but he refuses to sell to me, which I report and and he is then arrested for not selling. Please describe, in this scenario, the moment at which my right to buy his product was granted. Oh, by the way, Bob inherited the store from his father, who himself also inherited it, etc., for many generations. The store has been in operation for hundreds of years, much longer ago than business permits were invented.)

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “They don’t _grant_ the right. So you seem to be conceding my (and Ray’s) argument that governments don’t grant rights, at best they merely protect them.”

                      Man grants and protects them. Unless you want to prove how god/nature grants you the right to trial by jury or the right to vote?

                      ” Please describe, in this scenario, the moment at which my right to buy his product was granted”

                      You never had an inherent/granted right to buy his product. If he wants to sell to you, that’s his business. His property, his merchandise. You only have the right because government says there can be no discrimination in who you sell to if you run a business that sells to the public.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Once again, that’s not granting a right, it’s protecting it. Agents wouldn’t step into the situation upon my denial-of-sale, unless I already had some sort of right to buy the good. Which Bob abrogated, hence the intervention. So I already had the right walking in. When did I get that right? Who gave it to me? (Recalling that the store has been in operation for hundreds of years in the same line of business.)

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      The intervention happens because the government is reacting to your legal rights being violated. The rights that the government wrote into law. Those were violated such the intervention. Very simple.

                      “When did I get that right?”

                      When it was written into law. For some Americans, very recently with the Civil Rights Act.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      But, that store has been in operation for hundreds of years … before America even existed.

                      You apparently are taking the position that Americans can’t do anything at all, except those which have been specifically permitted by law. Everything else is prohibited. Unless it’s written into law, you can’t do it. That’s quite a view of a state founded upon individual liberty you’ve got there. One both I and history happen to disagree with. Bitcoins are a recent invention. Where is the law that said Americans could buy them, back when they were first invented? (Which, according to you, they don’t have the right to do unless and until a law permits them.)

                      You apparently disagree with the whole notion of rights, the things one can do without obtaining permission from others. According to you, everything we can do, we do so because we have permission to do so. Everything is a privilege, and rights don’t exist, apparently. According to you.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “For some Americans, very recently with the Civil Rights Act.”

                      You would think “all men created equal” would have been enough. Maybe they’re not so god-given after all.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      What is the essential difference between a right and a privilege?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Who cares how long the store has existed? What does that have to do with anything? Really. What can that possibly matter?

                      You seem to have run into a wall and can’t get out so you turn to dramatics when before it was a perfectly rational conversation.

                      “You apparently are taking the position that Americans can’t do anything at all, except those which have been specifically permitted by law. ”

                      How am I taking this position exactly? By saying that you are protected from businesses discriminating against you because government wrote a law saying that couldn’t happen? Why are you mad at me? Be mad at the businesses who choose not to give service to certain people. Like Bob in your example. Shouldn’t you be mad at him for violating your right to buy his stuff? Why are you instead then mad at the government for writing a law that says he can’t refuse you service? Which then gives you the legal right and protects it. Your “god” given right means absolutely nothing to Bob, as your example shows.

                      So, please, spare your dramatics. You again are embarrassing yourself.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Obviously, the reason the length the store has been in business is important, because it predates any law “granting” the right of people to buy things in it. (Once, again, this isn’t rocket science.) Fur trappers didn’t get permits to trap animals, and more permits to sell pelts, and settlers didn’t have a law that allowed them to buy pelts. Some people trapped animals and skinned them, and sold the pelts, and others bought them. Same with guns. This is what it looks like when there’s a right to engage in commerce.

                      As for your accusation of “dramatics,” it is amusing to observe how many words you write on that subject, as opposed to discussing the matter at hand. The one who is being dramatic is you. Which makes your accusation hypocritical.

                      “Why are you mad at me?” Complex question. I wrote my post without anger.

                      Please answer what is the difference between a right and a privilege. I don’t think you know the difference. At least so far, everything up to now that you have described as a right, you have defended as a privilege. (What the law permits one to do.)

                      Finally, speaking of “embarrassing oneself,” you are the one embarrassing yourself when you write that. It doesn’t reflect badly on me and it doesn’t make you look good either. It’s merely a distraction, I suppose because you are losing the argument. What’s [your opinion of] the difference between a right and a privilege? You _do_ think they are different, no?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Are you serious? LOL Not rocket science? What on earth are you talking about? Now you want to argue that businesses are bound by the laws of the time when they are first started? What kind of absolutely backward statement is that?

                      Go back to your example. You say you have a right to buy. Bob refuses to sell to you. So what good is your right to buy?

                      The only right you have to buy from a business that sells to the public is the one that is written into law. This is obvious and I don’t understand why you still don’t understand it. Remember Bob refusing to sell to you? Where were the angels that came down to protect your rights?

                      When you answer how the right to vote and the right to a trial by jury are god given/inherent in nature, I will answer your question about right and privilege. But you keep refusing.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Are you serious? LOL Not rocket science? What on earth are you talking about?”

                      The expression “It ain’t rocket science” is meant to convey that the subject matter at hand is elementary, not advanced or complex. It means that even people or ordinary or below-ordinary intelligence should know, or should be able to understand, what is being discussed. However, apparently, “It ain’t rocket science” exceeds your knowledge, so I guess it is rocket science, after all, to you. My sincerest apologies for overestimating your aptitude.

                      “Now you want to argue that businesses are bound by the laws of the time when they are first started?”

                      Not at all. I’m arguing that if someone could buy and sell things hundreds of years ago, or thousands of years ago for that matter, there must have been some sort of right to barter or trade or whatever, long before some government came in and “granted” those rights. In other words, those are inherent rights. (“Not rocket science” … but forget I just said that.)

                      “Go back to your example. You say you have a right to buy. Bob refuses to sell to you. So what good is your right to buy?”

                      It is no good of course. But the fact that he violates my rights, doesn’t mean I don’t have them. In fact, if there were a government that _protected_ my rights, I could have him arrested. But doing so puts the government in the position of being _protector_ of my rights, not _grantor_ of my rights. This is apparently the point you fail to grasp. More rocket science, I guess.

                      “The only right you have to buy from a business that sells to the public is the one that is written into law. This is obvious and I don’t understand why you still don’t understand it.”

                      I think you are the one who doesn’t understand. I can do anything I want, so long as it isn’t prohibited by law. (Our disagreement right here I believe is at the heart of our entire disagreement about our world views and a lot else. The whole nature of what government is, does, or should be, and what it means to be free is right here, exposed for the world to see in your comments vs. mine. This is a core disagreement.) You think everything is prohibited, except those things which have been specifically permitted by law. I think everything is allowed, except those things which have been specifically prohibited by law.

                      “Remember Bob refusing to sell to you? Where were the angels that came down to protect your rights?” Wait… So you’re trying to ridicule me, but you’re asking about where are the supernatural beings who _protect_ my rights? The police protect my rights. (At least, they’re supposed to.) And they are completely real. Your ridicule would be more if you ridiculed my position rather than your own. If anything, I think that angels _grant_ rights, rather than protect them.

                      “When you answer how the right to vote and the right to a trial by jury are god given/inherent in nature, I will answer your question about right and privilege. But you keep refusing.”

                      “All men are created equal.” No person has any more inherent right than any other to declare themselves king and rule by decree, and to do so violates the rights of others. (Do you disagree? Do you think that some people are more worthy, fundamentally, and at birth, and they _do_ have a right to boss you around, that no one else has? And that no one has the right to object to their leadership, i.e. vote them out of office, as it were?) Similarly, no person has any greater right than another to decide what is ‘fair’ and what is ‘unfair’. Therefore, each of us has the right to decide that ourselves, i.e. by serving on a jury and deciding facts and law. (Do you disagree here too? Do you think some people are born with special powers, and we have to bow down before them and accept their decisions, without any say or argument?)

                      In particular, can you raise and objection to, say, North Korea, where the ruling family is hereditary, where the judges are hand-selected by the government, and where all of the above is codified by law, and signed by the Premier? It seems to me you can have zero objection. If indeed rights are granted by The State, and The State is led by one ruling family, and all the laws are self-consistent and codify that the family is, indeed, In Charge, what objection could you possibly have? Rights are nothing more than what the government says they are, period. Well, I have an objection! Such a system violates fundamental human rights of the subjects! Rights they are born with, but which that particular State crushes!

                      Your turn.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      1. I know the expression, thanks. Are you stupid here or trolling? “What are you talking about” refers to what I say in the next sentence. That you claiming when a business was started has anything to do with anything. I can’t believe you said something so absolutely stupid and then continue arguing it.

                      2. Again, you are confusing the ability to buy and the right to buy. The right to buy means no one can refuse you service. It is your right to purchase something and it become your property. The ability to buy means that, like in your example, you can TRY to buy, but if someone refuses, your supposed inherent right means nothing. It means nothing UNTIL an entity protects it. That entity, in present day, is the government. Get it? And this has nothing to do with barter, or whatever. This has to do with the right to buy from a licensed business. Not trading in furs or whatever idiotic examples you have in your head.

                      3. So without the government, your rights mean nothing since there is no one to protect them. The government protects your LEGAL rights, not your supposed god given rights. If there is no law that protects you, you will not be protected. Simple as that. There was no black that protected people to refuse service to blacks, so they were refused. UNTIL a law made it clear that such a situation would no longer be tolerated.

                      4. “You think everything is prohibited, except those things which have been specifically permitted by law.”

                      Really? Where did I say that, ever? Can I also make up things that you believe? Hyperbole, lies, and idiocy. All you really have in that statement.

                      5. ” Similarly, no person has any greater right than another to decide what is ‘fair’ and what is ‘unfair’. Therefore, each of us has the right to decide that ourselves, i.e. by serving on a jury and deciding facts and law.”

                      Your sentences contradict each other. One sentence you say no one can decide what is fair and what isn’t, the next you say you decide based on the law. Laws are made by men who decided what is fair, and with their power, put that into law. You struggle with your 2 selves. One who understands how this world works, the other that wishes it were anarchy. It isn’t, sorry, we live in a society with man made laws. If you say no one can decide what is fair or not, then you basically eliminate the idea of the government protecting your rights. Since the government is acting as to determine what is fair. And they do this based on legal rights, not whatever god given rights you claim you have.

                      What rights are you born with and what proof do you have of this? The only rights that are said to be born with, like the ones in our constitution, were agreed upon by men. Mortals, you see. They decided it and wrote it as such. Their human minds and their human hand made it so.

                      How come women didn’t have the right to vote until it was added to the constitution? Is the god given right to vote only for man?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Let me take your own argument one step further. If, indeed, rights come from government, then what is your objection to slavery, or to only allowing men to vote? It would seem to me that, you, as a liberal, would (or should) support freeing the slaves, or women’s suffrage, but what is your objection to the situation that existed before? If the law says that blacks are to be slaves, that’s the end of it, right? If the law says, white men, and white men alone, can vote, that too is the end of the line, no? But yet, I would expect that something inside you is tugging, pleading, “No, that isn’t the correct answer! Something must be wrong here. The law is incomplete!” Do you admit to having such a voice? “Not only should they vote, blacks also should be able to sit anywhere on the bus!” Anything like that?

                      What, pray tell, is that voice coming from? (Or, do you think blacks should be, and remain, slaves until such time as they are freed? And that women should not vote, until men are good and ready to let them? I would be surprised if either of these were actually your position, given that you seem to be quite the liberal. But maybe I’m reading you all wrong, and in fact, you really do think blacks inherently deserved to be slaves, unless and until white people decided to free them.)

                      So, either (1) you have the internal voice pleading that something is wrong, and if so, what is it and what is it based upon? or (2) you really do think women and blacks, have exactly zero rights, unless and until they are granted by the stroke of a white man’s pen. (Which doesn’t sound very liberal, progressive, and enlightened of you. Which is it? (Or, to prevent charges of presenting a false dilemma, is there a third option that I am overlooking?)

                      For that matter, do gays properly have zero rights until they are granted by some straight man’s pen? You ok with that? I’m not, and my reason is inherent rights. Born, natural rights, which such policies abrogate, and which it is only proper to repeal. (Tough luck for the North Koreans, though, no?)

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      No. I never made any argument that a law as it stands is the “end of the line” and that it can’t change. You are making that argument alone.

                      The voice is that of equality, which we as a people have matured to understand, even though it was written on paper by the founding fathers hundreds of years ago. Are you trying to argue that my feeling for equality is something religious? It is absolutely taught and learned at the same time. How you were raised, what values you were instilled with, and then what you learned after you matured.

                      Many don’t believe in equality. But many more are starting to, just in phases because change takes time. First women’s rights, then blacks, then gays and other non-mainstream sexualities, then who knows what. Maybe robots. It has to do with the climate of the time in question. When change is ripe and able to happen, it will. But it is fought for, not just granted, like many of the rights of the white man are.

                      Luckily we have the constitution to support us in these changes. It allows for these changes to happen since it espouses equality at its core. Why has it taken this long for a judge to decide that banning gays from getting married violates the equal protection clause? Why has it taken so long to make arguments that are obvious and basic? Because the time wasn’t right yet and the people weren’t ready to fight for that change.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Where does “equality” come from? From what some white slave owner wrote down on a piece of parchment, or from something else? And, still tough luck for the North Koreans who have no such parchment?

                      (Plus, you said you’d answer the difference between a right and a privilege, but this is more important and I can wait. I think we’re finally getting to the real disagreement here. I note that I wrote “all men are created equal” prior to your response, so perhaps you and I have some core area of agreement after all.)

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      It comes from the people who decide that things are not equal, just, or whatever, and change the law. Societies change, advance, etc. It has to do with people, nothing else. Even with the founding example of all men are created equal, it obviously did not mean anything to even the founders themselves. They did not count blacks as “men” in that sentence. They were subhuman and it took people to see this, decide it wasn’t right, and fight to change it.

                      Where do you think it comes from?

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            babs (Liar and idiot, extraordinaire),

            Are you even slightly aware of the argument over whether to ADD a BoR to the Constitution?

            Those opposed were afraid that the day would come when idiots like you would believe that the only rights we had were the few that were listed as protected rights. People argue for our ‘Constitutional rights’. There is no such thing. Our rights are not granted by any man or document or government. Our rights are rights. PERIOD! Our rights are innumerable and are limited only when they impose a burden or damage to another person’s rights.

            Why would you even want to argue that a government, any government owns you and your right to be free?

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              Our rights are rights period? You’ve having a hard time voicing your position here Ray.

              Like I said, it doesn’t matter who you might think gave you your rights. That entity isn’t here to defend them, so how important is that distinction?

              All that we know for certain is that government defends our rights. That’s all that matters. Fantasize all you want about who gave them to us, who cares. It’s absolutely moot.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Yet those who behave badly and forfeit those rights still get a gun. Nice…

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

          • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

            This is really sad. It is like you never actually read the constitution or the BOR.

            “Tell me, which rights in the BoR are given by God and which are given by man?”

            Maybe the 6th amendment grants a right to a speedy trial. But all other amendments talk about what the government can not do. Over and over again you see some variant of “The right of the people shall be protected” Nowhere do you see a variant of “The government grants to the people this right”

            Perhaps, Babooshka, you see no difference in these two uses of language. But most Americans do, and certainly the writings of our founding fathers indicate that they saw a difference.

            Also, the term god is a read herring. Nowhere is it used in either the constitution or the BOR, though some religious fanatics claim that the term Year of our Lord meant that the authores of these documents were all devout evangelical christians who believed in a state religion.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Babs, I think you are accurate in a sense that rights come from government. Legal rights obviously do. Bruce, Ray, and most libertarians do not think of “rights” as equal “legal rights”. Since I do not see rights as having any existence outside of a social construct, I have no kneejerk reaction to government creating rights over society creating rights. Frankly rights make no difference, only power does. Government has huge power. If one has a desire for indivlidual liberty one wants governmental power to be vastly reduced or eliminated entirely. The 2nd amendment provides a legal basis for individuals to keep weapons and thus potential power to reduce government. For freedom lovers this is very important. For socialists who think agovernment is essentially benign the 2nd amendment is anti progress. It all comes back to apriori assumptions about life and what is important.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        You truly are an idiot and a liar.

        Our rights are God given and government are established to protect those rights.

        In what era and in what country to your learn about America’s founding?

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Lie. The Federalist Papers go into depth discussing exactly that. “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tench Coxe.

      Birthright of EVERY AMERICAN = “ordinary people”. Soldiers use guns to keep themselves alive when others intend to do harm = “personal self defense”, which, incidentally, when writ large, is the same as the defense capability of an army. This is irrespective of whether said army also has an offensive capability.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Are you a liar or an idiot? Or both?

      The BoR grants no rights.

      Let that sink in.

      Our rights — all of them are ours by birth. The BoR was written as a reminder to government that those rights were untouchable by government (for law abiding citizens). Yes, rights may and should be restricted for certain crimes.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Why are you so focused on who grants the rights, which no one can prove and would not matter even if they could? The only important issue is who defends the rights. The government defends the rights. This is a fact. Your mumbo jumbo about whatever supernatural being giving you whatever firearm rights is not a fact. Sorry.

        “Our rights — all of them are ours by birth. ”

        We have the right to vote by birth? Very interesting.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Again, you exercise your right to display your ignorance and idiocy for all to see.

          With every right there are responsibilities. A child is generally incapable of exercising the right to vote because they are generally unaware of issues or the consequences of their votes — much like the typical person who votes or any democrat.

          Personally, I believe that most 18 year olds are still not capable of properly and responsibly exercising the right to vote and that vote has the potential to do far more harm than the right to KABA.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “With every right there are responsibilities.”

            You mean like the right to sell something…like a gun… to a terrorist or a spousal abuser? The seller has responsibilities when handing a lethal weapon to someone else. Oh shoot, I forgot, it’s a gun… no responsibilities there… how convenient!

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            Wrong. Again. A child is absolutely able to vote.

            You say: A child is generally incapable of exercising the right to vote

            How are they incapable of this? Being aware of the issues has nothing to do with being able to vote. They could punch the ticket if it weren’t for the law. Simple pressing of buttons.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              babs,

              Do you realize how much time you could save for other purposes if you just shortened your posts to read:

              I’m babs and I am a lying idiot.

              That’s what people see whenever you post.

  6. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Yes, the militia are the people. The militia were also incredibly regulated. Arms were inspected and registered. Mandatory role calls. Fines for not having the proper equipment. Which militia do you belong to?

    Your average gun owner is a citizens and not a soldier. They are not members of a militia. They are ordinary citizens who bought guns to protect themselves and their families. They do not follow any rules of any militia. So please stop with your ridiculous fantasies. You make no sense whatsoever. Literally, your second paragraph is absolutely nonsensical. You try to put words together into sentences, that’s about it. As for meaning, there is none.

    It isn’t a birth right either, you don’t get the right until you reach the appropriate age to buy and own a weapon.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      There was no law banning children from buying guns until after a hundred years went by after this country was founded. At which point the right of children was, what’s the word? Ah yes, “infringed.” Up until that point, it was up to the parents, and the parents alone, to decide (& enforce) what their own children could and could not do.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      I am part of the Unorganized Militia, which is codified in federal law.

      10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      But, this aside, “militia” is a “citizen army.” It is theoretically impossible to have a “citizen army” if citizens are prohibited from having guns. For that matter, having guns that would be reasonably useful to soldier, i.e. other than revolvers and duck guns, in this day and age.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Alright, so you now claim women who aren’t in the National Guard don’t have 2nd amendment rights.

        Interesting.

        Please continue.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          I made no such claim. (Straw man again!) You asked me which militia I was a member of, and I cited federal law. If you don’t like the fact that federal law doesn’t recognize women as part of the disorganized militia, take it up with them, not with me. As far as I’m concerned, all armed Americans are part of the militia, and would come to the aid of the common defense if attacked. But that’s just me. (And not just armed with guns, either. Anyone capable of taking defensive action.) Yes, even women.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            Order of events:

            1. I said 2a was not written to protect individual rights to self defense.
            2. You said the 2a does indeed protect those rights , because as you say, individuals are part of the unorganized militia.
            3. So then logically, those who are not part of the organized militia, like women not part of the NG and men over 45, they do not have the right to individual self defense with a firearm, based on your argument.

            Is this hard for you to follow?

            As far are you’re concerned? No one cares. You cited the law that directly contradicts the idea that the 2a gives individual self protection firearm rights to all. Based on your argument, it’s only men of a certain age group and women in the NG.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Membership in a militia is not a prerequisite to enjoy the right protected by the Second Amendment; it’s a right of “the people”, not a right of “members of the militia.” As in “the people have a right to free speech” and “the people have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The first clause of the Second Amendment is explanatory, not restrictive. What right is being protected wouldn’t change if the article read “The moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” People have the right to keep and bear arms for any purpose, or for no purpose. Including the purpose of personal self defense. Or to hunt, or to collect, or to shoot invaders. Or tyrants. Although it’s no surprise that would-be tyrants want to limit that a bit.

              (Speaking of embarrassing yourself with arrogant stupidity.)

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                A second ago you were trying to argue that the “people” were part of the unorganized militia, thus covered by the 2a. Now you’re running from that argument. I can understand why since I pointed out all the holes in your argument, so retreat you must. Why even bring the militia argument up if you’re going to in the end fall back to “all people” have 2a rights? Why bring up quotes saying that the people make up the militia only to run away from them 5 minutes later?

                “People have the right to keep and bear arms for any purpose, or for no purpose”

                Yes, they do today. But not as originally written, intended, or executed with history as a witness. But thanks for your expert opinion.

                The tyranny argument is always interesting. One because it is never mentioned in the 2a. Two because it specifically goes against Article 3 Section 3 of the Consitution: Treason.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  I apologize that you were unable to follow my argument. I’ll try again, but simpler.

                  (1) Is a militia a “citizen army?” (Yes/no)
                  (2) If citizens can not legally own guns in a certain country, is it possible in principle for that country to have a lawful militia? (yes/no)

                  Note that my questions have nothing to do with the National Guard, the Second Amendment, Federal Law, or you or me.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Simpler? Hardly. Why are you talking about abstract countries when we were talking about America?

                    I can understand why your questions have nothing to do with the national guard, the 2a, federal law, or anything else we’ve been talking about. Because those paths have so far contradicted your arguments. So you want to go into the abstract? For what purpose?

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      You are operating under the mistaken notion that the militia and the National Guard are one and the same. They are not.

                      The law authorizing the NG was only written about 110 years ago. That law was enacted 130 years after the BoR and the law codifying the militia.

                      Is there someone that you can sue for your miseducation? Or did you skip getting an education and to straight to blog posting?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Uh, where did I make it seem like the miltia and National Guard were the same? Please point it out. They are obviously not one and the same and this from the current law, which Bruce mentioned above.

                      10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

                      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
                      (b) The classes of the militia are—
                      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
                      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

                      Now what’s the point in saying this “The law authorizing the NG was only written about 110 years ago. That law was enacted 130 years after the BoR and the law codifying the militia.”

                      Before that it was only males of 17-45 who were considered part of the unorganized militia. You know, the people that the second amendment was written for?

          • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

            Somewhere along the line, was not the constitution amended, according to the terms of self same constitution, in a way to make women the legal equivalent of people / men. Thus all laws referencing men, now referenced women in the same way?

            As to what arms a person was allowed to own. Given the the government granted letters of marque which assumed the ownership of fully rigged ships of war, I guess that people could own whatever they could afford, up to and including cannon and the ships to carry them.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          “right, so you now claim women who aren’t in the National Guard don’t have 2nd amendment rights.”

          so,by your convoluted “logic”,civil rights are contingent upon membership in the military reserves?

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            Logic? Libs don’t need no steenkin’ logic!

            Making citizenship and the associated rights contingent on military service to the nation might be a good thing, especially considering that the overwhelming number of military service members are politically conservative. The sheeple who would never put their lives on the line need have no say as to how they are managed and constrained “for their own good”.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Haup, Heinlein promoted the idea of military service beling the cost of the franchise. I think it is asinine in the extreme for two reasons. One, slavery does not promote the development of character. Two, democracy doesn’t work. You seem to want people indoactrinated to militarism controlling everyone else. That seems pretty equal to having members of Murder, Inc. dictating to everyone. I refused to murder for Uncle Sam back in Viet Nam. The draft dodgers were more brave and intelligent in general than the “sheeple” who went willingly to the slaughter.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Fritz,

                I agree with you on both counts of slavery not being good, and democracy not working even in theory. Like David Friedman, I too have struggled with the idea of national defense in an anarchy. Could it possibly work for there to be for-hire armies that could protect a stateless nation? It’s not obvious to me how this would work, while still preventing their ascent to totalitarian power. But national defense of some kind is necessary, because evil exists in the world, expressed in the form of greed in others who seek to take your land and your freedom, to either kill you or rule over you. Either you, collectively, are able to resist them (or, destroy them) or your society will eventually get taken over or taken out. But the Founder’s standing army represents no less of a threat in this regard then do enemy nations. So there appears to be a dilemma: join a standing army in the belief that outside threats can be contained by it, while hoping that the inside threat is acceptable, or go without a standing army and risk conquest. Within the context of this dilemma, it isn’t dishonorable to join the standing army, even if it is sometimes used for evil purposes. (Exonerating Haup.) Furthermore, that argument still applies even in a stated nation, if you will, so long as measures are being taken to reduce its power and eventually become stateless. (Because the alternative is to be taken over by conquest.) What are your thoughts?

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  ***So there appears to be a dilemma: join a standing army in the belief that outside threats can be contained by it, while hoping that the inside threat is acceptable***

                  The very reason that the oath of enlistment is to support and defend the Constitution rather than the state, an individual, or bureaucratic agency

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    My apologies for misspelling your name. While I agree the oath you speak of, is a pledge to defend the Constitution and not people or agencies, nevertheless, I think you could agree that the military has been used for purposes contrary to the Constitution. For example, the National Guard choppers and Delta Force operators sent to Waco TX in 1993. Oaths aren’t the palladium of liberty that they might be. For that matter, all the members of Congress have sworn the same oath, and about half of them can’t pass gun control laws fast enough, notwithstanding the Second Amendment. So I believe, and possibly Fritz agrees, that the US military is not necessarily the force for Pure Good that it might be, and especially not with a certain CIC firing a bunch of senior officers and replacing them with ones more aligned with his wishes. Oh, and he swore that same oath too, FWIW.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s been a while since Waco. Were the NGs called up? If they weren’t called up, they were serving at the direction of Texas’ Governer. I don’t knw about any “Delta Force” types on site there.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  This was well thought out and written. Thank you. I will not pretend to have all the answers here. My guess is that private protection would morph over time into what is necessary for true defense. Unfortunately standing armies are historically misused about 100% of the time. OK, I am overstating the case, but they are used always to control their own populace. That is why politlicians are so willing to put huge money into militaries. They are the ultimate in intimidation. On a practical level, the USA has very little defense now. Mutually assured destruction is still the name of the game and will be until one figures out a way to have a 99% missile defense and a way to keep suitcase nukes from being planted all over the country as is possibly the case today. This toally ignores biological weapons, potential nanoweapoans, and emp weapons. so it is hard for me to see how an armed populace is at much greater risk than we are today with our government and military causing the USA to be hated all over the world for our attempt at world hegemony. If people here could be properly armed with the same weapons the average soldier carries, it is hard to see an army running over us. Thus the importance of the original concept of the 2nd amendment. As it stands, we, the Russians, the Chinease, and most other countries with militaries use the threat of outside armies as a patriotic appeal to keep the taxpayers laying golden eggs. Notice when the USSR fell the US made all kinds of little attacks on countries like Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Irac, and Afganistan. We allowed the Chinease to trade with us until they have now become a viable military threat. We pretended that Russia was becoming a free enterprise while Putin, et al stole the big money and consolidated power so that Russia is now a military threat again. How could an anarchy staying out of the business of other countries do any worse?!! Yes we could be nuked out of existence if we were an anarchy, but that is no different than now. Basically an anarchy acan’t be conquered for it has no head.
                  One helpful thing that an anarchy could do is to become as self sufficient as possible which is nearly the definition of freedom. Millions of families raisling their own food, buildling their own homes out of native materiels, using alternative energy, etc would also make us a lot harder to conquer.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                When nothing is paid, the value is even less.
                You apparently are free of any taint of patriotism, sacrifice, and responsibility.
                Denigrating those who have fought, bled, and died in defense of this nation costs you nothing. You enjoy the benefits of the Constitution without having contributed to the defense of the principles enshrined therein. You are a turd.
                The draft dodgers were cowards, plain and simple. They could have registered as conscientious objectors, maybe served as medics. They proved their “bravery” and “moral superiority” by running away. They could have stood their ground and did their time as did a black boxer by the name of Cassius Clay. Instead, they ran.

                “There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.”— Ayn Rand

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  BRAVO! Well said, indeed.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    I could do better if he was close enough to swing at. A couple of pounds of 1911 upside the head might not change his attitude, but it would make me feel better.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      ROFL!

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Intelligent men found the slavery of the draft repugnant then and now. You are right that I am not tainted by patriotism, thank you. Any organization should exist to benefit its members not the other way around. As to responsibility and sacrifice, I am both for my family and occasionally friends, never for government.
                      It is funny that you act so big and brave here online. I very much doubt you would be so brave in person. I am 61 years old but still over 6 ft, about 250 pounds, and one of the strongest men at the gym. You would be even more asinine than you are in these pages were you to try hitting me in person. Of course military types would use a gun because they usually are balless worms. Otherwise they would have been brave enough to tell Uncle Sam to slick it up his ass.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***Otherwise they would have been brave enough to tell Uncle Sam to slick it up his ass.***
                      Just like you did, or did you run to Canada instead? Got your free pass from carter?
                      Yeah, I’m big and brave on line, just like you are. By the way, I do carry a gun. Mostly because of self righteous strutting liberal thugs like you.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      There you go with your liberal ad hominem treatment again. You can have your carried gun. I’ll vote instead.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Also, flash that substitute penis at me and I’ll have you arrested for assault with a deadly weapon.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      If you see my handgun, it’s a safe bet that it would be the last thing you see on this earth. I don’t pull my handgun out for threatening display.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      So your liberal thug thing is just empty rhetoric. It must be tough having such a small penis.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll’s post is actually quite revealing. The fact that he thinks you would pull your gun on him for little or no reason, speaks volumes about his lack of understanding of the concept of lawful use of deadly force. It is easy to see how someone who thought ‘gun nuts’ would pull out their guns and shoot others because they didn’t like the way they looked, or whatever, would want to disarm anyone or everyone. (Except for police, of course, who somehow aren’t human and don’t suffer from the failings that the rest of us have.) It speaks of a gross misapprehension of the whole concept of self-defense, of armed resistance, of concealed carry, and so forth. It is perhaps a little more easy to see why the lack of reason, and indeed the continual use of logical fallacy, is so necessary, to someone with emotional revulsion at a grossly misunderstood concept of individual liberty and responsibility. It almost makes sense to see why Mark The Troll has adopted the strategy that he has, coming on to a board expressing how those places which bar lawful use of guns to ordinary citizens, suffer greatly increased fatalities when madmen go on shooting sprees, and arguing that guns should be even more tightly restricted than they already are, and, indeed, which were completely restricted at the locations of most of the famous mass shootings, which is why they should be more tightly restricted elsewhere. Almost.

                      It is also telling that he thinks guns are used as compensation for people with small penises. (Which, admittedly, does little to explain why a lot of women also carry.) It again speaks to a gross misunderstanding of the core of the issue, lawful use of deadly force. Then again, it is amusing to think about the consequences of this deviant belief. Suppose it were actually the case that men with short penises, carried guns to compensate for this. Liberals in general, although not necessarily Mark (or Babs), are not only tolerant of, but actively promote, deviant sexual practices, and indeed are working hard to normalize things that have been taboo for thousands of years. Why should it be that the practice of carrying guns in compensation for poor endowment elsewhere, should be so discouraged, when, for example, the homosexual agenda is supposed to be taught to elementary school students at government schools, or gay marriage should be enacted, or people should be put out of business for refusing to cater to such people? I suppose the usual dictum still holds true, “if it weren’t for double standards, liberals would have no standards whatsoever.” Note that I’m not passing judgement on gay marriage or teaching it in schools, only that I’m comparing the way in which that aspect is being inflicted upon society, while simultaneously observing that the worst insult some liberals can come up with for gun owners, is that they are doing it to compensate for an imagined sexual failing. So there is clearly a double standard. Plus – before anyone says that “guns kill” – please look up the actuarial statistics of living the promiscuous, gay lifestyle, before making that remark.

                      But, in any case, even if the Second Amendment read “Some men, needing to compensate for having short dicks, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” (1) the right protected is a right of the people, (2) that right would not be restricted to men with short dicks, or even to men only.

                      Oh, I see this post is getting long, and a certain liberal here has a whole bunch of butts to sniff, just waiting.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Bruce: You show an amazing grasp of the entirety of the argument, as well as the likely proclivities of “dear mark”.
                      I must have royally insulted his “Fritz Knese” persona to bring about an immediate direct attack from mark.
                      His fascination with male genitalia is another matter for concern. I wonder how mark would respond about my carrying a .380 “pocket pistol” when it’s commonly believed that those compensating for genital inadequacies carry overlarge guns?
                      Well, here’s hoping that mark and his various personalities have conniption fits.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Huap,

                      Thanks for your kind remarks. I actually believe that Fritz and Doug are different people from each other, and also different from Mark The Troll. Doug and Fritz are actually on our side, with respect to the gun issue, which is very far from Mark. They disagree very much with military service, though, which sets you (and Ray) and they far apart.

                      From a tactical standpoint, it would be in Mark The Troll’s interest to seize upon any disagreements between those on our side, so as to pit us against each other. In fact, that is how things transpired. Mark is, indeed, a Highly Qualified Troll, and has rightly and justly earned the title. I submit to you that the reason for Mark The Troll’s lightning-fast response to one of your posts to Fritz was merely to accomplish this act of trolling. Doug even got involved, against us, and in particular, against me, although I think we (Doug and I) have largely resolved our differences. For that matter, I have been attempting to find common ground between you and Ray on one hand, and Fritz and Doug on the other, with limited success. Although the military issue is important, in my opinion it stands beneath the issue of an individual right (note to liberals: not privilege, but right) to self defense.

                      I can see how a draft dodger and a soldier are not likely to see eye-to-eye, and might indeed come to blows if they were to meet, but nevertheless I observe that both of you support a broad right to self defense, while Mark The Troll and also Babs, do not. They are the real enemy here, ‘here’ being a board (1) about anarchy, and (2) disseminating original research that mass shootings in rights-revoked ‘gun-free’ zones are far more lethal than those where the right to bear arms is observed. Within this context, Mark The Troll and Babs are clearly disrupters. Or, to be far more kind than either deserves, dissenting voices. But more like enemy, because they would employ the force of government to forcibly disarm us (e.g. to rid us of ‘assault weapons’ or normal-capacity magazines) if they, or at least people they apparently support, had their way. And that’s what enemies do. It’s not about discussion, it’s about use of force to impose one’s will upon others. Which is really not so very different from rapists, as a matter of fact.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Yeah, I’m big and brave on line, just like you are. By the way, I do carry a gun. Mostly because of self righteous strutting liberal thugs like you.”

                      Please note that I have you on record as willing to choose to either murder or assault me with your weapon because you think I’m a self righteous liberal thug. Nice going there Mr. Responsible Gun Owner. This makes the second time you have threatened me online.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      ” wonder how mark would respond about my carrying a .380 “pocket pistol” when it’s commonly believed that those compensating for genital inadequacies carry overlarge guns?”

                      gee is THAT why I carried that 11.5 pounds of M-14 on my last tour?

                • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                  “Denigrating those who have fought, bled, and died in defense of this nation costs you nothing.”

                  Can you please enlighten me. When, exactly, was the last time that anyone died in “defense of this nation”? Specificially, when did any of these countries actually attack us? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_o perations. With the possible exception of Afghanistan? According to your logic, a medic in the Whermacht was more patriotic than those who fought against hitler.

                  This is not to say that some of our actions may have been the least bad available, or in some sense justified. But I do not think that they could be classified as defense without some use of humpty dumpty speak.

                  I am not sure of your definition of cowardice. Is a person who follows orders and is part of an invading army (How else would describe the US forces in Viet Nam or more recently Iraq) because he is afraid of the consequences of doing otherwise “brave” in your opinion? I always thought that bravery was acting on the basis of ones beliefs regardless of the views of others. What, exactly, is your definition. Oh — and when you respond, please try and respond with something other than name calling. As I have said earlier, that is the rhetorical technique of someone who lacks either information or logic to support their position.

                  As to Ayn Rand. She pretty much fits the definition of a bad psychopath. And her moral guide was himself a child killing psychopath William Hickman. If I were you, I would find someone better to quote.

                  In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, “What is good for me is right,” a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. “The best and strongest expression of a real man’s psychology I have heard,” she exulted. (Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.)

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Doug, well put. I need to think about Rand’s quote a bit, but offhand I think she was probably correct from an individualist’s perspective. How else to define morality than what seems good for you?

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  “The draft dodgers were cowards, plain and simple. They could have registered as conscientious objectors, maybe served as medics. They proved their “bravery” and “moral superiority” by running away. They could have stood their ground and did their time as did a black boxer by the name of Cassius Clay. Instead, they ran.”

                  Well put.And now we’ve got deployment dodgers,who come up with every excuse under the sun to avoid actually doing what they’ve drawn a paycheck for for years

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Babs (Liar and idiot, extraordinaire)

      We have the right at birth but common sense places the decision to not arm immature children on the child’s parents.

      Government has set arbitrary age restrictions on that right. Those are also known as infringements of that right.

      An 18 year old may be issued awesome weapons of war to be used in our defense but will return home and not be allowed to own a handgun until they are 21. Government again fails in it’s basic duty to protect our rights.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Thank you for the praise.

        Ah, so we have the rights, but “common sense” places a decision to do…not sure what. Ok, so common sense, you say, can violate rights. Seems pretty arbitrary and whos idea of common sense it is, don’t you think? So the parent’s common sense can violate the second amendment, but others can’t?

        “Government again fails in it’s basic duty to protect our rights.”

        What rights? Handguns have been deemed especially dangerous for PUBLIC SAFETY and because of that the age limit has been set higher. Why? Because they purchasers under 21 of handguns are generally immature and likely to use the gun for harm.

        There is no right to own a gun at any age. You said so yourself. Common sense, as you say, is good enough to stop those under 21 from buying a gun.

        Strange that you compare person acting in the capacity of a solider, and what rights he has there, vs the same person in the capacity of a citizen. Do you not see a difference?

  7. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Infringed eh? You remember the list of gun control they had during that time? I won’t repost it as I’m sure you’ve read it a few times, right? So I will link you to this. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C11/11-10959-CV0.wpd. pdf

    Here is the relevant part, but I recommend reading the whole thing.

    1. Founding-Era Attitudes

    As the Supreme Court recognized in Heller, the right to keep and bear
    arms has never been unlimited. 554 U.S. at 626; see also Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1897) (observing that the right to keep and bear arms, like other rights “inherited from our English ancestors” and protected by the Bill of Rights, has “from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case”). Since even before the Revolution, gun use and gun control have been inextricably intertwined. The historical record shows that gun safety regulation was commonplace in the colonies, and around the time of the founding, a variety of gun safety regulations were on the books; these included safety laws regulating the storage of gun powder, laws keeping track of who in the community had guns, laws administering gun use in the context of militia service (including laws requiring militia members to attend “musters,” public gatherings where officials would inspect and account for guns), laws prohibiting the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain places, and laws disarming certain groups and restricting sales to certain groups. See Adam Winkler, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America 113–18 (2011); Saul Cornell & Nathan DeDino, A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 487, 502–13 (2004). It appears that when the fledgling republic adopted the Second Amendment, an expectation of sensible gun safety regulation was woven into the tapestry of the guarantee.

    Noteworthy among these revolutionary and founding-era gun regulations are those thattargeted particular groups for public safety reasons. For example, several jurisdictions passed laws that confiscated weapons owned by persons who refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the state or to the nation. SeeNo. 11-10959 22 Cornell & DeDino, 73 Fordham L. Rev. at 507–08. Although these Loyalists were neither criminals nor traitors, American legislators had determined that permitting these persons to keep and bear arms posed a potential danger. Id. (“The law demonstrates that in a well regulated society, the state could disarm those it deemed likely to disrupt society.”); see also Winkler, Gunfight, at 116 (concluding that “[t]he founders didn’t think government should have the power to take away everyone’s guns, but they were perfectly willing to confiscate weapons from anyone deemed untrustworthy,” a group that included law-abiding slaves, free blacks, and Loyalists); Don B. Kates & Clayton E. Cramer, Second Amendment Limitations and Criminological Considerations, 60 Hastings L.J.
    1339, 1360 (2009) (“[F]rom time immemorial, various jurisdictions recognizing a right to arms have nevertheless taken the step of forbidding suspect groups from having arms. American legislators at the time of the Bill of Rights seem to have been aware of this tradition . . . .” (footnote omitted)).
    In the view of at least some members of the founding generation,
    disarming select groups for the sake of public safety was compatible with the
    right to arms specifically and with the idea of liberty generally.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      My, I see how your position has shifted from the opening line, “Except that the second amendment was never written with the intent of giving the right to keep and bear arms to ordinary citizens for the use of personal self defense” and now seems to be “there have always been certain types of people who could, by nature of them being one of those types, i.e. with cause, have been lawfully disarmed by authorities.” That’s a wee bit different from, “there was no right for ‘ordinary citizens’ to keep arms for personal self defense.” To help clarify the change, note that criminals, slaves, and loyalists aren’t “ordinary citizens.”

      Would you care to move your target a bit less? It’s so hard to go after a moving target.

  8. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Can you explain how it has changed?

    I said the 2a was not written to protect individual rights for self defense. The quoted material talks about disarming certain people because of their danger to public safety. The two statements are not contradictory and address completely different issues. Bruce, you are embarrassing yourself with your arrogant stupidity.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      If you had and brains or decency, you should be ashamed of yourself for your lack of knowledge and your ignorance of the world around you and your sophistry in trying to blame others for the very things of which you alone bear guilt.

      But, you are babs, idiot and liar, extraordinaire and you have no capacity for shame even though you have the God given right to feel ashamed.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Hrm, other than your baseless personal attacks, do you have anything of worth to respond here? It was a very simple post to respond to. You seem very upset and mad, how come? What part of my post was hard to respond to in a normal, rational way, instead of your insulting rants?

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Not mad or upset. I just posted a statement of my opinion of you and your arguments. Respond or not, I don’t care.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            But who cares about your opinion of me, which you’ve already spelled out in a hundred different posts? Do you like repeating yourself? Do you feel like you are saying something new or of any substance? I mean at least try and relate it to something so it’s not just you saying “you’re stupid” in as many ways as you can in one post.

            Or is it that you have no other way to respond to what I’m sure is absolute and total frustration in your inability to come up with any good counter arguments as I shatter your world view?

            Hrmmm, I wonder.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Because you deserve insulting rants.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        The god given right to feel ashamed?

        LOL – sorry, I missed that gem last night.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      But we’ve got to blame GUNS, not those poor deranged, often victimized, and sometimes dangerous individuals that any sane person would think need to be secured for everyone’s safety.

      A truly responsible society would have the aclu sued out of existence and all former members flogged for what they’ve inflicted on the mentally ill.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        No one blames inanimate objects. No one has and no one ever will. It is always the easy access, the illegal access, or the ridiculously uncontrolled access to the gun/ammo/etc that are blamed. It’s a false argument that pro gunners created a long time ago.

        The problem with trying to restrict the mentally ill is that many states have laws that block law enforcement from accessing medical records. You know, since we value our privacy so much, we don’t want our medical records released to those evil cops. Then we complain when they don’t have access to them in order to prevent a mentally deranged person from committing acts of violence with a gun.

        Take it one step further, recently with Obamacare, there was a whole campaign against it, about doctors not having the right to ask about guns at home. Well, then how is a doctor with a mentally ill patient supposed to know he has access to weapons? If he doesn’t know, how can the proper authorities be made aware?

        Yep, lets of contradictions, lots of nonsense, and lots of misguided and contradictory protest from the pro gunner side. Nothing unusual.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          ***The problem with trying to restrict the mentally ill is that many states have laws that block law enforcement from accessing medical records. You know, since we value our privacy so much, we don’t want our medical records released to those evil cops. Then we complain when they don’t have access to them in order to prevent a mentally deranged person from committing acts of violence with a gun.***

          There was little problem institutionalizing the severely mentally ill before the aclu intervened and emptied the mental hospitals.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            So you don’t mind their right to freedom being taken away since it has no effect on you, but change anything you gave to deal with and then it’s off limits. Damned selfish indeed.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              So you don’t mind _our_ right to _guns_ being taken away since it has no effect on you, but change anything you gave to deal with and then it’s off limits. Damned selfish indeed.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                If you are insane do you have a right to a gun?

                Any change in gun laws would apply equally to me as well as you so it is not selfish on my part since I would fall under the same requirements. But taking away a mans freedom so you can have a gun with no questions asked… that seems much more selfish than asking him to pass a background check. Damned selfish of you.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  If you are criminally and dangerously insane, do you have a right to walk amongst polite society?

                  Any change to mental health laws would apply equally to me as well as you so it is not selfish on my part since I would fall under the same requirements. But taking away every person’s freedom and privacy so you can let criminally insane people walk the streets with no questions asked … that seem much more selfish than asking him to remain locked up and letting everyone else be free to transact as they wished in privacy. Damned selfish of you.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    If you are criminally and dangerously insane, do you have a right to walk amongst polite society?

                    nope.Do we let rattlesnakes just slither into our houses?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      How is it you can have a “right” to a gun and not a right to be free? You can’t have it both ways. Then again, I’ve seldom seen conservatives be consistent in their thinking. Is having a gun a higher freedom than actually being free?

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              “Freedom” to live in poverty and squalor? “Freedom” to be victimized? “Freedom” to brutalize the innocent? “Freedom to be imprisoned with hardened criminals because there are no treatment facilities?

              Yeah, that’s selfish to deny those “freedoms”.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        ut we’ve got to blame GUNS, not those poor deranged, often victimized, and sometimes dangerous individuals that any sane person would think need to be secured for everyone’s safety.

        Well,in 1988,in my humble burg,one local resident,who was nuttier than a squirrel turd,and it was very well documented,but due to his “rights”,he was’nt locked away for society’s protection,went on a shooting rampage at a local watering hole.Fortunately,a few dozen armed citizens,led by a junior NCO from the local guard unit,were able to stop him before anyone got killed,He managed to wound two patrons at the bar,but was quickly subdued by the armed citizens that responded.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “ut we’ve got to blame GUNS, not those poor deranged, often victimized, and sometimes dangerous individuals that any sane person would think need to be secured for everyone’s safety.”

          No, we blame the people that enable dangerous individuals to have guns. Why give a dangerous person a dangerous weapon? I’m not blaming guns any more than I blame the steel they are made of. Universal Background Checks… Use them to deny dangerous people.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Who does a fucking background check on the nut or criminal who breaks into a house to steal a gun?

            Mark, you are nothing but a troll pushing an agenda to disarm people — despite your protestations to the contrary.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Nirvana fallacy (again) along with a little ad hominem (again). Most guns used in crimes are not stolen…even if they were, one should not sell a gun to someone with severe mental illness. Minor nit…criminally insane is being misused in these contexts.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Bullshit again from Mark, the troll.

                I did not say ‘criminally insane’. I said the insane and the criminal. Nice try though at twisting my words.

                I did not say that all guns used in crimes or mass shootings were stolen. Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. Who does the background check on those people while they are in the act of committing a crime? No one, but you still prefer to have them walk freely among us even though they represent a danger to anyone around them.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Oh, you very much DID say that…here it is again in case you forgot.

                  “Who does a fucking background check on the nut or criminal who breaks into a house to STEAL a gun?”

                  Your words, emphasis mine.

                  The reference to criminally insane was in response to the emerging theme of it. Quit being so touchy. You’ve seen it misused here… no, you didn’t say it although you have danced into it with your “nut” comment.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    Mark, the pathetic troll,

                    In your own copy and paste, I said criminal OR nut.

                    Only in your warped mind can you see what is clearly not present in reality.

                    You twist what I write and then tell me what I am thinking. It is impossible to have a discussion with an ass like you.

                  • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                    I have been busy with stuff in the physical world. Like being an atheist jew celebrating Christmas. I just hit this email account, and saw the last comment. Some people have long attention spans and evidence triple digit IQ’s. Other just waste time and space, and seem to annoy almost everyone. Perhaps because they are always right, which is due to the fact that they are so much smarter than we are. I mean, you must be smarter than us if you can distill a paragraph from Stephen Hawking to blah blah blah.

                    That feat of compressing Hawkings words so effectively hast to rival that of
                    this https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-h eart-of-quantum-physics/ which reduced the difficulty of solving Quantum chromodynamics equations from super computer difficulty to a few pages of equations.

                    I would like to suggest that this person, who either has a room temperature IQ, or is to our intellect as we are to dogs (depending of if you take his view of himself, or the evidence) be the target of a boycott. That is we just ignore him, and hope that he goes away. Think of all the time that would be saved

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      You’ve been here for a very short time while the rest of us have been at each other’s throats for 18 months.

                      If you can’t handle the insults or attacks, just leave. Or start you own blog and then you can decide who gets to stay or go.

                      Mark, the pathetic troll, has been lying and twisting comments for the whole time that he has been here. He continues to ignore what he has been told in answer to his questions. As a result, I find it damn near impossible to maintain a civil attitude towards him but I refuse to apologize for anything that I say to him or his alter egos — or even you.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      If Steven Hawkings’ work were germaine to this conversation (bloody brawl?) there would be all appropriate attention to his work. Since I know of nothing that that invalid British genius mathematician might contribute to the subject of this discussion, “Bla, bla, bla” is an entirely appropriate response.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Mark The Troll says: “No, we blame the people that enable dangerous individuals to have guns.”

            So, he not only doesn’t blame the people committing crimes with guns, and he doesn’t even blame the guns. No, he blames the people who enable them to have guns. Two steps removed from the cause of the problem – dangerous people. (Banning guns, which is admittedly only one step removed, seems closer to the target but still fails … dangerous people don’t obey laws.)

            Let’s see here. If you get a disease (the cause), and the disease causes a boil on your skin (one step removed from the cause), and then you put a bandaid on the boil (two steps removed), to prevent it from getting irritated … Does that mean you blame the bandaid for the disease? After all, you blame gun violence not on the people who cause it (i.e. the cause) nor on the immediate symptom of the problem (use of guns) but on third parties. The analogy isn’t perfect, but you could certainly get rid of a lot of disease by banishing people who are wearing bandaids. Then again, people with dangerously communicable diseases don’t often wear bandaids, and they’re the real threats. Since absolute bans hasn’t kept drugs out of our society, it isn’t likely that restrictions on gun sales will keep them out of criminal hands. Although attempting to do so *would* put a list of all the law-abiding gun-owner’s guns in the hands of government, which brings its own threats, which Mark The Troll is unwilling, or unable, to see.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              “So, he not only doesn’t blame the people committing crimes with guns, and he doesn’t even blame the guns. No, he blames the people who enable them to have guns. Two steps removed from the cause of the problem – dangerous people. (Banning guns, which is admittedly only one step removed, seems closer to the target but still fails … dangerous people don’t obey laws.)”

              Are you attacking mark for not blaming the gun? Because that’s what you’re saying in your post. Very interesting tactic. Mark doesn’t even blame the guns? How terrible of him!

              Oh, dangerous people are the problem. Alright, so are you going to develop a way to filter dangerous people from buying guns legally? Oh wait, it’s called a background check. Unless you have ways to make people less dangerous? Electric shock therapy that we can advertise and people will willingly come in for? Oh, you mean we can’t make people less dangerous? Well then you should rely on what you CAN do, and that is control whether said person can legally purchase a firearm.

              Who said anything about banning guns? No one.

              And when will you stop using the idiotic argument that since “dangerous people don’t obey laws”, we shouldn’t have these laws. That argument says that since people disobey laws, we should eliminate them, so that everyone, in theory, can essentially disobey said law. It doesn’t get any more stupid than that. Let’s legalize murder since murders don’t follow those laws! Let’s eliminate all laws that people violate! Very well thought out, I must say.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                babs,

                People like you and Mark, the pathetic troll) are the truly dangerous people in our society because under the guise of being erudite, you are really just effete snobs who are quite ignorant and not capable of deep thought.

                Laws do not stop crime. Laws against murder and other crimes may (could, possible, might) make the average person reconsider their crime, they will not stop the determined person from acting on their impulse. Rather than repealing the law — that you think we advocate — we want the laws enforced because the purpose of the law is the punish the offender for committing the crime.

                Do you get it yet? Criminals are undeterred by laws except for when they incarcerated for long period of time. Even then, at best we are merely delaying their next crime, but hopefully they will be too old when they get out to be a threat to anyone.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  You didn’t respond to a single point made in my post. If you want to start a new thread for a conversation, there is no need to hit reply, because you aren’t replying to me, you are starting your own thread of thoughts.

                  Laws do not stop crime. Thank you for that insight. I thought that they somehow morphed into a physical force and did that. Obviously the best that we have right now, since we can’t predict the future, is to have laws that discourage activities. Again, very insightful.

                  You are for background checks? Great. Then you must support universal background checks as well, as it’s the same exact process. Wow, we really have made some progress here.

                  Now, if you want gun laws regulated, prosecuted, etc, how you support giving the ATF more funding so they can better operate to support the background check system. Oh wait, you support the side that has been crippling the ATF and other organizations trying to regulate anything related to firearms. And then when those organizations don’t have the resources to do what you claim you want, because of those organizations which you support, you criticize them. Irony, irony, everywhere.

                  PS: You support background checks. Hey, you said so yourself.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    You are seeing things and putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that I support background checks or universal background checks?

                    Of course I didn’t respond to anything you wrote. To do so would be the equivalent of talking to the proverbial brick wall. At best, you are only worth snippets of my time. You may be paid to be here, but I am not.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “we want the laws enforced because the purpose of the law is the punish the offender for committing the crime.”

                      You can spare the whole “you have nothing to say, i’m better than you, i have no reason to respond”. How long have you been responding to me? And how long do you say I’m not worth responding to and not worth your time? You only embarrass yourself. Either A. you are telling the truth and make yourself look quite desperate for the attention or B. you are lying by saying that and acting in the opposite. Not too great of a choice.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      PS

                      babs, for once, you put words in my mouth that are correct. You truly do not have anything of value to add and I am better than you. I respond when my blood gets up over the stupidity that you post and I can’t let it go by. I am not speaking to you so much as I am speaking to other readers who may have read your garbage and might think it has merit.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Which words were correct? The laws that you want enforced? Which, based on this thread and you arguing about gun laws not being enforced, can only be gun laws. Great, so you want gun laws enforced. Like the lack of prosecutions from background checks, which I don’t have to put in your mouth, you have been saying it yourself in many threads.

                      I’m glad you also admit that the only time you respond is once you become emotional. No wonder your responses rarely deal with any facts and are more about throwing feces than having a conversation. What do you think has more merit? Someone who explains their position logically in full sentences or you who comes in, doesn’t respond to any facts and just launches into insults. Who do you think looks more credible?

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  PPS: You have no ability to claim how many criminals are deterred by any law. Just because X amount of criminals break the laws, you cannot have any idea of how many were deterred from committing a crime by our laws. But keep trying, it’s interesting to watch.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    So what makes you think that any criminal types or mental defectives are deterred by a law?
                    New York just imposed a law that criminalizes rifle and pistol magazines that carry more than 7 rounds or loading more than 7 rounds in a magazine capable of carrying more. How many criminals will that stop? How many more criminals will this law create?
                    Conneticut just imposed a law that requires registry of “banned” guns and “large capacity” magazines. Will this law deter a single criminal or will it create a whole new class of felons, formerly law abiding citizens who failed to comply with arbitrary deadlines?

                    ”These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.” ~Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

                    “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” Tacitus

                    “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
                    -Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      ”These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.” ~Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

                      Remember that holocaust survivor I told you about?When I met him,his jacket came open,and I saw a holstered revolver.Big surprise….

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      He takes “Never Again!” seriously, doesn’t he?

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    I” mnaged to miss that one. It must have been a real thigh slapper!”

                    almost qualifies for a Debbie Wasserman Schultz award

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  “People like you and Mark, the pathetic troll) are the truly dangerous people in our society because under the guise of being erudite, you are really just effete snobs who are quite ignorant and not capable of deep thought.”

                  Much like the leftist idiot(but I repeat myself),who thought that she was SOOOOO much more intelligent than we knuckle dragging conservatives,right before she claimed that she could understand Arizona’s immigration law-IF Arizona actually shared a border with Mexico

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    That is why freedom of speech is so important. We can find out just how ignorant these people are by just letting them reveal themselves.

                    Of course, given that their dear leader thinks that there are 57 states, maybe a few of them are between Arizona and Mexico.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    That’s not the same lib “legislator” who thought moving American troops to Okinawa might capsize the island, is it?

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      That’s not the same lib “legislator” who thought moving American troops to Okinawa might capsize the island, is it?

                      They’ve topped themselves-some city council member in SF claims that hundreds of people die,daily,from unloaded firearms

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      I mnaged to miss that one. It must have been a real thigh slapper!

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              “So, he not only doesn’t blame the people committing crimes with guns, and he doesn’t even blame the guns. No, he blames the people who enable them to have guns. ”

              Wrong again. There is plenty of blame for criminals. We call them laws. Putting words in my mouth serves no purpose other than to bolster your own self righteousness.

              The person who sells alcohol to a minor is held accountable for that action. Any person who would sell a gun without knowing who they are selling to should be accountable for that action. We do this already, it’s just not consistent. The second amendment is clearly not detailed enough on its own. We don’t give guns to children, people behind bars, foreigners, etc. it is that application which clearly points to various limitations to the second amendment.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                … but for some reason the present background check law “wasn’t meant to be enforced” – apparently, because it’s “too difficult” to make arrests and prosecute those violators, notwithstanding that they have committed a crime while a cop was on the phone, and they have presented ID, and there is at least one witness to the crime. Notwithstanding the non-desire to prosecute these crimes and these criminals, you want to expand the reach of background check laws. Your “wrong again” comment specifically does not apply to background checks. They so much don’t want to enforce this law, that they claim (or, you & Babs claim that they claim) that don’t intend, and never intended, such laws to be enforced. You (both) have willful blindness here. You don’t want to lock up criminals, you want to leave them on the streets, and force everyone else to prove they’re not one of them. You also want police officers to spend their time keeping records on honest people, instead of being out on the streets catching criminals. That not only doesn’t help crime in any way, it prevents crimes from being reduced by acting against their cause: criminals. You’re all about blaming the bandaid for the disease.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “You don’t want to lock up criminals, you want to leave them on the streets, and force everyone else to prove they’re not one of them.”

                  Wrong again. You are still putting words in my mouth. Rather than do that why not address the actual subject? People who commit crimes have to pay the price. What do we do with people who should not have a gun? Lock them up too? Again, it seems easy access to guns is more important than freedom.

                  You are failing to recognize that there is a certain part of the population that a) does not belong in prison and b) should not have a gun. How do you propose keeping guns out of their hands.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    So although there is only a ‘certain part’ that falls into this new category you want to impose conditions and restrictions on everyone, especially the innocent and lawabiding that make up the majority of the population.

                    But since you have ‘identified’ this special class, what criteria did you use and why not focus on just them.

                    You think like the typical liberal or Marxist in setting up Health Care ‘Reform’. Rather than helping the really small segment that wants and needs health care, they want to disrupt and undo the system that works for the vast majority of people and the end result will be the just as many people will not have coverage and those that do will pay vastly more in premiums, deductibles, and co pays, for coverage they don’t want or need, and will have trouble finding a doctor or hospital to provide.

                    Shove your central planning solutions up your ass and leave America free to find their own solutions.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    You are failing to recognize that if there is a certain part of the population that a) does not belong in prison and b) should not have a gun, that THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO to prevent them from acquiring guns or any other murderous weapons if they so desire. Drugs are absolutely, 100% completely prohibited, and still are simple to acquire. Drugs can’t even be kept out of maximum security prisons, so it is absolutely insane to imagine that measures taken outside of prison walls can keep people from begging, borrowing, stealing, or making guns. (Which are a 13th century technology(!)) So, to answer your next question: “How do you propose keeping guns out of their hands [?]” My answer is, assume that people outside of jail are armed if they wish to be. Allow concealed carry. When bad-person-with-a-gun starts to do bad-things-with-a-gun-or-any-other-deadly-weapon, have the people in their vicinity BE ABLE TO SHOOT BACK. This isn’t rocket science. It deters future would-be-bad guys, it removes right-now-bad-guys from the population (obviating the need to wonder whether they should have been in prison after all) and it frees up the police to work on catching criminals, instead of keeping records on law-abiding citizens and their transactions. Furthermore, it doesn’t require anybody to engage in the magical thinking that bad-guys-out-of-jail can somehow be prevented from acquiring deadly weapons, not only restricted to guns, if only we have enough of a surveillance state against the law-abiding. Finally, it respects the rights of the law-abiding, something I concede you have little (no?) interest in doing. Magical thinking has no place forming public policy.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO to prevent them from acquiring guns or any other murderous weapons if they so desire. ”

                      There is absolutely something I can do. You fail to understand that. You just expect it to be perfect or it’s not worth doing. The nirvana fallacy is often used this way. This is why the NRA gets tagged with being soft on gun crimes.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I am far from the Nirvana fallacy. If the method were 99% successful, or even 90%, instead of 100%, then you could accuse me of that. But it’s more like 1% successful, or maybe not even that. Drugs are very much more heavily restricted than guns are, and even those are freely available everywhere, including inside of maximum security prisons. What you propose to do with guns has no reasonable way to affect more than a tiny fraction of bad people who want to get them, while it simultaneously forces police officers to bother themselves with keeping records on law-abiding citizens (worthless) instead of catching criminals (counterproductive) and enables them to form a database on their possessions (dangerous). I could mention that _each_of_the_four cases of high-profile shootings that Mayors Against Illegal Guns used in its campaign against a candidate either got their guns through the background checks which you so strongly support, or stole the guns. http://bearingarms.com/campaigning-for-mcauliffe-in-va-bloombergs -pac-lies-about-the-gun-show-loophole/ (And these were cases that an anti-gun person _knowingly_ chose to advance his agenda, so if anything the risk of selection bias is in YOUR favor!! Whoops) If even anti-gun people are zero-for-four in choosing cases to show how good background checks are, and why they should be expanded, then I’m not guilty of the Nirvana Fallacy for calling it worthless.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      How do you measure the success of background checks? And if they were more successful, according to you, would you then support them more?

                      Why do you talk about drugs when they have nothing to do with guns? The restrictions on drugs are not comparable to that of guns because background checks deals with selling in legal markets, whereas you are talking about the black market of drugs. And again, not to mention, they have nothing in common so I have a hard time understanding why pro gunners bring them up. Maybe they don’t think too hard about it?

                      “What you propose to do with guns has no reasonable way to affect more than a tiny fraction of bad people who want to get them”

                      Really? How do you measure this and how do you come to this conclusion? Your sixth sense telling you this?

                      Regarding your link, Lanza was stopped by gun control laws from purchasing an assault rifle at Dick’s Sporting Good store. Had there not been that law, he would have committed those murders with a store bought gun and passed background check. But see, his state has a 14 day wait period, and guess what, it was effective in stopping his purchase.

                      Regarding the VT guy, he lied on his background check and didn’t disclose that a court ordered him to a mental clinic. So the argument here is that the background check system failed and needs to be made stronger. If it had been stronger and that information were available to those conducting the background check, it wouldn’t have gone through.

                      And yes, you are guilty of the nirvana fallacy. All your arguments say that since we don’t have a perfect system of limiting just those people who you think don’t deserve guns, then we should have no system at all.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs: “How do you measure the success of background checks? And if they were more successful, according to you, would you then support them more?”

                      First, there is little-to-no statistical evidence that background checks reduce crime rates. You are the one supporting them, and you seek to deny everyone else’s rights by doing so, the burden of proof is upon you to show that (1) they work and (2) they don’t have unintended (or, intended!) consequences. To my knowledge there is no evidence that they work, therefore, supporting an expansion of them is illogical. If you, or anyone, could show that they were strongly causative in a reduction of firearms crime rates, then I’d be willing to have a discussion about the risk of registration, and the marginal cost of having police officers perform the checks, i.e. keep records of law-abiding people, and their transactions, instead of being out of the streets catching criminals. (Or, even going to gun stores and arresting prohibited persons in the act of attempting to buy guns.)

                      Babs: “Why do you talk about drugs when they have nothing to do with guns? The restrictions on drugs are not comparable to that of guns because background checks deals with selling in legal markets, whereas you are talking about the black market of drugs. And again, not to mention, they have nothing in common so I have a hard time understanding why pro gunners bring them up. Maybe they don’t think too hard about it?”

                      The following is NOT_ROCKET_SCIENCE, but then again, it is you I am dealing with, so I’ll try to make this really, really simple. The authorities don’t want people using, buying, selling, or possessing drugs. The authorities don’t want criminals buying guns. So the authorities pass laws that criminalize use, purchase, sale, and possession of drugs. They also pass laws that mandate the keeping records on law-abiding people, and require that people selling guns perform background checks. If people are found to be using, buying, selling, or possessing drugs, they face arrest, conviction, and incarceration. If people are found selling guns without performing the checks, they face arrest. (Note one difference here: apparently the law “was never meant to be enforced against the purchasers” – according to you, because it would to “too difficult” to build successful cases against prohibited persons who (1) attempt to buy guns, (2) produced ID, (3) at a known location (4) in front of witnesses (5) with a cop on the phone at the time. For some incredible reason.) Nevertheless, notwithstanding the laws against purchase, sale, use and possession of drugs, it is easy to find where to buy them, who has them for sale, and to actually buy them. Notwithstanding that every single aspect of the transaction is completely illegal. In comparison, the restriction against guns is much less. (It is legal for a lawful citizen to own a gun, and presumably he may wish to sell it, which is not, on its face, illegal. But it is not legal to ever possess drugs, and if one did, it would nevertheless not be legal to sell them, and it would not be legal to buy them, and it would not be legal to possess them after the sale.)

                      In spite of all of that, drugs remain easy to find, and frankly a big “problem” for law enforcement. (Which is of the government’s creation, and which has greatly enriched and empowered law enforcement to break into people’s houses, use weapons which are illegal for us to use, to search and detain people for any reason, to use drug dogs against which one can not face in court, to seize assets through forfeiture and thereby enrich themselves and their departments, etc.) Furthermore, we are to understand that increasingly large seizures of contraband drugs are somehow an indication of the “success” of the drug war, even though it is an admission that the trafficked volume is increasing, not decreasing, as would be the case if the war were being won.

                      But anyway. It is clear that massive prohibitions against drugs does not do anything to prevent those who seek to obtain or use them, from obtaining or using them. It is therefore insane to imagine that guns can reasonably kept out of the hands of anyone not in jail. (And maybe even in jail.) Therefore, an entirely different approach to managing bad-people-with-guns than enacting some sort of prohibition, and forcing everyone to give up their privacy, and presumption of innocence, in some sort of misguided attempt to prevent bad people from obtaining guns. This is NOT_ROCKET_SCIENCE. But, alas, it might well elude you.

                      “Regarding your link, Lanza was stopped by gun control laws from purchasing an assault rifle at Dick’s Sporting Good store.”

                      Dick’s doesn’t, and didn’t, sell assault rifles which are fully automatic.

                      “Had there not been that law, he would have committed those murders with a store bought gun and passed background check. But see, his state has a 14 day wait period, and guess what, it was effective in stopping his purchase.”

                      Thanks to the gun control laws, Lanza had a choice. Wait the necessary 14 days, or kill his own mother and take hers. You already admit that he would have passed the check. You don’t know that he wouldn’t have waited the 14 days if his mother didn’t have guns to steal.

                      “Regarding the VT guy, he lied on his background check and didn’t disclose that a court ordered him to a mental clinic. So the argument here is that the background check system failed and needs to be made stronger. If it had been stronger and that information were available to those conducting the background check, it wouldn’t have gone through.”

                      Which is not to say he couldn’t have gotten guns elsewhere. The fact remains, he was cleared by law enforcement to purchase the guns.

                      “And yes, you are guilty of the nirvana fallacy.”

                      Am not.

                      “All your arguments say that since we don’t have a perfect system of limiting just those people who you think don’t deserve guns, then we should have no system at all.”

                      1. Lie, I didn’t say that. I said we need a different system, comprising a method to eliminate those miscreants from polite society who would dare to commit violent crimes with guns – or without them, for that matter. And to deter those who are on the fence deciding whether to do that sort of thing or not. That is what I said.

                      Incidentally, the four mass murders Bloomberg cited were all conducted in locations where ordinary citizens were prohibited from defending themselves with guns. It is beyond despicable to cite those cases, irrespective of the details of background checks, in an attempt to push for more gun control laws elsewhere. Guns were *Completely banned* to we normal people in all those locations. Sort of like drugs, come to think of it. Only the bad guys have them. Not a good situation, and not one that can be cured by bothering the police to keep records on we good people, both ourselves, and what we buy and sell.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      I don’t claim background checks reduce crime rates. They reduce the amount of criminals who can buy firearms legally. That is what they do. And they do it better than not having any system to check legal firearm purchases, obviously. Maybe if more research were done, we would know more, but alas the NRA slashed federal funding years ago, and most public safety issues are researched with said funding.

                      “You are the one supporting them, and you seek to deny everyone else’s rights by doing so”

                      You have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no right to not have to undergo checks to acquire weapons.

                      “To my knowledge there is no evidence that they work,”

                      Well then you haven’t read about the 150K purchases that aren’t completed every year due to failing background checks. So your knowledge doesn’t really mean much does it.

                      Why are you comparing trying to limit criminals from buying guns that will make their crimes more violent and deadly to drugs and the concept of intoxicating oneself? And you try and write a whole paragraph about this? Haha, are you serious? Do they have background checks for drugs? Do you want to write another meaningless essay on how drugs and firearms are comparable?

                      “In spite of all of that, drugs remain easy to find, and frankly a big “problem” for law enforcement.”

                      Really? What drugs can you easily find? And no, an individual using drugs to intoxicate himself is not a problem for law enforcement. The criminals who benefit from the illegality, that is the problem for law enforcement. Try and think.

                      “It is therefore insane to imagine that guns can reasonably kept out of the hands of anyone not in jail.”

                      Go get a criminal record and try to buy a gun at a store and let me know how it goes. Again, your argument is that since there is a black market, we shouldn’t try and regulate the legal market. How does that make sense? You want to give criminals access to both the legal and black market? Because the black market exists? My god, how stupid is your logic?

                      “”Regarding your link, Lanza was stopped by gun control laws from purchasing an assault rifle at Dick’s Sporting Good store.””

                      I don’t care if you agree or disagree with the term. He was prevented from buying the rifle. If that’s all you have to defend that, you have conceded the main points are and trying to argue words. That’s fine, I’ll gladly do it. Want to see H&K, Steyr Aug, IntraTec, and other gun manufacuters advertising their weapons as assault weapons, assault style, etc in the 1980s? Do you want to see the memo that the NSSF issued to rebrand assault weapons as “modern sporting rifles”? It’s a marketing term and always has been.

                      ” You don’t know that he wouldn’t have waited the 14 days if his mother didn’t have guns to steal.”

                      So you’re saying I can’t tell the future, but you can? You also don’t know what would have happened. How retarded are you, really?

                      “Which is not to say he couldn’t have gotten guns elsewhere.”

                      Oh, so you know what connections he had? You know what his options were? Again, how retarded are you?

                      “I said we need a different system, comprising a method to eliminate those miscreants from polite society who would dare to commit violent crimes with guns ”

                      Alright, so you want to eliminate miscreants from polite society. Just kill em all. Anyone who commits a violent crime with a gun gets the death penalty according to you. Alright, what a great solution! Yea freedom! Or your version of it. Realistically, you have no solution to propose. So your suggestion is worthless and it stands either Background Checks or no Background Checks. No viable solutions have been offered by anyone on this board. So until then, you either support them or you support absolutely anyone being able to legally buy a gun.

                      Guns weren’t banned in those locations. Conceal carry was banned. But those places had the right to have armed security guards, they have the right to have unloaded firearms in a secure location. Try and be more precise with your words or you come across as a, well, god damn retard.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “I don’t claim background checks reduce crime rates. They reduce the amount of criminals who can buy firearms legally. That is what they do.”

                      No, they don’t. They don’t reduce the number of criminals at all. You yourself said the law wasn’t meant to be enforced, which means all the criminals out there, are still out there.

                      “You have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no right to not have to undergo checks to acquire weapons.”

                      That turns a right into a privilege.

                      “To my knowledge there is no evidence that they work,”

                      Well then you haven’t read about the 150K purchases that aren’t completed every year due to failing background checks. So your knowledge doesn’t really mean much does it.

                      Stopping those purchases, without taking criminals off streets (which you’re ok with) and without reducing crime rates (according to evidence) constitutes “not working.”

                      “Why are you comparing trying to limit criminals from buying guns that will make their crimes more violent and deadly to drugs and the concept of intoxicating oneself? And you try and write a whole paragraph about this? Haha, are you serious? Do they have background checks for drugs? Do you want to write another meaningless essay on how drugs and firearms are comparable?”

                      You asked, I answered. I told you it wasn’t rocket science, but feared you wouldn’t comprehend it. Seems those fears were well-founded.

                      “Go get a criminal record and try to buy a gun at a store and let me know how it goes.”

                      Are you advocating that I commit crimes? What crime should I commit? Gee, seems you really want there to be more criminals, me included.

                      “Again, your argument is that since there is a black market, we shouldn’t try and regulate the legal market. How does that make sense?”

                      Because prohibitions create black markets, duh.

                      “You want to give criminals access to both the legal and black market? Because the black market exists? My god, how stupid is your logic?”

                      It is only as stupid as your ability to misrepresent it. Which might well be limitless.

                      “”Regarding your link, Lanza was stopped by gun control laws from purchasing an assault rifle at Dick’s Sporting Good store.””

                      “I don’t care if you agree or disagree with the term.”

                      Words have meanings. Intentionally misusing terms is a form of lying.

                      “Alright, so you want to eliminate miscreants from polite society. Just kill em all. Anyone who commits a violent crime with a gun gets the death penalty according to you.”

                      By arguing this way, you are putting yourself into the position of saying that people who pose imminent, grave danger to others, should be allowed to continue whatever it was they were doing. That is your vision. You apparently want mall shooters, and school shooters, etc, to KEEP SHOOTING. Because they don’t stop until someone with a gun comes and stops them, or convinces them to stop themselves. Furthermore, “imminent, grave danger to others” is the legal criterion for lawful use of deadly force.

                      “Guns weren’t banned in those locations. Conceal carry was banned.”

                      I said guns held by ordinary citizens, you liar.

                      “Try [to] be more precise with your words or you come across as a, well, god damn retard.”

                      What is this “god” thing of which you speak? Do tell.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      No they don’t what? They don’t reduce the amount of criminals who can buy firearms legally? Compared to if there weren’t any checks? Uh……….And yea, background checks don’t reduce the amount of criminals. Partly because it has no way of doing that. It can only reduce the amount of firearms criminals are sold. Do you know what a background check is?

                      “That turns a right into a privilege.”

                      Then you must think every person, any age, criminal or not, should be able to buy a gun. If that’s what you think, then great! Good system you have there.

                      “Stopping those purchases, without taking criminals off streets (which you’re ok with) and without reducing crime rates (according to evidence) constitutes “not working.””

                      Your definition of working. I never said I was ok with it. I said it was the reality we are living with. I live in the real world, you live in fantasy world.

                      Very poor defense of your drug comparison. “You just don’t understand”. Pathetic. Really, I’m embarrassed for you. Why can’t you attack my argument like I attack yours? Because you have no basis to argue back?

                      “Are you advocating that I commit crimes? What crime should I commit? Gee, seems you really want there to be more criminals, me included.”

                      Are you doing this for attention? I thought we were having a somewhat serious conversation, but your answers don’t show that. Please stop trolling, thanks.

                      Your argument is that since there is a black market, we shouldn’t regulate the legal market. Stop trying to pretend that isn’t the case. Again, you embarrass yourself endlessly.

                      Yes, words have meanings. So ask Steyr, H&K, IntraTec, among other gun manufacturers why they labeled their guns as assault rifles. I’m following their lead and you are trying to deny it ever happened.

                      Your defense of your argument to kill all criminals who commit crimes with guns is pathetic.

                      I see that you are mostly trolling. I’m not interested in furthering such conversations and it’s obvious that you only switch to trolling once your arguments have been proven wrong, idiotic, and originating from an 8 year old mind.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “And yea, background checks don’t reduce the amount of criminals. Partly because it has no way of doing that. It can only reduce the amount of firearms criminals are sold. Do you know what a background check is?”

                      First, I gotta say I admire your grasp of the Debate School Denigration tactic. I think I’ll use it from now on.

                      [ / Babs debate mode on]
                      Second, you’d have to be an ignorant moron to not realize that the opportunity to arrest criminals attempting to buy guns at every failed check. In fact, you’d have to be one evil bastard to claim you don’t want that to happen, that’s not what the law is for. And then deny there’s any way to do that.

                      “Stopping those purchases, without taking criminals off streets (which you’re ok with) and without reducing crime rates (according to evidence) constitutes “not working.””

                      “Your definition of working. I never said I was ok with it. I said it was the reality we are living with. I live in the real world, you live in fantasy world.”

                      You must be a complete ignoramus to say that I live in a fantasy world, when I admit that strict prohibitions against drugs do not begin to control them, and therefore believe that efforts to control guns at point of sale can not possibly work. In fact, you’d have to be such a retard to not even realize how idiotic you must sound, engaging in magical thinking and then accusing me living in fantasies. I’m the one who admits that prohibitions do not attain their lofty goals. Only a moron would look to the success of alcohol prohibition, and then the current drug prohibition, and then conclude that restrictions on criminals buying guns, would possibly disarm them.

                      “Very poor defense of your drug comparison. “You just don’t understand”. Pathetic. Really, I’m embarrassed for you. Why can’t you attack my argument like I attack yours? Because you have no basis to argue back?”

                      It’s embarrassing how much you fail to grasp in things which aren’t rocket science. You’d have to be such a mental incompetent to fail to grasp things as basic as my arguments, and then of course turn around and attempt to denigrate my mental faculties. Only someone with the mental grasp of a gnat would ever do that.

                      ““Are you advocating that I commit crimes? What crime should I commit? Gee, seems you really want there to be more criminals, me included.””

                      “Are you doing this for attention? I thought we were having a somewhat serious c
                      conversation, but your answers don’t show that. Please stop trolling, thanks.”

                      If you had any mental capacity at all, you’d realize that you wrote “go get a criminal record and then try to buy a gun.” Your words. Are you doing this for attention? I thought we were having a somewhat serious conversation, but your answers don’t show that. Please stop trolling, thanks.” N.B. only someone with serious defects in thinking would call someone who agrees with the title article under which we are commenting, a troll, for defending implications raised by it, and their ramifications.

                      “Your argument is that since there is a black market, we shouldn’t regulate the legal market. Stop trying to pretend that isn’t the case. Again, you embarrass yourself endlessly.”

                      No, that isn’t my argument. Only someone hell-bent on straw-man arguments, or otherwise disrupting pro-gun websites, would ever think that. Stop trying to pretend that isn’t the case. Again, you embarrass yourself endlessly.

                      “Yes, words have meanings. So ask Steyr, H&K, IntraTec, among other gun manufacturers why they labeled their guns as assault rifles. I’m following their lead and you are trying to deny it ever happened.”

                      Another straw man argument, I’m not denying that ever happened. Instead, as anyone with intelligence greater than a lamppost would know, I’m saying that “assault rifle” has a specific meaning which was not possessed by the firearm you were writing about. Therefore, you were not correct in that detail, and I pointed it out. Instead of accepting your error, you turn around and attack me, additionally lying about what I said. You’re embarrassing yourself endlessly, yet again.

                      “Your defense of your argument to kill all criminals who commit crimes with guns is pathetic.”

                      For a third time in a row, you use yet another straw man. Anyone with even 1/100 of a brain would know that I wrote that those criminals who were in the act of committing “imminent, grave threats to others” should be able to be killed in the act of those crimes. Which nearly every, if not every, state in the union recognizes under the law. As anyone with so much as a spark of brain activity would realize, I placed the burden on you to argue that those *under threat of imminent, grave harm* should not be able to act against such threats. You have failed to do that, while once again insulting me and additionally misrepresenting what I wrote. Three straw men in a row might be some kind of a record, except of course for Mark The Troll.

                      “I see that you are mostly trolling. I’m not interested in furthering such conversations and it’s obvious that you only switch to trolling once your arguments have been proven wrong, idiotic, and originating from an 8 year old mind.”

                      … says the person with three straw men in a row.

                      But, in any case, I will graciously accept your offer for you to never post to me again. Since you are not interested in furthering such conversations. [/ Babs debate mode off]

                      Sheesh, it’s hard packing in those insults into every line!

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      mark sez***There is absolutely something I can do. You fail to understand that. You just expect it to be perfect or it’s not worth doing. The nirvana fallacy is often used this way. This is why the NRA gets tagged with being soft on gun crimes.***

                      Total bull excrement statement. The NRA is not soft on criminals who use guns. They advocate shooting criminals who use guns on the spot. This is a bit more severe and final than a few yeasrs of trial and incarceration prior to resuming the criminal career

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          “Bad guy with gun stopped by good guys with guns”. Where have I heard THAT bit of logic before?

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            “Bad guy with gun stopped by good guys with guns”. Where have I heard THAT bit of logic before?

            It happens daily,but according to the hoplophobes,it never happens-right before they call government agents with guns to apprehend thugs

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              And by the time government flunkies arrive, the damage is done and the thugs are gone. A citizen with a gun could have at least marked ’em for future identification. Bullet holes are unmistakable identifiers.

  9. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “But taking away every person’s freedom and privacy so you can let criminally insane people walk the streets with no questions asked …”

    I doubt you really intended to go down this route. If, while on an outing with your buddies, one of them dropped a hallucinogen in your drink and you went on a killing spree you have no recollection of should you be locked up permanently? Maybe you had a seizure or some other brain malfunction.

    I don’t think you understand what criminally insane means.

    Should we allow a person who thinks microwaves are talking to him have a gun?

    — Mark

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      You and I have very different notions of what society should be. You appear to want (correct me if I’m wrong) guns to be heavily restricted, registered, possibly locked up or rendered inoperable except with time-consuming measures to activate them, you want people to not carry them in most places, and you want to discourage their use, possession or training with them. Possibly you want to sharply curtail the conditions under which deadly force may be lawfully employed by citizens, e.g. in Zimmerman’s case. Plus, in particular, you want the government to know where every gun is, and you want to criminalize transactions with them that aren’t disclosed to the authorities. And you want only a few people to be allowed to buy them. On the other hand, you want criminals, the insane, illegal aliens, etc., to be free to walk amongst society and mingle among us, but, it’s ok, because ‘they can’t get guns’ because of all of the foregoing. Of course it will take a huge number of people to keep all the records, to conduct all the checks, and to inspect people’s guns and gun storage locations (for ‘safety’) and maintain records and what not, and of course to go to people’s homes to seize their guns when some prohibited act is committed by someone there, as is presently happening in California.

      Meanwhile, I think that people should be allowed to buy and own guns in privacy, but also, that people should generally be free to carry guns almost anywhere, and given strong legal protections for lawful use of deadly force. So there were few or no ‘gun-free’ zones, and many people as wished to have CCWs, or, indeed Vermont Carry, all over the place. Sure, there might be more background shootings, but, on the other hand, they would be very much more likely to be met with strong resistance, so the incidence of high-fatality mass shootings would be almost certain to be much fewer and less lethal. Additionally, those bad elements of society, the criminals and the dangerously insane, would face a much greater likelihood of being eliminated, at once, and that at small expense in terms of dollars, police and court time, prison and paperwork. (While this would amount to a temporary increase in the rate of ‘gun violence’ (1) it would later subside, (2) it would be worth it, and (3) many of those killed would be bad elements, and their removal should not properly be counted on the side of tragedy, but rather, victory. After their number has been sufficiently reduced, the subsidence of (1) would then begin. It would also dissuade those contemplating a life of crime, and might suggest that they consider a different course of action, further contributing to the subsidence. Additionally, given the police would have little to do in terms of keeping extensive records on who are, and what is owned and bought and sold by the law-abiding, it would free them up to go after real criminals and actually get them off the streets, which I would also prefer. (To say nothing of worrying about what someone’s magazine capacity might be.) Finally, since government agents wouldn’t generally know who had which guns, the possibility of future confiscations would be sharply reduced, something I also value as I believe it would deter tyranny.

      Your vision, or at least my concept of your vision, is invasive, expensive, bureaucratic, less free, and more tolerant of and indeed ridden by crime, violence, mass shootings, and inclined to tyranny. I don’t want any part of it.

      But, if you have a broken moral compass and can’t even agree what should constitute lawful use of deadly force, I’m sure we won’t agree on lesser details, such as how to implement our respective visions. All I know is that you will continue to use deceptive arguments to press for more infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. Which is decidedly selfish of you.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “You appear to want (correct me if I’m wrong) guns to be heavily restricted, registered”

        I have mixed feelings about registrations so I’m willing to give gun owners the benefit of the doubt.

        “possibly locked up or rendered inoperable except with time-consuming measures to activate the”.

        That should be a personal decision but there ought to be rewards for proper safety and use…they can child proof medicine bottles…shouldn’t take a genius to do so for guns.

        “you want people to not carry them in most places, and you want to discourage their use, possession or training with them. ”

        No but public places should be allowed to say no to guns.

        “Possibly you want to sharply curtail the conditions under which deadly force may be lawfully employed by citizens, e.g. in Zimmerman’s case. ”

        I think a large number of so called DGUs are assault with a deadly weapon.

        “Plus, in particular, you want the government to know where every gun is, and you want to criminalize transactions with them that aren’t disclosed to the authorities. ”

        No, and criminalize the sale of guns to those who should not have them. It’s called being responsible. You know, like alcohol sales.

        “And you want only a few people to be allowed to buy them.”

        No.

        “On the other hand, you want criminals, the insane, illegal aliens, etc., to be free to walk amongst society and mingle among us, but, it’s ok, because ‘they can’t get guns’ because of all of the foregoing. ”

        Criminals who have served their time are free to go.
        The insane need help, not incarceration.

        Foreigners should no be granted American rights. Those here illegally should be sent back.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Bruce,

        The ‘Marks’ of the world always come down on the side of government and expanding the scope and power and cost of it over the side of freedom. More problems are solved with freedom than by government yet, despite all of the evidence, they cry for more bureaucracy and less freedom. While claiming that they want to protect this group or that, those are the ones who are generally the ones most hurt by their actions.

        Quinn’s First Law — Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          “Quinn’s First Law — Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.”

          The “war on drugs” and “war on poverty” come to mind

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “War in drugs”

            Wasn’t that a Republican fuck up?

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              Wasn’t that a Republican fuck up?

              Perhaps you could ask a Republican-I’m LP

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              It might have began that way, but there is no denying that both major parties are fully on board with it today, and have been for decades. Clinton expanded it greatly, for example, even though his brother “had a nose like a vacuum cleaner.” Almost nobody in Congress wants to end it.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                Almost nobody in Congress wants to end it.

                Well,we need it,lest we have thousands of unemployed JBTs,unable to arrest people for possession of a plant

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Wasn’t it slick himself who bore the nickname “hoover”?
                The drug trade is so lucrative only because the substances are illegal. There is a direct connection with alcohol and prohibition. The major drug cartels consider arrests and seizures of the drugs to be a cost of doing business, keeping the prices high and the profits even higher. That huge bankroll buys politicians.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            By their deeds you shal know them.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      If you have a “buddy” dropping drugs in your drink, he deserves shot.

  10. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark the Troll says:
    December 30, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    “How is it you can have a “right” to a gun and not a right to be free? You can’t have it both ways. Then again, I’ve seldom seen conservatives be consistent in their thinking. Is having a gun a higher freedom than actually being free?”

    Your ignorance is on display once again.

    We all have a right to be free and a right to defend our ourselves BUT when you are proven to be a danger to yourself or society, you can lose those rights. You want to deny (or delay) the right of the law abiding to the right to defend themselves while leaving the insane and the criminal free to roam society. You are one fucked up ass hole with some pretty perverse thinking.

    Sorry, that is as nice as I can put it.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Locking them up is better (and cheaper) than denying them the right to have a gun? Again, seems you think having a gun is more important than having freedom.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Mark the troll,

        Do you work at being such an ass or is it just natural for you?

        A person intent on committing murder or any other crime does not need to have a gun to do it. They will find a way to do what they intend to do.

        Why is that so hard for you to understand?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          It seems you’d rather have the state lock up people to prevent them from gun misuse but you’d rather not go with a step that says “no you can’t have one”. You clearly see gun access to be of a higher purpose.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            You hold the absurd notion that a dangerous person is only dangerous if they have a gun. Dangerous people can and do use other objects with which to kill. Do we screen anyone for knive or baseball bat purchases? How about cars. People deliberately kill other people with all of those items and a lot more. The object used is not the problem. The dangerous person is the problem and is the one to be locked away from civil society.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Wrong again. A dangerous person should not be handed the most efficient of killing machines. How do we know they are dangerous? How about checking? Maybe we find they have a criminal background! What a concept!

              Your fallacy for today is affirming the consequent. If it weren’t for fallacies you’d have nothing to say it seems.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                If you hadn’t read an article once about fallacies, you’d have nothing to say at all. Your biggest fallacy is in thinking that your crap makes sense.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Ray, you have a basic problem with your statement. The mark/babs personality has never evidenced anything resembling rational thinking. It knows that it would lose a logical argument in short order so it invented a second identity and then attacks with emotion, accusations of “logical fallacies”, and “straw man” arguments.
                  Since neither personality (even if by some stretch they are different people) has exhibited any sort of evidence that they have experience outside the academic cloister, it would be better to flush these floaters and spend your time and choler on some effort that is more rewarding than screaming in an echo chamber.
                  One other possibility I had not considered until now. These could be “kollej studunts” engaged in this diatribe as a class project.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Generally the irrationality group collects at the right side of tho political spectrum along with duck dynasty viewers, gun nuts, and the ultra religious. The only reason for making up excuses as to why I am here is to soothe your mind that this is some sort of prank or project. So much for rationality…yea, it MUST be a plot. Please consider that you may be wrong…if that is possible.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Seriously, what part of the world were you born and raised? You have absolutely no connection with anything American and you denigrate the values that has made America great.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    You’ll not get an argument from me on that. I hadn’t considered the class project either but it seems to make sense. Would anyone really pay someone to do this all day long?

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              No, that isn’t the notion that is held. The notion that is held is that a dangerous person is going to be astronomically more dangerous if he/she has easy access to firearms. Don’t know what’s hard to understand about that or why people try and come up with all these different ways to try and deny this basic and simple idea.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Did the 9/11 hijackers use a gun to kill almost 3,000 people?

                Could armed citizens been able to prevent them from doing their evil?

                Should the person being beaten or stabbed to death be happy that he wasn’t being shot?

                A gas can and a match can kill many in a short time and the victims die horrible deaths. How do I know? Because it has happened and if I remember correctly, more people died and were injured than in any mass shooting ever in this country. Should gas cans and matches require background checks?

                People are dangerous, not the tool that they use.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  If the hijackers had guns instead of boxcutters, would they have been more effective?

                  “Could armed citizens been able to prevent them from doing their evil?’

                  I don’t know and you don’t know. What if 5 people had been armed on the plane and started a shootout? Think it would have gone well?

                  “Should the person being beaten or stabbed to death be happy that he wasn’t being shot?”

                  Yes, his survival chances are significantly hire than had he been attacked with a firearm.

                  You want to argue that since other things can be dangerous, than guns shouldn’t be focused on. What your small brain can’t understand is the simple concept of lethality rates by weapon used.

                  People are dangerous. And the deadlier tool they have, the more dangerous they are. Is this hard to understand?

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    They didn’t need guns because the government that you love so much dutifully disarmed all of the good people and made them dead victims rather than survivors.

                    We do know that good people with guns stop crimes or cut them short. Just read any newspaper. There are reports every day.

                    People that have been knifed and shot tell me that they much prefer to be shot. No one wants to be burned to death. Why do you think people were leaping out of the Towers?

                    I am arguing that good people shouldn’t be left defenseless — even for some arbitrary waiting period. You want to satisfy your need for control by inflicting restrictions on those who cause no harm while ignoring the simple and plain fact that a dangerous person will not be deterred by the lack of a specific weapon.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      1. Stop lying and stop deflecting. Would they have been more effective with guns? Yes.

                      2. I’m talking about in an airplane. Are you too stupid to read and understand what I wrote?

                      3. Are you trying to argue that guns are less lethal than knives? Because 70% of homicides are committed with a firearm. Leaping out of towers? My god, what are you even talking about?

                      4. “while ignoring the simple and plain fact that a dangerous person will not be deterred by the lack of a specific weapon.” Really? What do you base this on?

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      To babs, the idiot blatherer:

                      How much more effective could the hijackers possibly be? Guns in their hands would not have helped them in doing what they did.

                      How fucking stupid are you really? We are talking right now about hijackers and 9/11 and when I mention leaping out of towers, you don’t know what I am talking about. What country do you live in? Where were you on 9/11 and the days afterward?

                      How do I know? I know because every day people are murdered by other people — dangerous people — using other methods.

                      A knife plunged into a body doesn’t make a loud noise which can expose the killer to discovery. A fire will often destroy all evidence of a crime and who might have committed it. C’mon. Tell the truth. Are you really this stupid or do you play it up to rile us up?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      1. Really? You’d sooner attack someone with a gun than someone with a knife? Liar.

                      2. Leaping out of towers has nothing to do with fatality rates of weapons. I think that is stated as simply as possible. Maybe you can understand it.

                      3. So since other methods are used, guns aren’t more lethal? Again, sorry, you’re a fucking moron, and 70% of homicides are comitted with guns. Get it? 7 out of 10 people who die to another person die to someone with a gun. 7 out of 10. 7 out 10.

                      In 2011, 8,583 were murdered with firearms. 1,694 with sharp instruments or knives. Simple math. Maybe not that simple for you?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Dangerous people with guns = bad
                      Dangerous people with cars = bad
                      Dangerous people with knives = bad
                      Dangerous people with gasoline and matches = bad
                      Dangerous people with airplanes = bad
                      Dangerous people with poison = bad
                      Dangerous people with broken bottles = bad
                      Dangerous people with chainsaws = bad
                      Dangerous people with steel pipes = bad
                      Dangerous people with candlesticks = bad, especially in the Library or the Dining Room.
                      Dangerous people with large rocks = bad
                      Dangerous people with swords = bad
                      Dangerous people with fists and feet = bad
                      Dangerous people with chloroform and cotton balls = bad

                      Question: What is the obvious implication of the above?

                      Liberal/progressive answer: OBVIOUSLY, guns need to be controlled better. Duh.

                      Conservative/libertarian/anarchist answer: obviously, dangerous people need to be controlled or eliminated.

                      Republican answer: obviously, a new cabinet position needs to be appointed with full subpoena power, to forthwith assemble a Blue Ribbon Commission to look into the matter more fully and report back to Congress with findings and recommendations.

                      Tyrant’s answer: obviously, guns need to be controlled better, because I seek to dominate the ignorant populace, after I first make them defenseless! Mwahahaha!

                      Bonus question: What is the fundamental difference between the liberal answer and the tyrant’s answer?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Proximal cause, bad person, primary tool, gun. Solution, bad person does not get gun. Good guys can buy as much as they want, just be good.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***What is the fundamental difference between the liberal answer and the tyrant’s answer?***

                      The liberal answer was deliberately incomplete.

                      “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    ***I don’t know and you don’t know. What if 5 people had been armed on the plane and started a shootout? Think it would have gone well?***
                    There’s near 3000 direct victims and their NOK that might take issue with that sentiment.
                    ***Yes, his survival chances are significantly hire than had he been attacked with a firearm.***
                    But by denying this LAW ABIDING citizen a handgun, you eliminate his most effective defense against any attack.
                    ***You want to argue that since other things can be dangerous, than guns shouldn’t be focused on. What your small brain can’t understand is the simple concept of lethality rates by weapon used.
                    People are dangerous. And the deadlier tool they have, the more dangerous they are. Is this hard to understand?***
                    And you focus myopically on guns rather than on those who would perpetrate those acts of violence.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “But by denying this LAW ABIDING citizen a handgun, you eliminate his most effective defense against any attack.
                      ***You want to argue that since other things can be dangerous, than guns shouldn’t be focused on. What your small brain can’t understand is the simple concept of lethality rates by weapon used.
                      People are dangerous. And the deadlier tool they have, the more dangerous they are. Is this hard to understand?***
                      And you focus myopically on guns rather than on those who would perpetrate those acts of violence.”

                      No one is denying a law abiding citizen in the context of this discussion. You keep forgetting that.

                      The focus is on people who buy and sell extremely lethal devices. Guns have no sense of right or wrong.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “The focus is on people who buy and sell extremely lethal devices.”

                      Focussing on people who sell guns is two steps removed from the problem, which is idiotic. The dangerous people are the problem, yet the people who wrote the background check law “never intended it to be enforced.” That is beyond idiotic, it’s evil. People who support such are also evil. “We want criminals to roam the streets, even after they commit a crime while a cop is on the phone, but we want to keep paper records of all the gun purchases of the law-abiding citizens, connecting their exact purchases to their identity and their residence.”

                      “Guns have no sense of right or wrong.”

                      Good, so I guess I can count on you to support repeals of laws which make guns “illegal”? Shall we call them “Undocumented Firearms”? And press for their amnesty?

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Do you mean like in the occasion of the Mumbai massacre? This was not the first and by no means the last mass murders in a country which was disarmed by the British over a century ago. Isn’t this a prime example of your “perfect disarmed society”?

                http://www.ask.com/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks?o=2800&qsrc=999

                Terrorist attacks in India
                (since 2001)

                List of terrorist incidents in India
                Attacks with 50+ deaths in Italics
                Red indicates deadliest terrorist attack in India since 2001
                2001

                Indian Parliament
                Srinagar

                2002

                1st Raghunath Temple
                Akshardam Temple
                Kolkata
                Kaluchak massacre
                Qasim Nagar massacre
                Rafiganj train
                2nd Raghunath Temple
                Mumbai bus bombing
                Kurnool train

                2003

                1st Mumbai
                2nd Mumbai
                3rd Mumbai
                4th Mumbai

                2005

                Ayodhya
                Delhi 2005
                Jaunpur train

                2006

                Varanasi
                Jama Masjid
                Doda massacre
                Mumbai
                Malegaon
                West Bengal train
                Srinagar

                2007

                Samjhauta Express
                Mecca Masjid
                Hyderabad
                Ajmer Dargah
                Uttar Pradesh

                2008

                Jaipur
                Bangalore
                Ahmedabad
                1st Delhi
                2nd Delhi
                Malegaon/Modasa
                Agartala
                Imphal
                Assam
                Mumbai

                2009

                1st Guwahati
                2nd Guwahati

                2010

                Bangalore
                Pune
                Dantewada
                Jnaneswari Express
                Jama Masjid Delhi
                Varanasi

                2011

                Mumbai
                Delhi

                2012

                Israeli diplomats, Delhi
                Pune

                2013

                Hyderabad
                1st Srinagar
                Bangalore
                Darbha valley
                2nd Srinagar
                Dumka (Maoist)
                Bodh Gaya
                Patna

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Of course guns have a higher purpose. Actually, they have at least two: They enable self-defense, making them compliant with the Law of Survival on a small scale. But they also deter tyranny, which enables compliance with the Law of Survival on a large scale. Note that in the last 100 years, governments have killed waaaay more of their own citizens than criminals have, making the crime angle of gun ownership (or, non-ownership) incidental. Sure, mass shootings are tragic (although, their blood is not on our hands when they occur in places where guns are banned from the victims) but those utterly pale in comparison to the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people killed by their own governments, after first being disarmed. There’s your higher purpose. Naturally, I don’t expect you to give a damn about that purpose, because you have a demonstrably missing moral compass.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Really? How do you know this? Do you have murderous thoughts and so know what a someone bent on carnage thinks when he debates what to do? How do you know if someone is committed to something? Actually, do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      ***You are one fucked up ass hole with some pretty perverse thinking. Sorry, that is as nice as I can put it.***

      There’s no need to sugar coat your sentiments. There’s more than a few people reading this forum who have arrived at that conclusion.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Thank you. I do not like stooping to that level, but I cannot read his drivel without coming to that conclusion.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          There are times when the language and sentiment are appropriate.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            “There are times when the language and sentiment are appropriate.”

            and remember,a REAL sergeant can cuss for five minutes without using the same word twice

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Takes running a platoon for a couple of years to develop that sort of vocabulary.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                Takes running a platoon for a couple of years to develop that sort of vocabulary.

                suffice it to say that when I was a PSG in the 16th,my vocabulary improved considerably.I did have a good tutor though-a captain who was the officer liason for the young 2LTs we training.He was GOOD……

  11. Whats up very cool website!! Man .. Excellent .. Wonderful .. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds also?I’m satisfied to find a lot of useful info here within the publish, we need develop more techniques in this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .

  12. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    Clustered criminals habituate homicide
    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/9246
    ***Nearly 50% of all gun homicides involve only 4% of inner city gangsters. This is common, but not widely publicized, knowledge. It’s a fact deliberately underemphasized by the Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and other gun ban advocates at the Happy Acres Home For the Terminally Bewildered. But a recent study by a sociology professor at Yale, who explored a poor Chicago neighborhood, evaluating homicide victims and their associations should reduce such willful ignorance.

    Unlike gun control groups who believe associating with firearms is the seed of destruction, Professor Andrew Papachristos sees things differently. Papachristos dug through seven years of firearm homicide and police arrest records from one of Chicago’s high-crime neighborhoods. What-do-ya-know: people in that neighborhood who associated with criminals had a significantly higher chance of being shot. And every step away from the gangsta life style reduced the odds of being killed by 57%.***

    Whodathunkit?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Increasing education and reducing the causes of poverty would go far in dealing with Chicago. I am not for banning guns so bringing up a policy like this is a straw man as far as I am concerned.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        You can continue to repeat that lie but every policy that you advance has the net effect of disarming people who have a right to those arms.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          I know you have a hard time dealing with facts and truth. Resolving them by telling me what I think serves no purpose.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Speaking of Chicago! The pro gunner’s favorite city in the world has had fewer homicides than it has had since the 1970s! What’s that argument you guys use? Oh yea, look! Homicide is down! So obviously their tactics are working

          NYC had a 20% drop in murders and a 19.5% drop in shootings. Guess the gun control is working?

          Right guys? What a great way to ring in the new year, eh?

  13. We’re a gaggle of volunteers and starting a brand new scheme in our community. Your site provided us with helpful info to paintings on. You’ve done a formidable process and our entire community will probably be thankful to you.

  14. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark (the pathetic troll) said:

    “The nirvana fallacy is often used this way. This is why the NRA gets tagged with being soft on gun crimes.”

    Just because a few left wing anti guns nuts made up a lie about the NRA being soft on gun crimes, doesn’t make it true. Even if every left wing anti gun nut said it, it still would not be true.

    Those who commit crimes, with or without a gun, should be punished appropriately. That is the standard of all responsible people, including the NRA (and I am not a fan or supporter or member). We do oppose ineffective, unnecessary restrictions on our legal rights.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Can you give me one example of an action the NRA has done that has shown they are acting in a way that supports being strong on gun crimes? Other than speeches and quotes, show me one action. An example of a law the NRA has supported in more than just words. Have they worked to create any legislation that would be strong on gun crimes? I haven’t heard of any.

      All I have seen from that organization when it comes to being “hard on gun crime” is rhetoric.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Good Lord. How do you get through even day to day life being so stupid?

        There are laws calling or punishment for people who commit acts that harm other people. They are already in place. Should we just pass new laws that would simply say, ‘this time we mean it’?

        Your viewpoint is that their opposition to funding the ATF was to protect dealers who are negligent or even criminal. And everyone here knows how deficient you are in seeing reality.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Guns are disappearing from dealer inventories. NRA backed laws are passed to prevent the ATF from having dealers take and report their inventory. Is the NRA protecting the god given right of gun dealers to be negligent with firearms/sell weapons to criminals?

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Conjecture.

            If there are no inventory reports, how do you know that guns are disappearing?

            Does this happen at every gun shop or just at a few?

            Are they being stolen or are they being sold to criminals?

            Like everything else, you don’t want to focus on the limited number who might indeed be problematic. You want to hogtie an entire industry. That’s what big government advocates do. I guess that you really can’t help yourself.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              What part is conjecture? Again, lack of precision. You throw out random statements without explaining anything.

              I said: “NRA backed laws are passed to prevent the ATF from having dealers take and report their inventory.”

              That means that the ATF is unable to force dealers to take or report their inventory. Most businesses, almost all businesses, keep inventory of their items. Should I also explain why this is the case? I’m guessing most firearm dealers do keep an inventory, it’s just that the ATF can’t require them to submit it.

              The only time they can see this is during the compliance inspections, which can only happen once a year, and only cover 20% of all dealers, they’ve found 18k firearms missing from inventory or account for by sale or other disposition. So if you do the math, a random 20% of dealers are inspected, 18k firearms are missing, multiply by 5 and you can, for argument’s sake, get roughly 90k unaccounted for firearms per year. The average inspection rate per gun dealer is every 5 years, based on the 20% inspection rate. What great oversight! 18k firearms missing confirmed for sure based on 1/5 of dealers being checked. And then you want to make arguments about the black market? Hahahahaha. THIS is where you should be focusing your attention.

              The real question is, why do I know these things and you are asking me to answer them for you? Why do I know more about this than you? Why am I educating you on how things work?

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Again, I say conjecture, or at best, projection.

                Even your attempt to justify your claim with statistics, it is still conjecture on your part. For the 20%, that may be true but you conveniently left out any stats that might exist that proves how many were sold illegally and how many were stolen.

                If the ATF is being diligent and suspect that certain dealers are a real problem, wouldn’t you expect those dealers to be checked more and more often than small dealers?

                Where are the prosecutions for any of these suggested crimes that you claim?

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  What a pathetic defense. What is conjecture on my part, you still haven’t said.

                  Whether they were stolen and not sold illegally, or stolen or used for other purposes, it doesn’t matter. You’re arguing degrees of illegality.

                  “If the ATF is being diligent and suspect that certain dealers are a real problem, wouldn’t you expect those dealers to be checked more and more often than small dealers?”

                  Did you not read the part of the Tiarhart Amendment that I said made it so ATF can only check on dealers once per year? Guess not. Do you not read well? Why don’t you anything about these topics on your own and why am I your teacher?

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        There has not been a study (to my knowledge) of NRA members involved in stopping/shooting criminals vs gun owners at large in the same situation. Given that NRA members are a small percentage of gun owners, their advocacy of armed response to crime being taken up by the general population is evidence of their opposition to “gun” crime.
        Therefore, your demand for “one example” is countered by daily reports of crimes stopped by gun owners.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Maybe I can help. Is this an example of the NRA being tough on gun crime?

      In 2004, the NRA helped create the The Tiahrt Amendments. Part of these laws block the ATF from conducting inventory checks on federally licensed gun dealers to detect losses or thefts.

      All guns originate from legal sources. But the NRA doesn’t want the ATF to be able to catch those shady gun dealers who are “losing” their inventory through theft or simply selling directly to criminals.

      Did you know that the ATF, with its resources and many limitations, can only visit gun dealers once a year, and only cover 20% of all federally licensed gun dealers?

      So how do all these guns get into criminal hands? Shouldn’t that be one of the the first places we look?

  15. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    babs muttered:

    “Guns weren’t banned in those locations. Conceal carry was banned. But those places had the right to have armed security guards, they have the right to have unloaded firearms in a secure location. Try and be more precise with your words or you come across as a, well, god damn retard.”

    Talk about sounding like a retard.

    1. Name those areas (cities, states) where open carry is allowed but concealed carry is not.

    2. An armed security guard is paid to protect a place, not people and he generally has no incentive to risk himself to protect others.

    3. An unloaded firearm in a secure location is nothing but a useless paper weight. It does not provide any security or any help in defending oneself. Remember, the words are ‘. . . to keep and BEAR arms . . .” not to keep them locked up and useless.

    Are you a retard or just plain evil? I’m putting my money on both options. I know that I won’t lose on either bet.

  16. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    1. Why? Not sure you understand what you’re talking about or how it is relevant.

    2. Why would a civilian have more of an incentive than someone who chose such a job? And how do you go about proving who has more of an incentive? Oh, you can’t.

    3. Really? Well then tell that to the principal who retrieved the firearm from his office and stopped a shooter.

    Since the founding of this country there have been restrictions on where you can or can’t bear arms. Please learn your history.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      1. Why? Because you claimed that guns were not banned, just concealed carry, I don’t know of any jurisdiction that frowns upon concealed carry that allows open carry. Even where CC is legal, most states prohibit OC. That is why it is relevant. I forgot that I was talking to a moron.

      2.An armed civilian chooses to protect himself and his loved ones. Most security never think that they will be placed in a life and death situation. And speaking of them, other than the lady who shot the shooter in her church (who, btw, was a volunteer, not paid security) name the places where a security guard stopped a shooter. Cops have. Civilians have. But I recall no such thing with paid security.

      3. That principal had to run quite a distance to his car — not his office — to get his handgun. He couldn’t even park on school property because he had the gun in the car. I thank God that he defied the rules to the extent that he did and was able to successfully end the massacre. How many more were shot while he was getting his gun? Unloaded and in a secure location is never the best defense option, NEVER. And the principal knows that better than you do.

  17. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    babs blathered:

    “I see that you are mostly trolling. I’m not interested in furthering such conversations …”

    Should this give us hope that you are leaving?

  18. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Babs, the babbler says:
    January 1, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    “1. Really? You’d sooner attack someone with a gun than someone with a knife? Liar.”

    The lie is that I said that or anything like that. I certainly did not. Why do you always twist words to suit your ends?

    “2. Leaping out of towers has nothing to do with fatality rates of weapons. I think that is stated as simply as possible. Maybe you can understand it.”

    Hey asshole, read again what I wrote and maybe you can understand it. I was talking about the number of deaths that are caused by things other than guns and that burning to death is not a good way to die. That is why so many jumped out of the towers that day. Now, is it beginning to get through your thick skull. A few guys with box cutters took over a plane and slammed it into those buildings causing 1000’s of deaths. In one day, almost 3000 people died at the hands of other people who did not use a gun, nor did they need one, in order to do their horrible deed. Getting through to you yet. Gun restrictions put in place by (possibly) well meaning ninnies and nannies were accessories to the death of those people. Gun control does not protect the innocent.

    “3. So since other methods are used, guns aren’t more lethal? Again, sorry, you’re a fucking moron, and 70% of homicides are comitted with guns. Get it? 7 out of 10 people who die to another person die to someone with a gun. 7 out of 10. 7 out 10.”

    And when a gun is not available or is inconvenient, 3 times out of ten, another weapon will be used by a dangerous person to kill someone. That’s a total of 100% of dead people killed by dangerous people. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. 10 out 10. Get it. Tools should not be banned. Dangerous people and left wing idiots such as yourself should be.

    In 2011, 8,583 were murdered with firearms. 1,694 with sharp instruments or knives. Simple math. Maybe not that simple for you?

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      1. You said they wouldn’t be more effective with guns. That is a lie. Keep denying it, won’t change a thing. Why would something more dangerous and more lethal be less effective? Please explain.

      2. I am talking about homicides. How many are caused by burning death? Please provide that number. You are too fucking stupid to see that just because other weapons can be effective, that guns aren’t more effective. Too. Fucking. Stupid.

      3. Who says that when a gun isn’t used, it’s because it wasn’t convenient or available? Your assumption is that everyone wants to deal with a gun. Firearms are 7 times more deadly in homicides. What hundred percent are you arguing. Too. Fucking. Stupid.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        babs, the really fucking stupid babbling troll,

        1. How could guns make the hijackers more successful when they achieved 100% of their goals. They took the planes and they crashed them into important (to them) targets killing thousands of Americans.

        One plane did not get to it’s target. Not because of the TSA or even the military, but because of brave America civilians who dared to stand up to the hijackers. Yes, an armed civilian may have been able to stop them before the plane crashed. MAY. Don’t claim that I said ‘would’. A gun only provides an opportunity to win. It doesn’t guarantee a win.

        In case you aren’t bright enough to realize it, people who die in fires caused by arson are homicide victims. I don’t have a number but it does happen and on one day in particular, nearly 3000 Americans died in fiery crashes caused by murderers armed with box cutters and jet fuel.

        Your stupidly is colossal. 100% of all homicide victims are dead because of dangerous people regardless of what method of that homicide.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          “Your stupidly is colossal. 100% of all homicide victims are dead because of dangerous people regardless of what method of that homicide.”

          Dangerous people + no weapon = …
          Dangerous people + knife/sharp instrument = 14% of homicides
          Dangerous people + firearm = 70% of homicides

          Did you ever learn about dependent and independent variables?

          If you’re trying to reduce homicides, what weapons would you target? Simple shit really.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Yes. You are colossally stupid or ignorant or evil or all 3.

            The part of the equation that you always want to ignore are the number of people whose lives are saved because they had a gun available so that they could protect themselves. That number far outweighs the tragic loss of life of the innocent victims of dangerous people. You are good at distracting from that point.

            And the more important part is that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was protection against tyranny and that is a vastly greater threat.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Dangerous people. Duh. Not rocket science. Dangerous people are still dangerous without the guns. It’s the people that are the problem. Arrest them and jail them. Or shoot them at the time they make grave, imminent threats against others. Going after the guns is like going after the bandaids.

            “Band-Aid” brand self-adhesive gauzes were used on 70% of fatal wounds.
            “Curad” brand self-adhesive gauzes were used on 14% of fatal wounds.
            Other brands were used in the remainder. Which brand is responsible for the largest number of deaths due to fatal wounds? (Which we should therefore go after, right?) But it’s not about the band-aid, it’s about the wound.

            What measures should be taken against that brand of car which is most-used as a getaway car in bank robberies? Because one of them has be to the most used, right? But it’s not about the car, it’s about the bank robber.

            Dangerous people with guns isn’t about guns, it’s about dangerous people.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              Bandaids? What are you talking about?

              You try so, so hard to come up with arguments but this is what you are reduced to. There is no arguing against the reality of the statistics. Are you comparing bandaids to firearms? What is wrong with you? I can’t stop laughing imagining you sitting at your computer, thinking you came up with this great example to counter my argument. Hahahaha.

              “Which brand is responsible for the largest number of deaths due to fatal wounds? ”

              The responsibility of band aids in a fatality?

              Are you serious? I can’t stop laughing.

              Get away cars? You think that is a good example?

              70% of homicides are committed with a firearm. That’s the reality. Sorry you don’t like it. Tell us more about your bandaid theory. Very interesting.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                If you had a functioning brain, you’d be able to understand his analogy.

                You don’t, so you are reduced to mocking him. You are pathetic.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  Ah, another fan of the bandaid theory?

                  Help me understand how gauze is comparable to a knife or gun. I’m just not smart enough.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    babs, the babbler, stumbled upon a truth when he said about himself, “I’m just not smart enough.”

                    We know that and have been trying to tell you for quite some time.

  19. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Babs, the babbler said:

    “What is conjecture on my part, you still haven’t said.”

    You really do have a reading comprehension problem. Your whole point is conjecture or at best, projection and I explained why. Get an adult to read it and explain it to you.

    “Whether they were stolen and not sold illegally, or stolen or used for other purposes, it doesn’t matter. You’re arguing degrees of illegality.”

    If there is proof of illegality, where are the prosecutions? Until you have arrests and trial and convictions, we are not talking about illegalities at all.

    “Did you not read the part of the Tiarhart Amendment that I said made it so ATF can only check on dealers once per year? Guess not. Do you not read well?”

    Did you see me say that they should be checked more than once a year? No, you didn’t but why let that get in the way of your habit of seeing what isn’t there and not seeing that which clearly is right in front of you?

    I said ‘checked more often. If a particular dealer is suspect, wouldn’t you think that they would be checked EVERY year instead of just once in 5 years? Wouldn’t that make more sense than to hassle Bob the gunner dealer who sells 10 guns a year?

    “Why don’t you anything about these topics on your own and why am I your teacher?”

    You? My teacher? You gotta be fucking kidding me. You don’t teach. You lie, you misrepresent, you twist, you deceive, you promote an agenda that is just plain wrong. You try to indoctrinate, but you never teach and you never get even close to the truth.

  20. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Nothing is conjecture. All those statements are fact.

    1. The ATF can only check dealers once a year.
    2. They can only check 20% of all dealers
    3. In doing so, they find 18k firearms missing

    Which part is conjecture?

    “If there is proof of illegality, where are the prosecutions? Until you have arrests and trial and convictions, we are not talking about illegalities at all.”

    How about the case of the DC sniper? Does that count? Look it up so I don’t have to educate you further.

    “Did you see me say that they should be checked more than once a year? No, you didn’t but why let that get in the way of your habit of seeing what isn’t there and not seeing that which clearly is right in front of you?”

    You said:

    “If the ATF is being diligent and suspect that certain dealers are a real problem, wouldn’t you expect those dealers to be checked more and more often than small dealers?”

    Are. You. Fucking. Stupid.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Your conclusion is conjecture.

      You are extrapolating the numbers based on a limited sample of dealers without knowing why those dealers were selected. Was it random? Was it based on suspicion of wrong doing? Was it based on their size?

      20% of dealers does not necessarily mean that the other 80% are just like them so your conclusions are just guesswork, otherwise known as conjecture.

      The DC sniper? Didn’t he steal that rifle from a gun shop?

      No, I am not stupid, even though you think that just about everyone but you is. The ATF claims that they only have the resources to check 1/5th of dealers each year. Does it take as much time to audit a store that sells ten guns a month as it does one that sells a 1000 a month? If you think so, you are stupid. Does a more frequent audit have to mean more than once a year? If you think so, then you really are stupid. Some dealers (based on good sound reasoning) might be audited every year while others could get by with an audit every 4 or 5 years. If you really believe otherwise, then you are really fucking stupid. And a troll.

  21. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Why would you think that background checks reduce the amount of criminals? You said it not me. It was fucking stupid and I pointed it out and now you’re crying about it.

    You still have not defended your argument about comparing drugs to guns. Will you ever bring any argument forth?

    Wait, do you take it literally when I say go get a criminal record and try and buy a gun? Would you also take it literally if I said to jump into a lake?

    “Your argument is that since there is a black market, we shouldn’t regulate the legal market. Stop trying to pretend that isn’t the case. Again, you embarrass yourself endlessly.””

    Yes, that is your argument. You said that since it’s not very effective, it’s useless. And you propose nothing realistic in its place. Try and come up with your own insults, mindlessly repeating mine is flattering, but pathetic.

    Firearm manufactures called their firearms assault rifles. Who should I believe? You or them? Who should the public believe? They buy something labeled as an assault rifle. They call it that. Pretty fucking simple.

    “Lie, I didn’t say that. I said we need a different system, comprising a method to eliminate those miscreants from polite society who would dare to commit violent crimes with guns – or without them, for that matter.”

    Is what you said. So unless you want to force everyone to arm themselves like in the founding era, and then forcing them to use their gun, your suggestion is stupid, invalid, and well, fucking retarded.

    You wouldn’t know a straw man if you saw one, you imbecile. I am not interesting in responding to trolling points. Why? Most importantly is because there is nothing to respond to when you are no longer responding to my argument and then just start trolling. You admit defeat and show how weak you are in defending your beliefs.

    Get fucked.

  22. BruceNo Gravatar says:

    “Why would you think that background checks reduce the amount of criminals? You said it not me. It was fucking stupid and I pointed it out and now you’re crying about it.”

    Because normally, criminals are arrested and jailed, and then prosecuted and convicted, and jailed for longer, when they commit crimes, such as attempting to purchase guns when they are prohibited people. That “reduces the amount of criminals” who are around to cause problems, including ‘gun violence.’ That is what laws are for. That is why we have laws. That is why we have police officers. And courts. And jails. Except that somehow, you don’t think that the background check law should be enforced. Talk about fucking stupid. Or rather, evil. You’d rather those same criminals, so ‘helpfully’ denied a gun purchase, are still out and about doing whatever it is that criminals do. Which would be … help me out here … um … commit crimes? Including violent crimes?

    “You still have not defended your argument about comparing drugs to guns. Will you ever bring any argument forth?”

    You can’t read, or you can’t follow an argument. I spelled it out in great detail. It’s not my responsibility you are too stupid to grasp it.

    “Yes, that is your argument. You said that since it’s not very effective, it’s useless. And you propose nothing realistic in its place. Try and come up with your own insults, mindlessly repeating mine is flattering, but pathetic.”

    What is pathetic, is that they are your own words. Look in the mirror, and behold your pathos. Why, here are all the pearls of wisdom from just one of your posts. (This, coming from someone who accuses another of trolling, and of “not furthering the discussion.”)

    Begin Babs Quotes: ——————

    So your knowledge doesn’t really mean much does it.

    Haha, are you serious? Do they have background checks for drugs?

    Try and think.

    My god, how stupid is your logic?

    How retarded are you, really?

    Again, how retarded are you?

    Try and be more precise with your words or you come across as a, well, god damn retard.

    End Babs Quotes —————-

    (And remember, that’s just from *one* post.)

    Pathetic indeed.

    “Firearm manufactures called their firearms assault rifles. Who should I believe? You or them? Who should the public believe? They buy something labeled as an assault rifle. They call it that. Pretty fucking simple.”

    Firearm manufacturers make fully automatic weapons, which are not available for sale to ordinary citizens. Those are assault rifles. Not what that guy bought at a sporting goods store. Meanwhile, to expose a lie that you’re actively supporting: “[semiautomatic ‘assault weapons’] menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons –anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun– can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” –Josh Sugarmann, spokesman for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America,” policy report of New Right Watch and the Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, September 1988″

    “Lie, I didn’t say that. I said we need a different system, comprising a method to eliminate those miscreants from polite society who would dare to commit violent crimes with guns – or without them, for that matter.”

    “Is what you said.”

    No it isn’t. Don’t lie again. I didn’t say we should kill all such criminals. I said people should be free to kill them, insofar as they make deadly threats against members of society. Those who do not make deadly threats should not be killed, not according to me, and not according to the law. They should merely be detained and arrested. But, here’s what you wrote representing my argument: “Your defense of your argument to _kill_all_criminals_who_commit_crimes_with_guns_is pathetic.”

    One more time: I don’t want to kill all criminals who commit crimes with guns. Got that? Not all of them, and especially not those whose only crimes-with-guns is that they possess something that has just been declared illegal by fiat. The ones I want to kill are the ones who are committing “imminent, grave threats against others.” Those who are killing people, or about to kill them. Or abduct them, or burn them alive, or forcibly rape them. Those people. That’s not _all_ criminals by a long shot … but you apparently (1) can’t tell the difference, and (2) don’t think even my limited subset of criminals should be killed, while in the act of doing what they are doing.

    Meanwhile, the elements of a straw man argument are that (1) you misrepresent my argument, falsely and dishonestly attributing words to me that I did not say, and (2) that you then destroy that misrepresentation, while thereby falsely claiming to your audience to be demolishing *my* arguments, and thereby, defeating *me*. You are two for two in this example.

    “You wouldn’t know a straw man if you saw one, you imbecile.”

    No? See above. Textbook.

    “I am not interesting in responding to trolling points.”

    A tad bit ironical, given that you repeatedly use straw men against me.

    “Most importantly is because there is nothing to respond to when you are no longer responding to my argument and then just start trolling.”

    You mean like, responding to your straw men?

    “You admit defeat [nope] and show how weak you are in defending your beliefs. [nope – how weak you are by misrepresenting my arguments]
    Get fucked.” Ahhh, the words of victory. In your own little mind.

    Say, you’ve broken your word already, not that anyone thought it was worth anything, but, you weren’t going to reply to me, remember? Or does that tax your mental facilities too much?

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      “Lie, I didn’t say that. I said we need a different system, comprising a method to eliminate those miscreants from polite society who would dare to commit violent crimes with guns – or without them, for that matter.” -bruce

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        You might note that I used the word “violent,” as in presenting “grave, imminent threats” against others. A phrase which I repeated several times in multiple different replies to you, and in a manner that would be obvious to anyone, except yourself, from this context.

        But, in any case, certainly, I never said “all” criminals, even in this quote taken out of context. Which is what you represented I had said. So you are still guilty of a Straw Man, and then claiming that *I* am trolling *you*.

        In any case, my position is unchanged: I want citizens to be able to defend themselves from imminent, grave threats posed by criminals, with deadly force. Given that criminals can not possibly be kept from acquiring deadly weapons of numerous types, including guns, the only rational approach is to deal with such criminals on their own terms, which is to say, with force. Of course, I don’t think anyone should be forced to respond to deadly threats with deadly force, they should be free to choose to die at a criminal’s hands, waiting for the police to arrive, if they so wish. You might be one of them. Which is your right.

        Good day.

  23. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark, the troll is back and still denying reality.

    “Proximal cause, bad person, primary tool, gun. Solution, bad person does not get gun. Good guys can buy as much as they want, just be good.”

    If the intent is to deny the bad guys, then why not immediately dispatch a cop or two to the gun store to arrest a guy who is knowingly and willfully breaking at least one law, probably violating his conditions of parole, while trying to prepare to commit a new series of crimes?

    If they are not doing that, the result is to just make it more difficult for law abiding people to exercise their rights while making it appear that lawmakers and law enforcers are ‘doing something’. It is all a charade to fool people.

  24. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “If the intent is to deny the bad guys, then why not immediately dispatch a cop or two to the gun store to arrest a guy who is knowingly and willfully breaking at least one law, probably violating his conditions of parole, while trying to prepare to commit a new series of crimes?”

    By all means they should do that. How many reality points have I earned now?

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      None. Keep trying and you may eventually get on the board and earn some points.

      Now, the next question(s) . . .

      Since they don’t do that, what is the purpose of the law?

      Is it to provide jobs for those who answer the NICS/PICS phone?

      Is it to build a registry of legal gun owners?

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        The laws purpose should be exactly as it was intended. We already know what is so discussing it moves us nowhere. If cops don’t enforce a speed limit on a section of highway it doesn’t change the law or the speed.

        Enforcement should should be swift and highly consistent.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Are you afraid to discuss it? What is the intent? What was the stated intent?

          Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. ALWAYS.

          If it is a crime for a prohibited person to try to buy the gun, where are the arrests and prosecutions?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            I have no idea what point you are driving toward. You have already stated the intent. Proceed with your conclusion because I have no other things to say regarding the laws and consequences. You seem very close to be arguing that we should not prosecute those who break the laws concerning those who get guns.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              You really have no critical thinking skills. When you don’t have talking points to copy and paste, you either change the subject or run away from it.

              Go back to your trainers or handlers and tell them that you were stumped by a question and ask them for help.

              Do you think that they can prepare an answer for you by the weekend?

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                You made this statement that I agree with.

                “If the intent is to deny the bad guys, then why not immediately dispatch a cop or two to the gun store to arrest a guy who is knowingly and willfully breaking at least one law, probably violating his conditions of parole, while trying to prepare to commit a new series of crimes?”

                I have no idea where you wish to go beyond me agreeing with you. It seems you’ve talked yourself into a corner and expect me to give you a way out. You’ll have to dig that one on your own. I have no idea what more I can say when I agree with you.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  Two key words that you overlooked.

                  IF and WHY.

                  Since they are not doing that, then what is the purpose of the law that purports to be aimed at taking bad guys down?

                  What is the true purpose since that are not doing that?

                  This is why I do not support background checks or universal background checks. They will mostly serve to inconvenience the law abiding while not capture and imprison the bad guys.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “This is why I do not support background checks or universal background checks. They will mostly serve to inconvenience the law abiding while not capture and imprison the bad guys.”

                    The inconvenience thing is mostly a straw man. How much time is spent buying a gun? A background check isn’t that big of a deal.

                    Second you have stepped into a false dichotomy. There are more than two options on the laws.

                    1. A law works, keep it
                    2. A law doesn’t work, get rid of it
                    3. A law doesn’t work, fix it
                    4. A law is not being enforced, enforce it.
                    5. And so on…

                    Lastly, no law is going to be perfect but looking the other way while a illegal immigrant buys a gun…seems like it would have the added benefit of sending them back to their country of origin.

                    I think from a psychological standpoint most gun buyers bristle at the thought of proving they are innocent. So sorry but that innocent thing is for courts. Ever vote without proving you are a voter?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “The inconvenience thing is mostly a straw man. How much time is spent buying a gun? A background check isn’t that big of a deal.”

                      Background checks enable registration, by connecting the make, model, and serial number of a gun, to a person’s name, address, and driver’s license. That’s a whole lot more than “yup, this is a good person.” If background checks were really just background checks, that would be a different matter. But, in keeping with the standard mendacity, things are often called something which is the opposite of what they do. (The “Banking Secrecy Act” _requires_ transactions to be reported to the feds, when they are cash transactions above $!0,000, rather the opposite of secrecy.)

                      “Lastly, no law is going to be perfect but looking the other way while a illegal immigrant buys a gun…seems like it would have the added benefit of sending them back to their country of origin.”

                      Oddly California has just decided to grant a law license to an illegal immigrant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/news-digest-illegal-immigr ant-gets-law-license-clergyman-freed-from-prison/2014/01/02/f4f6f 2e0-73f1-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html
                      If they can ‘practice law’ (notwithstanding being illegal) then it wouldn’t seem that keeping them from having guns is so terrible.

                      “I think from a psychological standpoint most gun buyers bristle at the thought of proving they are innocent. So sorry but that innocent thing is for courts.”

                      Well, it does turn an established principle upside down, the presumption of innocence. Then again, for liberals, principles are only worthwhile when they lead to desired outcomes.

                      “Ever vote without proving you are a voter?”

                      It’s interesting you should say that, given how much Babs attacked me for comparing voting and buying guns. As a matter of fact, not only do voters not have to undergo a criminal background check before being allowed to vote. Notwithstanding the fact that felons, illegal immigrants, and some others are prohibited from voting, so there would be a reason to do so. No, as a matter of fact, it has been decided that even having someone *show their ID* is “intimidation” and can be prohibited, at least in some jurisdictions. If voting is an important right, and gun ownership is an important right, but both are prohibited to certain classes of people (children, felons, etc) it would appear that similar criteria under the law should lead to similar treatments of those attempting to vote or buy guns. Furthermore, unlike buying guns, voter registration has a worthwhile purpose, which is to prevent someone from voting twice in the same election. Because there is no corresponding law that people can only buy one gun. (So, registering gun owners is not comparable to voter registration and must be being done for a different purpose.)
                      Since you bring in voting, I again propose that whatever the standard is for being allowed to vote, should be made the exact same standard for being allowed to buy a gun. No ID? Or full background check with a cop on the phone. Not to mention a possible 5-day delay if their computers are down. You’re going to miss election day? Sorry, the gun buyer is going to miss being armed when her ex-husband arrives at her home in two nights, at midnight and you don’t give a damn about that. “A reasonable price to pay” you’d probably say.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Background checks enable registration, by connecting the make, model, and serial number of a gun, to a person’s name, address, and driver’s license. That’s a whole lot more than “yup, this is a good person.” If background checks were really just background checks, that would be a different matter.”

                      How else do you check someone? Sniff their butts? Your statement makes no sense.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll writes: “How else do you check someone? Sniff their butts? Your statement makes no sense.”

                      You once again demonstrate how and why you are a troll. Obviously, there is a difference between checking the status a person, and making a written record of what he has purchased. Obviously. One has to be either shockingly ignorant, or willfully trolling, to fail to draw this distinction.

                      Let us suppose that I grant, “this is how you check a person.” You have a list of bad people, and if he isn’t on it, he’s good to go. Obviously.

                      But the form 4473, obviously, also has a space, which legally must be filled out by the FFL, for the _make_, _model_ and _serial number_ of the gun(s) purchased. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PERSON’S BACKGROUND. Get it? Not rocket science. It’s not about people’s background, it’s about gun registration. Your so-called ‘background checks’ are actually ‘registration/checks’ because they cause the collection of information about what *law-abiding* (i.e. non-denied) people are buying, which is information that has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE’S BACKGROUND. This aspect of the ‘check’ is more objectionable to me than the background check part. While I still have a modest objection to just the check part, I might be willing to go along with it if certain assurances can be made. But the gun registration part is another matter. Nothing good comes from gun registration, but a lot of bad things come from it. And the checks you want expanded necessarily include gun registration as a component. Unacceptable.

                      *Given* that the background checks amount to de facto gun registration, I am *opposed* to them altogether, and instead would seek to manage “bad guys with guns” in an entirely different way: Keep violent, dangerous people who are in jail, in jail, until such time as they are no longer threats. And enable good people to defend their lives with deadly force when they are subject to “grave, imminent threats” (got that, Babs?). At the very least, arrest, detain, and *prosecute, convict and imprison* bad people who attempt to buy guns under the present system. The fact that this latter point isn’t even being done, and isn’t even supposed to be being done, ‘because the law was never intended to be enforced’ is sheer insanity, tinged with enough questionable motive to undermine any support I could possibly have for those registration/checks, let alone expanding them to cover all transactions.

                      So there you have it, Mark The Troll. I will let you sniff all the butts you want, it’s obviously on your mind.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “You once again demonstrate how and why you are a troll. Obviously, there is a difference between checking the status a person, and making a written record of what he has purchased. Obviously. One has to be either shockingly ignorant, or willfully trolling, to fail to draw this distinction.”

                      Ah, I see, that was another of your straw men that you love constructing so much. Sorry.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Your question was: how else do you check someone’s background, smell their butts? My answer is, it’s not about their background, it’s about gun registration. What is the argument that I am attributing to you, that is not yours? State it.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      If it’s not about background checks, why does the majority of the background check form deal with the prospective buyer’s background?

                      If it’s about registration, why are the records of approved background checks purged from federal records within 24 hours of the sale being completed?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “If it’s not about background checks, why does the majority of the background check form deal with the prospective buyer’s background?”

                      Because, obviously, the part that *isn’t* about the buyer’s background, is the key part. Moron. Specifically, it’s the part about the make, model, and serial number of the gun purchased, which is to say, obviously, the gun registration part. Obviously. Moron.

                      99% of a contract can be just wonderful, but if the lone sentence “And then we put three bullets in the back of your head” appears, the fact that 99.99% of the document is just peachy, is utterly irrelevant. The whole goodness/badness of the agreement rests in that one line. So it is with the background checks. Make/model/serial number // name/address/driver’s license. Equals gun registration. Unacceptable.

                      “If it’s about registration, why are the records of approved background checks purged from federal records within 24 hours of the sale being completed?”

                      First, they aren’t, and the BATFE and other agencies have already admitted to compiling registration databases, and being ordered to cease. (Have they? How would anyone know? How can it possibly be proved to have ceased?) Second, the original form 4473, kept by the dealer, continues to hold that information, and (1) must be surrendered to the BATFE if the FFL goes out of business, e.g. by retirement, (2) is usually seized by the BATFE if the FFL is under investigation and (3) may be “inspected” (e.g. by means of a copy machine or camera) during normal business hours, during routine inspections of dealers. The dealer must keep the forms for 20 years, before being allowed to destroy them. Even at one inspection per year, that gives agents 20 opportunities to “inspect” the records, to say nothing of seizures and retirements. Those represent enough of an opportunity for the government to compile registration databases that I can not support the system.

                      Incidentally, I have furnished this answer before, but you somehow have never acknowledged it and continue to ask it, which reeks of the broken record fallacy. (Simply ignore one’s opponent’s refutation and restate one’s own argument as if it stands unrefuted. A fallacy I needed to invent to properly characterize one of Mark The Troll’s tactics.)

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Brucey, settle down. It’s obviously not the key part because there is minimal if any action taken using that information. How much activity takes place using the background information? Pretty much all of it.

                      It is about gun dealers having to keep records of what they are selling. And it’s no surprise, since during the compliance inspections, which only can inspect 1/5 of the total licensed gun dealers (because of funding, remember?), they find roughly 18k firearms missing. But you want them to be able to make sales with no mention of what the product is. The honor system. Brilliant!

  25. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Actually, they do make plenty of arrests. You are confusing arrests with the lack of prosecutions. Think. You can do it.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Prove it. Where are the arrests? Why aren’t they prosecuting? They committed an illegal act in front of witnesses and signed a ‘confession’ just by signing the form. Why aren’t they being prosecuted? Of the few that are, who are they and why were they selected out of the massive number that you claimed are stopped from buying guns?

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Ah, so you want me to do all the work again? So I can inform you on the things you seem to believe so strongly in, yet don’t have any facts to inform your opinion?

        I know you like handouts, but have some self respect and do some of your own research.

        You’re like a young child asking the adult why this? why that?

        Do you think that all people who lied on background checks did so knowingly, with the intention of trying to hide their criminal history? Do you know that there is an appeal system if you are denied for any reason?

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          You made a claim. Its not up to me to prove your claim.

          What is interesting is now you are also saying that false rejections are the reason for low arrest and prosecutions.

          If that is true, then the system isn’t working well (with or without an appeal) and good people are being denied.

          You want to use both sides of the argument and it ain’t working.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            Do you or do you not know the answers to the questions you asked. That is more important than whether I have proved my claim to you.

            They aren’t being denied because there is a speedy appeal system. The system isn’t perfect. I’ve been saying it. Mark has been saying it. Let us know when you have ideas to fix it.

            Here’s a start: NCIS was authorized 375 million dollars in 2011. Congress appropriated 20 million. That is 5.3% of what was authorized. Your side gimps the tool in all possible legal and financial ways then argues that the tool is ineffective.

            If you really wanted people arrested, charged, and prosecuted for gun crimes, like you claim, you would be supporting the tools and actors who make that possible.

            So who is really arguing both sides of the argument?

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              “Your side gimps the tool in all possible legal and financial ways then argues that the tool is ineffective.”

              Nice attempt at misdirection, but you have failed. Irrespective of what the tool should have cost, or actually did cost, the fact remains that known felons go to known gun stores and attempt to buy guns, and are “denied” by the cop at the other end of the phone (searching through this ‘under-funded’ tool), which amounts to the commission of an actual crime, the attempted purchase of a firearm by a prohibited purpose. But (1) no cop is dispatched to arrest the felon, which incidentally is unrelated to the funding for the NICS tool (which is your misdirection) and (2) the legislators stated they didn’t intend this law to be enforced (!) in this way, and (3) you have expressed being entirely ok with the fact that (a) the law is not enforced, adn (b) that the criminal is allowed to walk out of the store and mingle again in polite society.

              The fact that those who wrote the law did not intend it to be enforced by taking dangerous people off the streets, calls into question their stated intent of preventing firearms sales. Records are kept of the allowed purchases (i.e. registration) and the criminals are allowed to walk free, for the most part. (I read that there were something like 7 prosecutions in something like 100,000 denials, or thereabouts, some years ago.) All this even *with* the ‘underfunded’ NICS check as it presently stands. Funding of NICS is a red herring. Why we should trust the intentions of lawmakers who wrote a law that both enables registration, and ‘was never intended’ to be enforced in a way that could easily remove dangerous people from the streets, is at issue.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Re-read this:

                “If you really wanted people arrested, charged, and prosecuted for gun crimes, like you claim, you would be supporting the tools and actors who make that possible.

                So who is really arguing both sides of the argument?”

                And while you’re at it, tell me more about your band-aid and get away car theory.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  C’mon now. Be consistent.

                  Even you said that the program wasn’t designed to do that. Given that, why should anyone support it.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Page 47 and on: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf

                Thought some facts would be a good addition to the conversation.

                “But (1) no cop is dispatched to arrest the felon, which incidentally is unrelated to the funding for the NICS tool ”

                Really? Where do you get this from?

                In 2009, Virginia had 3,101 total denials and 930 arrests. Maryland had “A statewide unit responded to all falsified applications and illegal attempts to buy firearms.”

                Where you getting your facts again?

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  You mention denials.

                  You mention arrests.

                  You don’t mention prosecutions.

                  Why?

                  What good is an arrest if there are no prosecutions? Is it just to buy the arrestee lunch while waiting to be released?

                  The program does work but only in the regard that it was never intended to arrest and prosecute criminals caught in the act of breaking the law.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    I mention arrests because Bruce said there are 0. I quoted the part of Bruce’s post I was responding to. Please try and read. You also asked in a previous post: “Prove it. Where are the arrests?” Do you not remember? Or are you just playing stupid?

                    I did mention prosecutions and the answer starts on page 47 of that link. No point in me copying and pasting pages of that article. You think you can manage reading a few pages? I did all the research for you, don’t worry.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      You are still dancing.

                      If there are arrests, where are the prosecutions?

                      Are they arresting the wrong people? Do you think that is a good thing?

                      If they are arresting the right people (criminals), why aren’t they bragging about prosecutions and convictions?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      I was right, reading a few pages was too much for you. All your questions regarding prosecutions are answered in that document I linked, page 47. Not much more I can do for you.

                      Dancing? Hardly. I am answering your question and proving Bruce wrong.

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      You should go back and read my little post. There are people who are so smart —I mean they can reduce a paragraph from Stephen Hawking to “blah, blah, blah” now that is really smart — that they are simply out of our league. Best to ignore them. This way we do not waste their time.

                      Or perhaps they only think that they are smarter than Dr. Hawking. Well, then still best to ignore them. You would have better luck trying to discuss a movie with your dog. And your god may be a really smart dog, but it will not be able to discuss TV.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              See Bruce’s excellent reply to your post. He (as always) has said it much better and in a more calm manner than I could.

              Bruce, thank you.

  26. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Interesting. A gun club for liberals who appreciate guns and gun ownership and don’t want the government to imposes restrictions such as background checks or ammo taxes. Apparently they just hate anyone to the right of Karl Marx. Obama is too conservative. Go figure.

    http://www.gopusa.com/news/2014/01/02/lets-take-a-peek-into-leftw ing-gun-culture/?subscriber=1

  27. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    babs babbles:

    “I was right, reading a few pages was too much for you. All your questions regarding prosecutions are answered in that document I linked, page 47. Not much more I can do for you”.

    I had no intention of reading your linked report but now I am glad that I did. I still didn’t read the entire report and won’t but I read enough to see that the lack of referalls for prosecution, actual prosecutions, and convictions are all so law that on its face, the law is a complete failure in removing bad guys from society. Whether it is just bad law, lousy implementation, or lazy (or glory seeking DAs that see no glory in these cases), the law doesn’t work and should be repealed.

    Btw, I don’t know if in your primary language 47 means something other than what it means in English, I saw none of the stats that you attribute to that report on page 47.

    “Dancing? Hardly. I am answering your question and proving Bruce wrong.”

    You failed on both counts. You didn’t answer my question and Bruce is still right.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      I didn’t claim my stats came from that link, not sure what you’re talking about. Reading problems again? I claimed information on lack of prosecutions came from there. Which I stated in multiple posts. Dumbass.

      “You didn’t answer my question and Bruce is still right.”

      Really? I can’t tell if you’re trolling.

      Did you ask: “Prove it. Where are the arrests?”

      Yes. And I proved it. And that makes you look stupid as hell so you try and pivot. Stupid or troll?

      Did Bruce say: ““But (1) no cop is dispatched to arrest the felon, which incidentally is unrelated to the funding for the NICS tool ””

      Yes. And I proved him wrong.

      ” the law doesn’t work and should be repealed.”

      Alright, so you want no checks. You invite all dangerous people, which and Bruce you claim is the big problem, to go into any gun store and buy as they please. Great solution. So much better than the current system.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        “Alright, so you want no checks. You invite all dangerous people, which and Bruce you claim is the big problem, to go into any gun store and buy as they please. Great solution. So much better than the current system.”

        First, that is not what we want. (Straw man.) What we want is to invite the dangerous people to please see the inside of correctional facilities. Or possibly the gallows if they are incorrigibly violent. Then everyone else is welcome to go buy whatever they can afford – knowing that if they do something stupid, they are very likely to be shot back at. Oh, and outnumbered in most public places, too.

        Incidentally, the registration/checks are a recent invention. Up until recently on the scale of American history, nearly anyone could buy a gun with no questions asked. People could order machine guns from the Sears catalog and have the post man leave it in a box on the front porch, if you weren’t there to receive him, without so much as any signature being required, to say nothing of background checks. In other words, pretty much your complete dystopic vision of what we seek. Nevertheless, ‘gun violence’ was not much higher than it is now, and in many places it was dramatically less. Especially compared to ‘gun-free’ places like Chicago today, which has violent crime rates, and for that matter firearms homicide rates, vastly higher than in the Wild West a hundred or more years ago.

        Remember the Great Shootout at the OK Corral? How many fatalities did it have? Go look it up, and post the answer here. It’s much less than the average weekend in Chicago. But it is still known about and spoken of today, *because it was so very exceptional for the time*(!)

        If you actually cared about gun violence and whatnot, you might actually prefer living in the Wild West than in many cities today, all else being equal. Nevertheless, instead, you seek to plunge forward into the false promises of progressivism and/or liberalism. Whose solutions don’t always do what are promised, and often, do the exact opposite of what is promised.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Do you want background checks yes or no? You have said no. Ray has said no. Pretty sure everyone supporting your side on this board has said no. Yet every time I bring that up, you say “NO, THATS NOT WHAT WE WANT! STRAWMAN!”.

          So which is it? Yes or no to background checks? It’s a simple answer that you can’t seem to accept without your long and nonsensical diatribes about what you wish society would be like. Your fantasies about gallows etc are the real strawman.

          So answer the question and shut up about the rest. Yes or No.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            “Do you want background checks yes or no? You have said no.”

            So, there’s your answer. To clarify: background/registration checks, as they are presently conducted and enforced, no. Some other kind of check, which does not collect registration information and has other safeguards, possibly yes. But we don’t have those, we have registration checks. To those, my answer is no.

            “Ray has said no. Pretty sure everyone supporting your side on this board has said no. Yet every time I bring that up, you say “NO, THATS NOT WHAT WE WANT! STRAWMAN!”.”

            You are misattributing what I claimed was a straw man. So you are committing a meta-straw man fallacy. Answering your yes-or-no question is not a straw man.

            “So which is it? Yes or no to background checks? It’s a simple answer that you can’t seem to accept without your long and nonsensical diatribes about what you wish society would be like. Your fantasies about gallows etc are the real strawman.”

            On the contrary, I did not falsely attribute the gallows argument to you or to Mark The Troll, so it is not a straw man argument. It is my own argument. I would rather that especially violent and incorrigible people, or those who have committed terrible crimes, such as the Aurora shooter, be hanged upon conviction. My saying this does not constitute a straw man argument because I am not misattributing, or even attributing, anything to anyone. It is merely my opinion. This is how I would arrange things, if I were in charge, and this is the sort of platform that I would support in a politician seeking my vote. No strawman. Instead, you are falsely attributing a straw man to me, that I haven’t made. Which is pretty damn hypocritical of you.

            “So answer the question and shut up about the rest. Yes or No.”

            Asked and answered.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              Me: “Alright, so you want no checks. You invite all dangerous people, which and Bruce you claim is the big problem, to go into any gun store and buy as they please. Great solution. So much better than the current system.”

              You: First, that is not what we want. (Straw man.)”

              Future, more idiotic you: “You are misattributing what I claimed was a straw man.”

              I said what you wanted. You said that isn’t what you wanted. I didn’t misattribute anything. You’re just stupid and can’t keep up with what you type.

              In summary, you aren’t for background checks, at least the way we have them, but you have no possible alternative solution. So if you got what you wanted today, and background checks were repealed, what would the effect be on society? :Drum roll:

              The effect would be anyone could buy a gun. Which is what I claimed your position was. Which you then claimed was a strawman. And here we are. Wondering how it is that you’re so incredibly stupid.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                What I want is a different system in which (1) the government can not assemble registration information, (2) dangerous people are controlled much more than they are presently, and (3) in which citizens are empowered to defend themselves against bad people with much greater latitude than is presently available. Picking out one of these three, in isolation, and asserting that it is the sum total of what I want, lacking the context of the other two points, misrepresents my position to your audience and constitutes a straw man. Moron. Idiot.

                In addition to the straw man, furthermore, it also represents a false dilemma. We are not today faced with the question of “Should we repeal background checks, in totality, right now, today?” Instead, you and Mark are arguing that background checks should be expanded to cover all firearms transactions, instead of only those conducted at FFLs. So long as there are at least some private sales, the government’s collection of a complete registration database is impossible, and that’s a good thing in my opinion. The fact that the present system has been, and continues to be able to be used to collect registration information, and, is “not even intended to be enforced” causes me to oppose its expansion. If the system were altered to address these two points, I might support it. That’s a far cry from your representation that I just want the current system ended tomorrow, end of story. I would happily consider it being altered instead of abolished, but in any case I oppose its expansion as it presently stands.

                Which makes you doubly despicable, first for the misrepresentation on its face, and second for the insults you hurl at me, following the resulting straw man.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  The question is not “what you want” in three parts. This isn’t your christmas list to Santa. The question is do you support background checks, yes or no.

                  The question is simple and you answered it. You don’t want them.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate
          Posted on January 2, 2014 by visiontoamerica — 41 Comments ↓

          1. Ad Hominem (Name-Calling aka “You’re a Racist!” etc.)

          2. Distracting (aka “Pivoting” aka “Changing the Subject”)

          3. Somebody Else Did It Before (aka Two Wrongs Make a Right)

          4. Obama Doesn’t Know What’s Going On (Or Did I Do That?)

          5. It’s a Far-Right Conspiracy (Or The Koch Brothers Did It)

          6. You Heard That on Faux News

          7. Argumentum Ad Misericordium (Or “Do it for the Children”)

          8. It’s Bush’s Fault

          Read more at http://visiontoamerica.com/16535/8-things-liberals-do-to-avoid-ha ving-an-honest-debate/#BDSXXAwW470xpodh.99

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “1. Ad Hominem (Name-Calling aka “You’re a Racist!” etc.)”

            Where is all the name calling coming from on this discussion board? I guess you guys have no shame. Also if you ARE a racist it’s not name calling. The author is not too bright.

            “2. Distracting (aka “Pivoting” aka “Changing the Subject”)”

            Kinda like talking about gun deaths and then injecting assaults…er…DGUs into the discussion to change the subject.

            “3. Somebody Else Did It Before (aka Two Wrongs Make a Right)”

            Also called tu quoque but the author probably doesn’t know that either. Something like “guns kill people…well cars do too and we don’t outlaw them”.

            “4. Obama Doesn’t Know What’s Going On (Or Did I Do That?)”

            Hopefully some day teapublicans will be able to utter a sentence without having Benghazi falling out their mouths.

            “5. It’s a Far-Right Conspiracy (Or The Koch Brothers Did It)”

            Follow the money…

            “6. You Heard That on Faux News”

            If you rely on Fox for anything but a laugh your not getting the joke.

            “7. Argumentum Ad Misericordium (Or “Do it for the Children”)”

            Also known as appeal to emotion. You know, like “they’re taking away my God-given rights.”

            “8. It’s Bush’s Fault”

            A whole lot of it is. Putting two wars on the credit card and cutting taxes at the same time will do that to you.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            “5. It’s a Far-Right Conspiracy (Or The Koch Brothers Did It)”

            The standard mantra of the Madison left,even though the Koch brothers ranked 64th in anount given to candidates in Wisconsin in the 2010 mid terms,with the top three slots all being unions.

  28. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Huapakechi says:
    January 3, 2014 at 8:01 pm

    “They seem to have no other jobs, hobbies, or interests.”

    Perhaps they are part of the idle rich. They often don’t have working brains either. Too many years of being coddled.

  29. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    They seem too resolute to be some rich snob, unless they’re related to bloomberg. I’m more inclined to think class project.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Whatever brings them here, it is not altruistic. That much we know.

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      h”ey seem too resolute to be some rich snob, unless they’re related to bloomberg.”

      Bloomberg?The asshole who would’nt let soldiers into NYC for relief efforts because they carried rifles,and recently left office,with 36 armed guards?

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        bloomie hate guns, unless they’re being used to keep people away from him.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          “bloomie hate guns, unless they’re being used to keep people away from him.”

          When prominent wealthy leftist hoplophobes give up their armed security,maybe then we could have this discussion,but until then,they can shut their yaps.

  30. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    Detroit Police Chief Endorses Concealed Carry For A Safer City
    http://personalliberty.com/2014/01/03/detroit-police-chief-endors es-concealed-carry-for-a-safer-city/

    ***Craig spoke at a press conference Thursday, telling reporters he once believed in gun control. But over the course of a 36-year career in law enforcement, Craig found that violent criminals believed in gun control, too. After all, why would bad guys want to increase the probability that their victims are capable of matching force with force?***

    Whodathunkit?

  31. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Doug Nusbaumr says:
    January 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    “You should go back and read my little post. There are people who are so smart —I mean they can reduce a paragraph from Stephen Hawking to “blah, blah, blah” …”

    Hey Einstein. I was not referring to Hawking. I was reducing your blather to blah, blah, blah. You brought his quote to these pages more as a name dropper than anything else.

    Tell us again about how your article is #1 in the search engine. We are all so impressed.

    Btw, I too wrote an opinion piece 7 years ago and if you google the title, it comes up #1 every time. That’s how searches work. The more specific the search, the more limited the results.

    How many times are you going to repost this same message? Just until you get some attention? Well, now you got it. Happy?

  32. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    babs:***If it’s about registration, why are the records of approved background checks purged from federal records within 24 hours of the sale being completed?***
    Got proof that those records are deleted?
    We’ve already got SC rulings that the cops can lie when it suits their purpose…

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      You’re asking for proof that laws are being followed? Haha. Do you have any evidence that they aren’t? Isn’t that usually how it works?

      And why do you cite SC rulings when you’ve said before you don’t believe in SC rulings? Kinda contradictory, wouldn’t you say? Not to mention, a complete fabrication. What a scary, paranoid world you must live in.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        ***You’re asking for proof that laws are being followed? Haha. Do you have any evidence that they aren’t?***
        One may automatically presume the worst of a government that routinely ignores the laws it finds inconvenient.
        ***And why do you cite SC rulings when you’ve said before you don’t believe in SC rulings?***
        You are inventing things again. SC rulings are fact. They may be blatantly incorrect and obviously unconstitutional, but they are still fact.
        ***What a scary, paranoid world you must live in.***
        I carry a gun, why would I need to be paranoid?

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      “We’ve already got SC rulings that the cops can lie when it suits their purpose…”

      Like our fat worthless overpaid union thug keystone kops?They’re still pissed about me turning them over to Van Hollen to produce a police report about felony child abuse at the school

  33. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    “You are inventing things again. SC rulings are fact. They may be blatantly incorrect and obviously unconstitutional, but they are still fact.”

    like when a certain robed RINO upholds a blatantly unconstitutional socialized medicine clusterfuck?

  34. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    Yagotit! Ya have to wonder just what sort of extortion was used to move him to that position…

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      I actually discovered such a holster and the gun within during a friendly game of slap-n-tickle. She didn’t warn me because she wanted to see how I’d react. Damned if we didn’t get distracted to talking about guns.

  35. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    Did I miss mention of this article?

    New Study Demolishes Almost Every Gun Control Myth
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-study-demolishes-almost-every- gun-control-myth/
    ***The study, “An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates,” conducted by Quinnipiac University economist Mark Gius, examined nearly 30 years of statistics and concluded that stricter gun laws do not result in a reduction in gun violence. In fact, Gius found the opposite – that a proliferation of concealed carry permits can actually reduce incidents of gun crime. ***
    ***“Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states,” the study’s abstract reads. “It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level.”***

    This kinda blows a hole in the anti-gun argument.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Please forgive me, I can’t resist:
      {on / liberal ‘thinking’}
      Well, that’s because the gun control laws being studied didn’t go far enough!
      {off / liberal ‘thinking’}

  36. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    *** Mark says:
    January 4, 2014 at 11:42 pm
    “Yeah, I’m big and brave on line, just like you are. By the way, I do carry a gun. Mostly because of self righteous strutting liberal thugs like you.”
    Please note that I have you on record as willing to choose to either murder or assault me with your weapon because you think I’m a self righteous liberal thug. Nice going there Mr. Responsible Gun Owner. This makes the second time you have threatened me online.***

    Threatened you? How so? You have engaged in a campaign of insult and denigration disguised as “reasonable discussion” since the start of this forum.

    Now you seize on the fact that I make no secret that I carry a weapon for defense against vicious little screaming monkeys such as yourself as a direct threat.

    If your actions do not rise to violence, you have no cause to fear violence from me or those who ascribe to the values I hold. Instead you smash your own nose and wave the bloody shirt. A time honored tactic of communist agitators.

  37. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “Threatened you? How so? You have engaged in a campaign of insult and denigration disguised as “reasonable discussion” since the start of this forum.”

    That is your opinion. You can keep I however wrong it may be. I’ll remind you again where the name calling and fallacies are coming from.

    “Now you seize on the fact that I make no secret that I carry a weapon for defense against vicious little screaming monkeys such as yourself as a direct threat.”

    What other purpose could there be for mentioning your willingness to use your gun on a “screaming monkey” such as myself. I don’t take kindly to threats, idle or not.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      ***That is your opinion. You can keep I however wrong it may be.***
      Sez mark, the self appointer arbiter of motive and civility.
      ***What other purpose could there be for mentioning your willingness to use your gun on a “screaming monkey” such as myself. I don’t take kindly to threats, idle or not.***
      Well then, seek me out and confront me. Spend a bit more effort than squatting on your tree branch, screaming, baring teeth and flinging feces. Bring a cop or two with you. I’d appreciate witnesses and video.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        I’d much rather do any confronting in a peaceable place of discussion where so called “equalizes” are not required.

        The weaker ones belief is the more it must remain unquestioned at the threat of violence.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          On the contrary, you subscribe to the supremacy of The State and therefore wouldn’t hesitate to send police officers to the houses of those who possessed guns you thought shouldn’t be possessed, or even who sold guns without the permissions that you seek to require. As a statist, not only threats of force but actual use of force is at the core of your being. All while you claim the higher moral ground on this discussion forum. Yet another of your many, many deceptions.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            I wonder if dear mark would be averse to “swatting” (http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/23/4253014/swatting-911-prank-won t-stop-hackers-celebrities) those he perceives as his enemies, hoping that the government goon squad would kick in the door and shoot first, rather than cautiously investigate the charge?

            Couple this with the propensity for LEO to kick in the door of the wrong house in the execution of “no knock” raids and you can foresee a host of unintended consequences.

            Would or should a “swatter” be charged with first degree murder if there were a death resulting from such a call?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “On the contrary, you subscribe to the supremacy of The State and therefore wouldn’t hesitate … Yet another of your many, many deceptions.”

            My statements don’t fit your preconceived notions of what I think so you have to make things up.

            In a similar vein, when did you first become a fascist?

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Deny, deflect, denigrate, and now accuse!

              Your current pic is totally inappropriate. Ya should be using your diaper boy pic.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              You support a law that would criminalize anonymous firearms transactions. If such a law were passed, men with guns (police officers) would be sent to visit each person suspected of being involved in such a transaction. Men who demonstrably shoot in response to *any* perceived threat to their safety. You find this preferable to the present situation, which is why you are lobbying to end private firearms transfers. You have nothing further to say.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Bruce, You are correct. I have no alter ego on the computer. I think anyone who actually read my posts would see the large disagreements I have with Mark and others here including you. That is how individualists are. I am an individualist anarchist who thinks that we all could get by just fine with zero government. I hate guns, but I think they are an unfortunate necessity. I would prefer a world of rationality like McElroy promotes, but I realize that violence is a necessary tool at times. Militarism is the antithesis of individualism so I hate it while recognizling that it is quite efflicient at what it does, kill people.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              There are no alter egos on this list with the possible exceptions with list owners. You’ll never convince the trained intelligence analysts. They are too smart to be tricked.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Renounce all violence and advocacy of overthrowing the Constitution and you have nothing to fear from me.

  38. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    Bruce says:
    January 4, 2014 at 10:26 pm

    ***Huap,
    Thanks for your kind remarks. I actually believe that Fritz and Doug are different people from each other, and also different from Mark The Troll. Doug and Fritz are actually on our side, with respect to the gun issue, which is very far from Mark. They disagree very much with military service, though, which sets you (and Ray) and they far apart. ***

    Forgive me if you can, but I still harbor resentment against those who entertained themselves by spitting on troops returning from VN. I fought the communist there. I learned his tactics and his mind. I’ve watched history rewritten to fit his agenda. This drives my anger.

    “Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’.” George Orwell

  39. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    cavtrooper says:
    January 5, 2014 at 12:28 am

    ***gee is THAT why I carried that 11.5 pounds of M-14 on my last tour?***

    And ten pounds of ammunition too? I carried that excellent rifle my first tour. It never failed me. It was a heavy bitch though.

  40. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    The Bleeding Obvious
    http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2014/01/03/the-bleeding-obvious/? singlepage=true
    ***Almost half of the active shootings are over before additional help can arrive, the study said, and potential victims actually stopped the attacker in 17 such cases.
    “This tells us that citizens and bystanders have a very real and active role in stopping these events,” Terry Nichols, a former police officer and an assistance director at ALERRT, told Yahoo News. “If we can properly prepare and educate civilians, maybe we can get to where 90 percent are stopped by civilians long before the police arrive.”
    When victims fight back — especially if they’re armed — the attacker instantly loses interest in killing helpless innocents and immediately begins thinking of ways to protect himself; even when he eventually takes the coward’s way out, which so many of them do, their first instinct upon taking return fire is to flee. But the push for more restrictions on firearms is also a sign of how fundamentally unmanly the Left is, in the traditional sense. And despite the central tenet of “critical theory” — that everything old must be questioned and, if possible, destroyed — most everything about the American Experiment is indeed worth celebrating and saving. A country founded upon self-reliance and self-defense has allowed itself to be poisoned by dime-store, defeatist Marxism, which perverts every noble impulse it proclaims into a form of self-abnegating servility at the feet of a particularly nasty master. Yes, this guy, lovingly described by Saul Alinsky as “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”***

  41. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    9 Things You Didn’t Know About the Second Amendment
    http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know- about-the-second-amendment

    1. The Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right
    The Constitution doesn’t grant or create rights; it recognizes and protects rights that inherently exist. This is why the Founders used the word “unalienable” previously in the Declaration of Independence; these rights cannot be created or taken away. In D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed … this is not a right granted by the Constitution” (p. 19).

    2. The Second Amendment protects individual, not collective rights
    The use of the word “militia” has created some confusion in modern times, because we don’t understand the language as it was used at the time the Constitution was written. However, the Supreme Court states in context, “it was clearly an individual right” (p. 20). The operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of Rights. The Court explains that “All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body” (p. 5), adding “nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right” (p. 6).

    3. Every citizen is the militia
    To further clarify regarding the use of the word “militia,” the court states “the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men” (p. 23). Today we would say it is all citizens, not necessarily just men. The Court explains: “’Keep arms’ was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else” (p. 9). Since the militia is all of us, it doesn’t mean “only carrying a weapon in an organized military unit” (p. 11-12). “It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia” (p. 20).

    4. Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment
    We often hear politicians talk about their strong commitment to the Second Amendment while simultaneously mentioning hunting. Although hunting is a legitimate purpose for firearms, it isn’t the primary purpose for the Second Amendment. The Court states “the core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves … the ‘right of self-preservation’ as permitting a citizen to ‘repe[l] force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury’ (p.21). They conclude “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56).

    5. There is no interest-balancing approach to the Second Amendment
    Interest-balancing means we balance a right with other interests. The court notes that we don’t interpret rights this way stating “we know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all” (p.62-63). This doesn’t mean that it is unlimited, the same as all rights (more on that below). However, the court states that even though gun violence is a problem to be taken seriously, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table” (p.64).

    6. The Second Amendment exists to prevent tyranny
    You’ve probably heard this. It’s listed because this is one of those things about the Second Amendment that many people think is made up. In truth, this is not made up. The Court explains that in order to keep the nation free (“security of a free state”), then the people need arms: “When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). The Court states that the Founders noted “that history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents” (p. 25). At the time of ratification, there was real fear that government could become oppressive: “during the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive” (p.25). The response to that concern was to codify the citizens’ militia right to arms in the Constitution (p. 26).

    7. The Second Amendment was also meant as a provision to repel a foreign army invasion
    You may find this one comical, but it’s in there. The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state was “it is useful in repelling invasions” (p.24). This provision, like tyranny, isn’t an everyday occurring use of the right; more like a once-in-a-century (if that) kind of provision. A popular myth from World War II holds Isoroku Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese navy allegedly said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Although there is no evidence of him saying this, there was concern that Japan might invade during WWII. Japan did invade Alaska, which was a U.S. territory at the time, and even today on the West Coast there are still gun embankments from the era (now mostly parks). The fact is that there are over 310 million firearms in the United States as of 2009, making a foreign invasion success less likely (that, and the U.S. military is arguably the strongest in the world).

    8. The Second Amendment protects weapons “in common use at the time”
    The right to keep and bear arms isn’t unlimited: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (p. 54). The Court upheld restrictions like the prohibition of arms by felons and the mentally ill, and carrying in certain prohibited places like schools and courthouses. What is protected are weapons “in common use of the time” (p.55). This doesn’t mean weapons in common use “at that time,” meaning the 18th Century. The Court said the idea that it would is “frivolous” and that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” (p.8). The Court’s criteria includes weapons in popular widespread use “that [are] overwhelmingly chosen by American society” (p. 56), and “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans” (p. 58).

    9. The Second Amendment might require full-blown military arms to fulfill the original intent
    The Court didn’t rule specifically on this in D.C. vs. Heller, but noting that weapon technology has drastically changed (mentioning modern day bombers and tanks), they stated “the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” (p. 55).
    They further added that “the fact that modern developments [in modern weaponry] have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right” (p. 56). A full ruling has not been made, as this was not in the scope the court was asked to rule on in the D.C. vs. Heller case, but they left the door open for future ruling.

  42. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    ***For the United States as a whole, the rate of gun homicides is about 3 per 100,000 people.
    What’s the most dangerous city in the world? That would be Honduras’ San Pedro Sula. Shockingly, San Pedro Sula had 1,218 murders for 719,447 inhabitants in 2012.
    Here’s how things shake out:
    – If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
    – Detroit’s gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
    – Baltimore’s rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
    – Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) have gun murder statistics comparable to Colombia (27.1).
    – Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).
    – Atlanta’s rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).
    – Cleveland (17.4) has a higher rate than the Dominican Republic (16.3).
    – Gun murder in Buffalo (16.5) is similar to Panama (16.2).
    – Houston’s rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador’s (12.7).
    – Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5).
    – Phoenix’s rate (10.6) is slightly higher than Mexico (10).
    – Los Angeles (9.2) is comparable to the Philippines (8.9).
    – Boston rate (6.2) is higher than Nicaragua (5.9).
    – New York, where gun murders have declined to just four per 100,000, is still higher than Argentina (3).
    – Even the cities with the lowest homicide rates by American standards, like San Jose and Austin, compare to Albania and Cambodia respectively.***

    I have one question: How many of these cities with the highest murder rates have restrictive gun policies and been run by democrat regimes for decades if not the better part of a century and more?

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      I have some additional questions: if you remove all the firearms homicides that occurred in places that were restrictive, what would the remaining rate be? Note that doing so would remove almost all the mass shootings, such as Columbine, VA Tech, Sandy Hook and the Aurora Cinemark theater. It would also remove Chicago and Washington DC and a lot of other similar hell holes. I suspect there is a strong correlation between those hell holes and democrat majorities, but I don’t think this is an R/D thing, I think it’s a gun rights recognized / gun rights abrogated thing. Another question would be to compare the places where the correlation is stronger, and where it is weaker, and attempt to find out why.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        If you look back to the first sentence of my post: ***For the United States as a whole, the rate of gun homicides is about 3 per 100,000 people.***
        If you want a further breakdown and demographic analysis, you do know how to use a search engine, don’t you?

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          But if Markbabs were to use a search engine,they would’nt get the approved data from the Brady Bunch

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          That’s great, but then you went on with the rest of your post to compare cities to countries. And here you are pathetically trying to defend your stupid post. Must feel pretty dumb.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            The source I used for the post was comparing city gun murder rates with countries. Did you neglect to check the source provided before you started your customary prattle?

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Well, you see Bruce, rates are calculated on a yearly basis. Tough concept, I know. That means you would only be able to take out the casualties of the mass shootings of one year to see how it affected the rate.

        2012 had roughly 80 casualties from mass shootings. 8,855 others were murdered with firearms that year. As usual, you are welcome.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          “Well, you see Bruce, rates are calculated on a yearly basis. Tough concept, I know. That means you would only be able to take out the casualties of the mass shootings of one year to see how it affected the rate.”

          Wow, you’re a piece of work. Calculating something on a “yearly basis” means, you divide by the number of years in the data set. So, for example, if you collected 10 years of data, you then divide by *10* and get the *yearly rate.* So apparently not only do you not know what a percentage is, you don’t even know what a ratio is. Fucking moron. So it would be quite possible to include all my cited mass shootings in one number. Idiot.

          “2012 had roughly 80 casualties from mass shootings. 8,855 others were murdered with firearms that year. As usual, you are welcome.”

          Obviously, mass shootings aren’t the only cases of firearms homicides that occurred in places where gun rights were revoked. So the number of casualties to remove is far higher than that number, which is merely the mass shootings. For example, all the shootings in Chicago, and Washington DC, and Baltimore, and maybe even all of many counties, should also be removed. As well as those shootings that occurred in establishments that prohibit carry, even if the cities or states they are in allow it. Many workplace shootings fall into this category. Idiot. Obviously, I was citing the high-profile shootings because everyone is familiar with them, not because I was trying to make the case that those would be the only shootings removed by my criterion of rights-revoked places. In particular, 100% of those shootings would be removed in my comparison, notwithstanding their high profile and the fact that gun grabbers like yourself enjoy standing in the blood of their victims in order to garner emotional support for your nefarious objectives.

          It is really telling that you like to cite places such as those cities or the mass shootings as a reason that America has a “problem” with “gun violence” but yet it’s almost exactly those places where rights aren’t respected that are the problem. So you want to violate the rights elsewhere. Stupid or evil? Tough to say, but your intentionally obtuse attitudes here tend to indicate evil. Even though you are certainly stupid about things like ratios, which one would think you would know about.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            “Calculating something on a “yearly basis” means, you divide by the number of years in the data set. So, for example, if you collected 10 years of data, you then divide by *10* and get the *yearly rate.*”

            No, you get the average rate of those 10 years of data. Yearly rates are unique, to, well, that year. Good try though. Might want to try and act less condescending when you obviously have very little grasp of the ideas you are talking about. Makes it less embarrassing when proven wrong.

            ” In particular, 100% of those shootings would be removed in my comparison, notwithstanding their high profile and the fact that gun grabbers like yourself enjoy standing in the blood of their victims in order to garner emotional support for your nefarious objectives.”

            And you want to call me emotional? With that drama queen act of yours?

            “It is really telling that you like to cite places such as those cities or the mass shootings as a reason that America has a “problem” with “gun violence” but yet it’s almost exactly those places where rights aren’t respected that are the problem.”

            Really? Explain how rights aren’t respected in: New Orleans, Atlanta, Cleveland, Buffalo, Houston, Phoenix, LA

            And remember conceal carrying is not a right, as has been ruled time and time again.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              “No, you get the average rate of those 10 years of data.”

              The average being called “basis 1 year” in some circles.

              “Yearly rates are unique, to, well, that year. Good try though. Might want to try and act less condescending when you obviously have very little grasp of the ideas you are talking about. Makes it less embarrassing when proven wrong.”

              Then you must be pretty embarrassed indeed to discover that a year-by-year comparison would necessarily include multiple years, which, therefore, would include mass shootings that happened in different years. Which you tried to exclude. Derp.

              ““It is really telling that you like to cite places such as those cities or the mass shootings as a reason that America has a “problem” with “gun violence” but yet it’s almost exactly those places where rights aren’t respected that are the problem.””

              “Really? Explain how rights aren’t respected in: New Orleans … ”

              You mean the place where the National Guard was ordered to go door-to-door and confiscate firearms after Katrina? And where they were then allowed to rust and become inoperable, while they weren’t being returned? What a joke.

              “And remember conceal carrying is not a right, as has been ruled time and time again.”

              On the contrary, it is a right, in VT, AK, AR, AZ, and WY, and in ID and MT outside of city limits. Others are likely to join. You are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      You are comparing cities to countries. Other than that stupidity, I agree, we definitely have a gun problem in this country. These statistics show exactly how big of a problem we have. Glad we’re on the same page.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        babs, we’re not even in the same library.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        “You are comparing cities to countries. Other than that stupidity,”

        There’s nothing stupid about the comparison, you fucking moron. Comparisons always must have something different between the two items being compared, if they are to be anything other than the trivial ‘comparison’ of something with itself. What it is that is different, is up to the person doing the comparison. Those with IQs above a that of styrofoam cup will be able to appreciate what is the same, and what is different, in the comparison, and can come to conclusions thereby. Pity you don’t seem to be in that camp.

        “I agree, we definitely have a gun problem in this country. These statistics show exactly how big of a problem we have. Glad we’re on the same page.”

        Sure … the problem that in mostly democrat strongholds with reduced gun rights, there sure are a lot of firearms homicides. That is a problem. Controlling the guns won’t solve it, though. (As anyone with an IQ over a styrofoam cup could appreciate. Vide supra.)

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          One would think by your recent response that your patience with babs’ customary duplicity has become somewhat diminished.
          Check your blood pressure, then reload. mark/babs is a masochist. It’ll be back for more.

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            according to my old sergeant’s dictionary,Markbabs suffers from a malady known as “so full of shit his eyes are brown”

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Staff Seargeant Jones, B-2-2 Ft. Polk, liked the phrase “More shit than a Christmas goose.”

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Hey now Brucey. You forgot one thing in your post and that was to actually explain how comparing cities to countries is useful in any way. You said it wasn’t stupid, said it could be useful then you went on a rant. Great defense. You just forgot to add any substance to it.

          Should I spell out to you why it’s useless? You are comparing cities with high crime to entire countries, which encompasses cities of all crime types, low to high. If you compared our high crime cities to high crime cities in South America, you would see that there is no comparison, their crime rates are astronomically higher. Instead, the authors dilute the rate by looking at the entire country, which has the effect of attempting to mislead the reader.

          Glad I could spell it out for you. Let me know if there’s anything else I can explain for you today. Maybe a recap on rates and how they are calculated? Anything to educate the ignorant masses.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            babs, the study and map graphic in the source article referred only to gun murders per se. Not “crime rates”.
            Now either quit the pharmaceuticals or take your medications as prescribed.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Clueless analysis as usual.

          “Sure … the problem that in mostly democrat strongholds with reduced gun rights, there sure are a lot of firearms homicides. That is a problem. Controlling the guns won’t solve it, though. (As anyone with an IQ over a styrofoam cup could appreciate. Vide supra.)”

          Show me a large city that votes republican. The correlation is more people, more guns, more crime.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            So your correlation is that more people, more densly packed, the more ignorant and violent they get?

            That does begin to make sense in a perverse sort of way.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            “Show me a large city that votes republican.”

            You can use search engines as well as I can.

            “The correlation is more people, more guns, more crime.”

            The per-capita gun ownership is much higher in rural areas, and those have much lower crime rates. Oh wait, I though you only cared about firearms homicide rates. Well, they have less of those too. So your assertion about correlation is wrong. What I’d like to see is whether crime is more highly correlated with democrat voters (or, democrat voter density) or with more heavily infringed gun rights. The two might be so closely related that it would be hard to tell, democrats having a much bigger thing for violating firearms rights. But I’m sure there are republican strongholds with heavy firearms infringements, and there might also be some democrat strongholds with strong firearms rights. For example, Vermont. It would be interesting to see where the correlation truly lies. Is democrat voter percentage or density causes high firearms homicide rates? Or is it heavily infringed firearms rights causes high firearms homicide rates? I’m pretty sure it’s one or the other.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              ” Is democrat voter percentage or density causes high firearms homicide rates? Or is it heavily infringed firearms rights causes high firearms homicide rates? I’m pretty sure it’s one or the other.”

              What’s next? Looking at weather patterns? Tax filing history?

              Yea, something tells me that it’s easy access to guns combined with high crime areas. Your theories are pretty funny though. Democrat votes CAUSING higher firearm homicide rates? Not even trying to prove correlation, going straight for causation.

              Let’s see. Hrmmm.. What can be causing high firearm homicide rates. Well one does one need for a firearm homicide? A firearm. But no, that can’t be it. It can’t be that simple! Criminals having easy access to firearms means they will have more gun crimes? Say it ain’t so!

              Heavily infringed firearm rights? Can you give some examples?

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Babs, you’re embarrassing yourself.

                “”Is democrat voter percentage or density causes high firearms homicide rates? Or is it heavily infringed firearms rights causes high firearms homicide rates? I’m pretty sure it’s one or the other.””

                “What’s next? Looking at weather patterns? Tax filing history?”

                Nice attempt at misdirection. I am proposing to look at correlations. I am speculating as to what may be found.

                “Yea, something tells me that it’s easy access to guns combined with high crime areas. Your theories are pretty funny though. Democrat votes CAUSING higher firearm homicide rates? Not even trying to prove correlation, going straight for causation.”

                On the contrary, I explicitly asked about correlation. Which you managed to forget two posts ago.

                “Let’s see. Hrmmm.. What can be causing high firearm homicide rates. Well one does one need for a firearm homicide? A firearm. But no, that can’t be it. It can’t be that simple! Criminals having easy access to firearms means they will have more gun crimes? Say it ain’t so!”

                Sigh, as I have repeatedly said, guns could be ordered through the mail with no signature, no background check, and no other limitations for more than a hundred years, most of which time firearms homicides were less than they are in many places today. So it isn’t “easy access to guns.” There are none so blind as they who will not see.

                “Heavily infringed firearm rights? Can you give some examples?”

                Why sure I could! Chicago, Washington DC, VA Tech, Columbine High School, The Aurora Cinemark Theater, Sandy Hook Elementary School. Guns are either heavily restricted (the first two) or flatly not allowed (the last four places). Those are places without your favorite boogeyman, “easy access to guns.” Anyone can see how well it has worked. Need I remind you of the title topic of this discussion forum? Shootings stopped by citizen intervention have far lower fatality rates than those stopped by police intervention. The latter which is the *only* legal option in places where the right for ordinary citizens to bear arms is abrogated. Obviously.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  “Nice attempt at misdirection. I am proposing to look at correlations. I am speculating as to what may be found.”

                  Really? Because you said: “Or is it heavily infringed firearms rights CAUSES high firearms homicide rates? ” Do you know what that word means? See, if you meant correlation, you would say “correlated with”. It’s okay. You aren’t precise with your words, I shouldn’t have mentioned it.

                  “most of which time firearms homicides were less than they are in many places today.”

                  Which statistics are you using? The firearm homicide rate in the US was 6.6 in 1981, double of what it is today. Curious which statistics you are using to make your claim. Just kidding, it’s a trick question, you have none and just made it up.

                  Your examples of “heavily infringed firearm rights” are all false since conceal carry is not protected by the 2nd amendment. It is not a right.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    ““Nice attempt at misdirection. I am proposing to look at correlations. I am speculating as to what may be found.””

                    “Really? Because you said: “Or is it heavily infringed firearms rights CAUSES high firearms homicide rates? ” Do you know what that word means? See, if you meant correlation, you would say “correlated with”. It’s okay. You aren’t precise with your words, I shouldn’t have mentioned it.”

                    I have used both words. I am making the terrible mistake of assuming that you have a working memory span of more than, oh, about one word. Just like when I repeated “grave, imminent harm” several times, and then used “violent” and you then immediately turn around and claim I want to kill “all criminals” because my “lack of precision”, or rather, your lack of understanding, is a convenient vehicle for you from which to launch straw man attacks. I suppose you could comprehend me if you wished to, but as your purpose here seems to be to troll, it suits you much better to be precise when it is to your advantage, and to be sloppy when that instead is convenient. After all, it’s quite sloppy indeed to confuse killing “all violent” criminals with “all criminals,” even if I hadn’t afforded the heavy clue of repeatedly mentioning that “grave, imminent threats” was the acting criterion to employ deadly force. So, I think it’s quite reasonable to assume that you’re merely trying to score debate points without giving a shit about the underlying issues. In which case, I will merely expose your methods and your hypocrisy for all to see.

                    ““most of which time firearms homicides were less than they are in many places today.””

                    “Which statistics are you using? The firearm homicide rate in the US was 6.6 in 1981, double of what it is today. Curious which statistics you are using to make your claim. Just kidding, it’s a trick question, you have none and just made it up.”

                    First, I’m comparing a hundred or more years ago to today. From when there were almost zero gun laws, i.e. very “easy access to guns” compared to today. I made that clear in several mentions, so the fact you pick a date just a few decades ago speaks once again to your intentional ‘misunderstanding’ of my argument. Second, I’m not making them up. Third, here you go. https://i.imgur.com/Ayj53JB.jpg

                    While I’m fully expecting you to jump all over me, because that’s not a graph of “firearms” homicides, it’s a graph of overall homicide, guns included but all others as well. So, of course, I fully expect you to get in my face about that, and how I lie and misrepresent my argument, and the data, yada yada yada. Except, of course, obviously, the _total_ homicide rate 1886-1905 is less than, or about equal to, 1. Which is lower than today’s _firearms_ homicide rate alone (including, of course, those places where self-defense is banned). This graph is helpfully labeled as to certain historical events, such as the imposition of the first gun control laws, the start and finish of Prohibition, the start of the Gun Control Act of 1968, etc. Of course, it takes a true believer such as yourself to look at that and conclude that the problem *must* be the guns. Nevermind that you could buy machine guns through the mail without a background check in 1905.

                    “Your examples of “heavily infringed firearm rights” are all false since conceal carry is not protected by the 2nd amendment. It is not a right.”

                    There are two different avenues for reply. One has to do mostly with the issues, while the other has to do with an equal dose of your intentional obtuseness in the context of trolling/debating with your high-school debate #winning tactics. I’ll take the second one first.

                    In that one, you are stuck on whether concealed carry is a “right” or not, and since (you say) it isn’t, therefore, places that I claim “infringe this right have higher incidences of firearms homicide” except that, I am wrong (you claim) because it isn’t a right (you claim). Which of course entirely ducks the issue that places where carry is banned (whether it’s a right or not, i.e. irrespective of the rights issue) have a higher incidence of firearms homicides or not. I suspect that you want to attach yourself to the refuting me via the “rights” question because you cannot face the truth that places where carry is banned, including, but not limited to, most of the places where the famous, high-profile mass shootings have taken place, are very, very highly correlated with locations that ban carry one way or another. To the extent anyone else is reading this, it is your job as a troll and a disrupter, to call into question everything I say, any way you can. Including distracting your audience from the arguments I raise by focussing on a particular word usage with which you find some area, any area, to argue with. Shall we exclude mass shootings in different years, because “rates” are calculated on a ‘yearly basis’ which means that incidents that happened in different years, can’t be included? No, because a rate is (incidences) / (time). Well, then it must be that a year-by-year comparison of rates is what I must have meant, in which case a different objection stands. Etc. So, once again, it becomes clear that you are merely trolling for the sake of disruption, and I must sadly anoint you Babs The Troll.

                    In short, irrespective of the #winning ‘rights’ issue, the fact remains that places that ban carry, seem to have a higher incidence of firearms homicides. (Note to readers: #winning is a twitter expression taken from Charlie Sheen’s use of the term. Which he meant seriously, but which would seem to be sarcastic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pipTwjwrQYQ )

                    On to the second one.
                    Is a right “the sovereignty to act without permission of others?” yes/no. If no, what is your definition of a ‘right’? Do you think getting health care is a right? Is getting an education a right?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      1. What underlying issue? How you think you can prove any connection between voting patterns and firearm homicide rates? Hahahaha. Yea, sorry for ignoring that important underlying issue. Have you come up with any info on this? Dying to hear it.

                      2. I picked a date where I have actual sources for my data and 1981 is first year they had firearm homicide data. Yours doesn’t have firearm homicide data and it doesn’t list any source. Maybe you can mention again how you used to be able to buy machine guns in magazines? I seemed to have not gotten it the last 3-4 times you said it. Are you like that Doug guy and his great article that is the top of all search engines? Hahaha.

                      3. Your use of hash tags is pretty stupid. You can tell when an older person tries to tap into the ideas of a younger generation and just looks so damn out of touch doing it. That’s you.

                      Conceal carry isn’t a right. I don’t claim it, the Supreme Court does. And other lower courts many times over. I don’t see how saying that conceal carry is not a right is anyhow related to the question of mass shootings. Somehow in your head it is, and somehow pointing out that conceal carry is not a right, which you desperately try to refuse in every way you can find, means that I’m saying, or not saying, something about mass shootings? Can you clarify that? Thanks.

                      “In short, irrespective of the #winning ‘rights’ issue, the fact remains that places that ban carry, seem to have a higher incidence of firearms homicides.”

                      Well, that would be wrong. Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta. All cities in the top 20 for firearm homicide. All cities that allow carry.

                      But the fact remains, you aren’t proving anything. Citing two variables without trying to prove a connection means nothing. And that’s all you have. What a great “fact” to cite, albeit totally false.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              “Show me a large city that votes republican.”

              Bruce sez: You can use search engines as well as I can.

              So you didn’t find any either.

              “The correlation is more people, more guns, more crime.”

              Bruce sez: The per-capita gun ownership is much higher in rural areas, and those have much lower crime rates.

              Remember, it takes all both more guns and more people. More car accidents happen in cities than rural areas. More cars, more people. Your democratic analysis is flawed. Pure and simple probability. There is no correlation.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Mark The Troll writes: “There is no correlation.”

                You don’t know that until you look at the data. Which you haven’t done and might well refuse to do.

                Science is the process of looking at facts and drawing testable conclusions. The hypothesis that gun control reduces crime, or is ‘beneficial’ in any significant way, other than to relatively empower criminals or tyrants over their victims, has not been demonstrated. In fact, it has been repeatedly refuted. Huap just posted an article about that, which you have been unsurprisingly silent about.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  He thinks that if he ignores it, it will go away.

                  I just posted a link to the complete study and another article about a recently released CDC study. The reported results will shock and dismay both mark and babs.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  “You don’t know that until you look at the data. Which you haven’t done and might well refuse to do.”

                  What data? What would you look at to prove a correlation between gun violence and voting patterns? Try and first imagine your ideas, then you would realize how stupid they sound. But you give them no thought, you just type out diarrhea.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                “Remember, it takes all both more guns and more people. More car accidents happen in cities than rural areas.”

                Hmm, more guns *and* more people. I’m pretty sure the per capita gun ownership is way higher in rural areas than in (most) urban areas, and it might even be the case that the guns-per-square-mile is higher in rural areas than in (most) urban areas. So there are some interesting hypotheses to test:

                (1) Cities have worse gun laws than rural areas, and the laws are the cause of the problem. Repeal the city laws and the problems go away. (But: liberal answer: force rural areas to live under the same gun laws as big cities … um … because it’s what’s happening in the cities that we want to have happen everywhere?)
                (1a) Cities have a different attitude of law enforcement than rural areas, and the type of response (or, non-response), how many officers, what tactics, the average response time, etc, is the problem.
                (2) Cities have a different type of people who live there, and it’s those types of people, and not the guns per se, which are the problem. E.g. Democrat voters vs. republican voters. Or different demographics of another kind. Perhaps it’s not a gun problem at all, but a democrat problem. Or some other kind of problem, other than a “gun” problem.
                (3) The fact that there are few guns in cities is the problem, and having more guns would, in and of itself, reduce crime rates. Disentangling this from (1) might be difficult.
                (4) Sheer population density is the problem, and no matter who lives there, or how rich they are, or how they vote, when you cramp them together they kill people, and when you spread them out, they don’t. In that case, *cities* would be the problem, not guns.
                (5) Or, of course, it might just be the guns. And we must therefore clamp down on guns in order to solve the problem. Except that rural areas might very well have more of them. Whoops.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “Hmm, more guns *and* more people. I’m pretty sure the per capita gun ownership is way higher in rural areas than in (most) urban areas, and it might even be the case that the guns-per-square-mile is higher in rural areas than in (most) urban areas. So there are some interesting hypotheses to test:”

                  Somehow I knew you’d say this. The original assertion was that there was more crime in urban areas where voting is more blue than red. You’ve thrown in a third variable, gun density into the equation to confuse. In order to prove the premise one would need to find small cities that vote blue and have high crime. Guns and per capita ownership are meaningless. All you have shown is that rural areas have a (slightly) higher ownership ratio. Where are you going to catch the most fish, a pond or the ocean? More fish hooks doesn’t change the ratio. Remember, you can only shoot one gun at a time.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Mark The Troll sez: “You’ve thrown in a third variable, gun density into the equation to confuse.”

                    While I cannot be held responsible for the tangled mess of confusion that is your brain, nevertheless you falsely (and offensively) attribute a motive to me that I do not possess. I am imaging a possible epidemiological study, which I am not able to do justice, that seeks to tease out from several possible hypotheses which could account for the rural/urban divide in firearms homicide rates. You have asserted it’s simply population density, coupled with the simpleminded “more people/more guns/ more deaths” arguments. (Which prompted an analogy more people/more cars/more car accidents, as if to prove the point.) But there might not be more guns in urban areas (disproving that particular hypothesis, if that were true) but it could be any of a number of possible things. Only someone actively bent on suppressing a line of thought, or an experiment to test it, would criticize a potential experimental design as a mere attempt to confuse. For your information, collecting data reduces confusion, it doesn’t increase it. Unless, of course, your ideology is dogmatic and already furnishes all the necessary answers. But for the rest of us, there’s science, comprising the generation and testing of falsifiable hypotheses. It might be a gun thing, it might be a red/blue thing, it might be a demographic thing, it might be a rich/poor thing, it might be a population density thing, or it might be a gun law thing. Nobody knows until experiments are done. Designing, or even speculating about designing, such experiments doesn’t constitute an attempt to confuse, although it might be construed as such by someone with ulterior motives or an axe to grind.

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  2) Cities have a different type of people who live there, and it’s those types of people, and not the guns per se, which are the problem. E.g. Democrat voters vs. republican voters. Or different demographics of another kind. Perhaps it’s not a gun problem at all, but a democrat problem. Or some other kind of problem, other than a “gun” problem.

                  Gee,is THAT why Milwaukee and Dane Counties,the two most populous counties in the state,with identical gun laws as the other 70 counties,have horrible crime rates,while the state as a whole,does not?

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              You have yet to prove, in any of your rambling posts, that areas with more restrictive firearm laws are related with higher crime/gun crime/gun homicide rate. You just make the assumption you want to make and take the result you suggest as granted. But where are your facts to back this up?

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Ah, babs, ya might want to look at this:
                http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-study-demolishes-almost-every- gun-control-myth/
                ***The study, “An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates,” conducted by Quinnipiac University economist Mark Gius, examined nearly 30 years of statistics and concluded that stricter gun laws do not result in a reduction in gun violence. In fact, Gius found the opposite – that a proliferation of concealed carry permits can actually reduce incidents of gun crime. ***

                Here’s the complete study available for download:
                http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294#. Usq7ts6s-4r

                And then there’s this from our friends at the CDC:
                http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/08/27/cdc-gun-research-backfires- on-obama/
                ***“Year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” Obama said on Jan. 16.***
                *** But with the ban lifted, what does the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama’s plan backfired.

                Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

                1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
                “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

                2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
                “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

                3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
                “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

                4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
                “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

                5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
                “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

                6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
                “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

                7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
                “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

                Why No One Has Heard This:
                Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.
                What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.
                Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.
                Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”***

                Back to you…

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  Good of you to bring the CDC article up. Sadly, it isn’t a study. It’s a document showing the “priorities of research”. That means it sums up the current research, talks about what needs to be investigated, and documents it for the reader. I’m well aware of it, but have you read any of it? Or did you just read the article and copy and paste the points?

                  Page 16:

                  “Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use.”

                  That, my friend, is called check mate.

                  In the end, it says we have no conclusive evidence for anything. None that says background checks are beneficial. None that says conceal carry helps reduce crime. None that says DGU’s have a net good effect on society. None of that. The main message of this document is that we don’t know the answers to many questions that we should know the answer to. We need more research.

                  “According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.””

                  And 100% of those guns started out in the legal market before they made their way into criminal hands.

                  “What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data?”

                  There is no new data. Maybe the author is confused? Probably didn’t read it just like you.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    Your citing of the page 16 quibble: ***”Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use.”*** seems to rely heavily on “possible”, “may have”, “if”, “could”… They’re reaching hard to negate their own findings. They apparently don’t want to displease their masters.

                    Check mate? I’m not your friend. Apparently I’m playing chess with a pigeon.

                    ***The main message of this document is that we don’t know the answers to many questions that we should know the answer to. We need more research.***

                    IOW they want more money to “discover” what is already apparent.

                    ***”According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.””***

                    Cite which survey you gleaned this gem from.

                    ***And 100% of those guns started out in the legal market before they made their way into criminal hands.***

                    No doubt. Just how many of these guns made their way into criminal hands by means of batfe operations? “Fast and Furious” was not the only operation.
                    ***The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel just published (12/8/2013) a blockbuster story that is today’s must read. Based on court records, police reports and dozens of interviews, the paper details how the ATF used “rogue” tactics — including providing underage youths with alcohol and allowing them to smoke pot — to run storefront gun and drug stings across the country.
                    In our estimation, the most explosive allegation made in the report is that the agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives used mentally disabled people to run their stings.
                    In cases across the country, ATF agents recruited mentally disabled men to promote their “businesses” and recruit other illegal gun purchasers. In one case, the paper reports, the agents running Squid’s Smoke Shop in Portland, Ore., convinced Aaron Key, 19 and described as “mentally disabled,” to get a tattoo of a squid on his neck to promote the store.***
                    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/08/249610501/report-d etails-atfs-use-of-mentally-disabled-in-gun-stings

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Babs The Troll writes:

                    “Page 16: “Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use.””

                    “That, my friend, is called check mate.”

                    I suggest, troll, that you shouldn’t play chess. Another way in which this “damning” paragraph (according to you) falls short of your intended check mate, is that it neglects the value of an armed citizenry in deterring tyranny. Suppose I were generous and granted 20,000 annual firearms homicides, every year, for the past century, which is almost certainly a considerable overestimate. That’s 2 million fatalities. A tragic and heavy toll, no doubt, which I’m sure your kind would be only too happy to blame on guns.

                    But this number should be compared with *more than a hundred million* citizens killed by their own governments over the same time period. This total does not count combatants killed in wartime, either. It only counts ordinary, regular citizens, murdered by Chairman Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and their ilk. (One obtains a sum of about 150 million from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide) The deaths occurred, of course, after the perpetrators first disarmed their target populations through ‘reasonable’ ‘gun-safety’ regulations. Invariably starting with gun registration. “Who could possibly be opposed to these modest measures, designed only to protect public safety?” Not all were killed by guns, to be sure, but dead is dead, and more than a hundred million is a big number.

                    In fact, it is so big, that the 2 million number I calculated in America over the past century, being generous with the number, is *just a rounding error*. It wouldn’t surprise me if the *uncertainty* in the last century’s democide total is larger, far larger than the death toll of guns in America.

                    Viewed in this light, America’s ‘gun violence’ is utterly insignificant on the world stage of overall murders. It would be a trivial price to pay, if it could be shown that an armed citizenry is a sure defense against such atrocities, even if such atrocities have only a few percent chance of happening. I am willing to throw my lot in with the affirmative on the former question, and I submit that no one can be sure the latter can not happen. (How well have race relations been healed by the Great Uniter in the last few years?) It may well seem unlikely here in America today, but then again, who would have predicted that, in Germany in 1910, at the pinnacle of cultural, industrial and scientific achievement, would have changed so much in just 30 years – two generations.

                    “The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

                    Against this backdrop, here in the corner we have Babs the troll, announcing that the mention that guns in the home “could” lead to increases in murder, suicide and whatnot, is a “checkmate” against the beneficial value of gun ownership generally.

                    Seriously.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      As for the “it can’t happen here” argument. In 200 years, twice the sample period, America has:
                      -engaged in a bloody civil war
                      -engaged in genocide of Indians
                      -rounded up those with Japanese ancestry
                      -is presently engaged in a War On Drugs, which has resulted in the largest incarcerated population anywhere on Earth on a percentage basis, and which is largely responsible for about 50% of one ethnic group being under the supervision of the courts at some point during their lives.
                      -used military forces to kill a group of admittedly nutty religious extremists, who, however, weren’t hurting anyone. In particular, the claims of child abuse, and of drug manufacture, were both unproved.

                      It can happen here, it has happened here.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Another way in which this “damning” paragraph (according to you) falls short of your intended check mate, is that it neglects the value of an armed citizenry in deterring tyranny.”

                      Firstly, that paragraph basically sums up all the arguments Mark and I have used to show the negative side of guns. All you say is look at the DGUs, look at the DGUs. But now you have it, DGUs could be outweighed by the negative side of guns. A

                      It doesn’t neglect the value of the tyranny argument. It’s just that there is no way to calculate it and serious people don’t take it seriously because it’s a hypothetical argument that isn’t likely to happen. It’s also very abstract. Who says what is tyrannical? Many people would say Obama is a tyrant and his administration is tyrannical. Should they be allowed to revolt tomorrow? What’s the difference between fighting what you think is tyranny and being a traitor to your country? Anyway, all these obvious questions make it simple to understand why no scientific inquiry would be able to calculate, or be interested in, such a spacious and unlikely argument.

                      Not to mention, we have the highest gun ownership per capita by FAR. 89 guns per 100 residents and you are worried we won’t have arms to fight off your doomsday scenario? Come on, that is a joke.

                      “Against this backdrop, here in the corner we have Babs the troll, announcing that the mention that guns in the home “could” lead to increases in murder, suicide and whatnot, is a “checkmate” against the beneficial value of gun ownership generally.”

                      Generally? What does that mean? Doesn’t mean much of anything. You mean defensive gun uses + the tyranny argument? Is that synonymous with “generally” to you?

                      And it absolutely is a check mate, since you guys have constantly denied that could be possible. And now you have it. The brightest minds in the area are saying we need more research, we have no answers, and that research might actually show the opposite of what pro gunners, like you guys, have been trying to force feed America with your “guns are only good” approach.

                  • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                    Babooshka: “Even when … … It is still possible”.

                    How about this for a similar statement. Even if the sun is shining, it is still possible that it will be raining.

                    Or how about this? Even if the study concludes that restrictive gun laws have no bearing on crime it is still possible that people with room temperature IQ’s will cherry pick data to justify such laws.

                    Or perhaps. If you do not know what a rook is, it is still possible to win a chess tournament.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  By the way, your study by Gius isn’t available for download. It costs 14 dollars to access. Did you pay that or are you linking something you haven’t read yourself? Didn’t actually try reading it did ya? It’s okay, I wouldn’t have either. The abstract itself tells the story.

                  “Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.”

                  Does it say restrictions caused them? Or are correlated with them? No. I wonder why. States with restrictions might have also had more cows. That’s great. Prove a connection instead of stating two variables without proving their connection.

                  “These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. ”

                  Oh, they may suggest that? Alright. Very confident with his results.

                  “The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997)”

                  Not very confident in his results if he’s trying to piggy back off other research in his abstract. But I can understand why he would pick that study since it is the -only- other study remotely scientific that came up with those results. Funnily enough, Lott wasn’t able to reproduce ANY of the material once people asked to see his data. Nothing. Not a single name of anyone involved. He claimed his computer died and it had all the data, no backups, nothing. He was in exile until Sandy Hook when enough time went by that he could show his face again.

  43. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    Gee,is that why only two counties here,both of them dem controlled urban sewers,have high rates of violent crime?

  44. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    “Then you must be pretty embarrassed indeed to discover that a year-by-year comparison would necessarily include multiple years, which, therefore, would include mass shootings that happened in different years. Which you tried to exclude. Derp.”

    Stop trying. Really. I feel bad for you. We were talking about rates. You are really struggling to make any argument back. No one talked about comparisons. You talked about averages, in an attempt to defend your stupid statement. Now you’re back to yearly rates. Having a hard time keeping up?

    I didn’t try and exclude anything. I answered your question pretty directly. I was educating you to the simple fact that you asked how the “rate” would be effected if you eliminated xyz. I not only educated you to this, I also gave you the facts as to how your question would be answered by looking at the 2012 rate. You say “i wonder xyz”. I come in and answer your question. You should be thankful, instead, all you do is bitch.

    New Orleans had martial law in one of the biggest national disasters we’ve had. Try and pick ordinary circumstances. Or even better, try and make your argument with those other cities. Can you name any violations of “firearm rights” other than Katrina? Nah, you only have one city with one extreme example. Pretty weak I’d say.

    “On the contrary, it is a right, in VT, AK, AR, AZ, and WY, and in ID and MT outside of city limits. Others are likely to join. You are wrong”

    Nope, it is not a right. In those states, conceal carry is unrestricted. Unregulated does not mean it is a protected right. Like I said, conceal carry is not a right.

    Did you read the History section on your wiki link?

    “Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma.”

    Too funny how pro gunners create this illusion that gun control laws have always been less strict, when in fact, historically, they were much more strict than what we could possibly imagine or tolerate today, with our distorted view of gun rights.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      ““Then you must be pretty embarrassed indeed to discover that a year-by-year comparison would necessarily include multiple years, which, therefore, would include mass shootings that happened in different years. Which you tried to exclude. Derp.””

      “Stop trying. Really. I feel bad for you. We were talking about rates.”

      Rates are (incidences) / (time period) and there is no restriction that the time period must be less than one year. You are simply mistaken.

      “No one talked about comparisons.”

      Lie. *I* talked about comparisons. The comparison of the US firearm homicide rate (i.e. deaths / year, over any chosen time period including t > 1 yr) with those fatalities removed that happened in locations where ordinary citizens were prohibited from presenting armed resistance *compared to firearms homicide rates in other countries*.

      “You talked about averages, in an attempt to defend your stupid statement. Now you’re back to yearly rates. Having a hard time keeping up?”

      You’re embarrassing yourself with your stupidity. It’s all spelled out above. I don’t know if you can follow it, though.

      “I didn’t try and exclude anything.”

      Another lie. You first attempted to exclude different mass shootings, “because they happened in different years,” as if the comparison can only be made in a 1-year period, and then you introduced the straw man of year-by-year comparisons, which necessarily cover more than one year, and so include the different mass shootings that you wanted to exclude. Furthermore, you “helpfully” (helpfully like a snake) gave the number of total firearms homicides, and then the number for mass shootings only, for 2012. Which would seem to intentionally exclude hundreds or perhaps thousands of shootings that also occurred in places where citizens weren’t free to defend themselves. Three exclusions in one “helpful education.”

      “New Orleans had martial law in one of the biggest national disasters we’ve had. Try and pick ordinary circumstances.”

      If you upheld the same standard and picked ordinary circumstances, you’d have to exclude pretty much all the crime scenes in which anyone was killed, especially including, but not limited to, the famous mass-fatality shootings, because those weren’t “ordinary circumstances” either. It is awfully convenient for you to place constraints on me that don’t apply to yourself.

      “Or even better, try and make your argument with those other cities. Can you name any violations of “firearm rights” other than Katrina? Nah, you only have one city with one extreme example. Pretty weak I’d say.”

      A disproof only requires a single instance.

      “On the contrary, it is a right, in VT, AK, AR, AZ, and WY, and in ID and MT outside of city limits. Others are likely to join. You are wrong”

      “Nope, it is not a right. In those states, conceal carry is unrestricted. Unregulated does not mean it is a protected right. Like I said, conceal carry is not a right.”

      You’re just stating your conclusion as fact. It is a right. In Vermont, it’s a right. A right is “the sovereignty to act without permission of others” which, when it comes to carrying a concealed gun in Vermont, you can do. This is not debatable. In a few other jurisdictions, this right is also recognized. Most other places, the right is abrogated and turned into a privilege, requiring police permission to do. In a few places, the privilege can’t even be obtained by most people, e.g. NYC or Los Angeles, or Washington DC, until perhaps recently.

      “Did you read the History section on your wiki link?”

      ““Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma.””

      Are you even capable of comprehending the fact that laws can be used to violate rights? And that citing an example of such a law does not refute this? There were laws that blacks had to remain slaves, or had to sit in the back of the bus, or couldn’t vote, *because the self-same laws violated the rights of black people*.” Citing a Jim Crow law no more refutes the contention that such laws violate the rights of blacks, than citing gun control laws refutes the contention that said laws violate the right to keep and bear arms. This is _Not_Rocket_Science_ but it might well elude you.

      “Too funny how pro gunners create this illusion that gun control laws have always been less strict, when in fact, historically, they were much more strict than what we could possibly imagine or tolerate today, with our distorted view of gun rights.”

      Another lie. Have a teenager order a machine gun through the mail today and 100 years ago, and see who finds more obstructions in the way of laws. 1. Too young. 2. Can’t be shipped through the mail. 3. Needs to be registered. 4. 6-month wait for NFA paperwork. 5. Needs a background check. None of that was true 100 years ago. This is your “easy availability of guns”. This is one of your sides many Big Lies.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Without lies they would be reduced to arguing facts, and they don’t have any.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        “Another lie. You first attempted to exclude different mass shootings, “because they happened in different years,” as if the comparison can only be made in a 1-year period, and then you introduced the straw man of year-by-year comparisons, which necessarily cover more than one year, and so include the different mass shootings that you wanted to exclude. Furthermore, you “helpfully” (helpfully like a snake) gave the number of total firearms homicides, and then the number for mass shootings only, for 2012. Which would seem to intentionally exclude hundreds or perhaps thousands of shootings that also occurred in places where citizens weren’t free to defend themselves. Three exclusions in one “helpful education.””

        LOL. You’ve got to be kidding. I give you information, I actually look it up and feed you facts, and you have the idea that I am misleading you because I didn’t give you more information? Obviously I gave you the data for 2012 only. Why? Because I’m nice and because 2012 would have the highest amount of gun fatalities, meaning it would be the most representative example for the point you were trying to make. Which I showed was meaningless, wrong, and quite dumb. So sorry I didn’t give you the past 10 years of data! You’ll have to forgive me.

        “If you upheld the same standard and picked ordinary circumstances, you’d have to exclude pretty much all the crime scenes in which anyone was killed, especially including, but not limited to, the famous mass-fatality shootings, because those weren’t “ordinary circumstances” either. It is awfully convenient for you to place constraints on me that don’t apply to yourself.”

        So you are comparing “pretty much all crime scences in which anyone was killed” to martial law. Alright. Great job. Very smart comparison. So you can’t give any other examples? What did you disprove? I asked you to give me cases. You gave me one, which I showed you was atypical because of martial law. And you obviously are struggling to find others.

        Conceal carry is not a right. It is not protected by the 2nd amendment. No state has it as a right and it isn’t federally recognized as one. Some states just stopped requiring permits for it.

        ” There were laws that blacks had to remain slaves, or had to sit in the back of the bus, or couldn’t vote, *because the self-same laws violated the rights of black people*.””

        First, I think it’s pretty sad that you can only defend yourself by bringing up slavery. You can’t actually defend the positions by looking at history and showing examples of why this is “infringing” on rights? You can’t show how conceal carry was a protected right? Well, I mean you can’t because it never was, but at least try to. Try and make some argument. But you can’t. You say “those laws were wrong” Want proof? Look at slavery! It’s just like that. Yea, pretty sad.

        “Another lie. Have a teenager order a machine gun through the mail today and 100 years ago, and see who finds more obstructions in the way of laws. 1. Too young. 2. Can’t be shipped through the mail. 3. Needs to be registered. 4. 6-month wait for NFA paperwork. 5. Needs a background check. None of that was true 100 years ago. This is your “easy availability of guns”. This is one of your sides many Big Lies.”

        Wait, are you really trying to argue that since we can’t order from magazines anymore, need a background check, etc, that we have less gun rights today? And in your example, you are only talking about machine guns? LOL! I gave you examples of EIGHT states that banned conceal carry. Banned! Completely! Some of these shortly after the passing of the second amendment. And you’re saying that is less restrictive than regulating machine guns? I can’t stop laughing. Ok, I’m done.

        Here are more examples to add on:

        – 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”

        But yea, keep talking about how machine guns being regulated completely outweighs all those restrictions I mentioned. I’m obviously totally lying when I’m saying there were more restrictions in our past than we have today. Because machine guns are regulated. Haha. Hahahahaha

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      The ruling would be more than a charade if the judge had not stayed his ruling and allowed the violation of Constitutional rights to continue.

  45. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    What have we here? Somebody don’t think the rules apply to them.
    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/9266
    ***The Journal Sentinel article reports that among the findings of the investigation were the following revelations:
    BATFE agents befriended mentally disabled people to stimulate business and later arrested them in at least four cities in addition to Milwaukee. In Wichita, BATFE agents referred to a man with a low IQ as “slow-headed” before deciding to secretly use him as a key figure in their sting. Agents in Albuquerque gave a brain-damaged drug addict with little knowledge of weapons a “tutorial” on machine guns, hoping he could find them one.
    Agents in several cities opened undercover gun- and drug-buying operations in safe zones near churches and schools, allowed juveniles to come in and play video games and teens to smoke marijuana, and provided alcohol to underage youths. In Portland, Ore., attorneys for three teens who were charged said a female agent dressed provocatively, flirted with the boys and encouraged them to bring drugs and weapons to the store to sell.
    As they did in Milwaukee, agents in other cities offered sky-high prices for guns, leading suspects to buy firearms at stores and turn around and sell them to undercover agents for a quick profit. In other stings, agents ran fake pawnshops and readily bought stolen items, such as electronics and bikes–no questions asked–spurring burglaries and theft. In Atlanta, agents bought guns that had been stolen just hours earlier, several that were taken from police cars.
    Agents damaged buildings they rented for their operations, tearing out walls and rewiring electricity–then stuck landlords with the repair bills. A property owner in Portland, Ore., said agents removed a parking lot spotlight, damaging her new $30,000 roof and causing leaks, before they shut down the operation and disappeared without a way for her to contact them.
    Agents pressed suspects for specific firearms that could fetch tougher penalties in court. They allowed felons to walk out of the stores armed with guns. In Wichita, agents suggested a felon take a shotgun, saw it off and bring it back–and provided instructions on how to do it. The sawed-off gun allowed them to charge the man with a more serious crime.
    In Pensacola, BATFE hired a felon to run its pawnshop. The move widened the pool of potential targets, boosting arrest numbers. BATFE’s pawnshop partner was later convicted of pointing a loaded gun at someone outside a bar. Instead of a stiff sentence typically handed down to repeat offenders in federal court, he got six months in jail–and a pat on the back from the prosecutor.***

    Curious, no?

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      Being the leftist rag that it is,I’m utterly shocked that the Milwaukee Urinal ran that piece

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      You would’nt be suggesting now that such paragons of virtue as the JBTs from an unconstitutional federal agency would commit felonies,in order to catch “criminals” are you?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I wouldn’t trust a thing the gun lobbies put together. The prime tactic of right wingers is to pretend to debate while spreading nothing but lies.

      The Gun Lobby: Sophistry
      Posted on January 31, 2013 by brucejberger

      One of the frequent arguments of the pro-gun lobby — the group that feels that God gave them the right to own any kind of weapon they care to own, regardless of the consequences — is that no law concerning weapons should “burden law-abiding citizens.” The argument might sound good on first hearing, but even the slightest thought should lead one to conclude that it’s ridiculous.

      All rights must be subject to reasonable limitations and must always be balanced against the rights of others if we are to live in a just and fair society. The right to free speech has limitations; one cannot slander another individual without incurring the risk of liability, a “burden” that our common law places on “law-abiding citizens.” The right to freedom of religion has its limitations; one cannot enslave another human being on the theory — even if sincerely held — that the Bible condones slavery. Our laws against slavery — the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution and parts of our penal code, e.g., 18 USC 1584 — constitute a “burden.”

      Children have a right to live, and any right to “bear arms” must be reasonably restrained by every child’s right to live. It’s a shame that reasonable restraints are deemed a “burden” to the gun manufacturers, sellers, and owners, who cannot even tolerate universal background checks. It’s a national tragedy that our elected representatives may be so gutless as to accept the NRA argument that seeks to avoid any “burden on law-abiding citizens” whatsoever, regardless of reason, regardless of good conscience, regardless of a child’s right to live.

      http://brucejberger.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/the-gun-lobby-sophis try/

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Now that’s funny, here’s the sophist accusing others of sophistry!

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          It’s a typical right wing ploy. Debating with nothing but lies.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            You’d be the authority on that, wouldn’t you?

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              I don’t claim to be an authority but the lies of the right wingers I see here and other places is obvious. They’re more interested in promoting some agenda than the truth, hence the lies in every debate. Insults are another ploy the right, again, commonly seen here. It would be funny if it weren’t so stupid.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Half truth, obfuscation, redefinition, misdirection, and outright lies. Slander, evasion, fabrication, deceit, false accusations, and statistical chicanery can all be laid at your feet, but of course you claim innocence.
                The people who post on this forum know you for what you are, and your protestations to the contrary are laughable.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  On the contrary, the righties on this list have made a point of continuous use of said tactics. Roger Ailes would be proud of you.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    Well, that’s your opinion, but we know what that’s worth. I’d submit the question of veracity to an impartial judge, but you would scream bias at any that might be to the right of piven.

                    .

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Mark The Troll again posts accusations without evidence, and hypocritically claims we have agendas, which falsely implies that he doesn’t. Typical trolling behavior for a proven troll.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Mark The Troll claims we debate with “nothing but lies.” Every single thing we have posted in debate with him is a lie. Including this post, I guess. Nope, no sweeping generalization here, incidentally utterly unbacked by evidence. Oh – plus, it’s a lie. I almost forgot that.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Lives saved and a killer put down don’t grab the reader like a good mass murder.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        It’s ok, the assaults with a deadly weapon don’t get reported either. Those would be the ones you guys call DGUs. A lot of Americans let gun threats and the childish doing them off the hook. Gotta take the bad with the worse.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          It’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it?
          I can’t recall whether it was Pravda or Izvesta that is supposed to have carried an article about a two car race outside Moscow in the 1950s that stated: The American Ford finished the race next to last. The Russian Zil came in second.

          Only an alinsky socialist would equate self defense with assault with a deadly weapon.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            They are not all “DGUs”. You guys are transfixed on the notion that any gun use that doesn’t involve a dead criminal is a justified DGU. A lot of your so-called DGUs are just plain old assault. But, no, nobody counts those either.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Straw man, you are lying about our position. We do not consider armed carjacking, forcible rape, armed robbery, and other such firearms uses “in which there isn’t a dead criminal” to be justified DGUs. You will happily use logical fallacies when it serves you, even as you exhibit no tolerance for them from others. (Except Babs The Troll and others on your side.) Furthermore, you usually misrepresent our position in a way that attempts to show us in worst possible light, as if we enjoy criminal misdeeds or mass murders, etc. You are truly despicable. Be gone, Mark The Troll.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Nope, just reflecting on the bitching about good gun uses not getting reported. The converse is that many of the so called good uses end up being assault with a deadly weapon, like the guy shooting at me…no self defense there…just law breaking

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  You claim to have been shot at. Where’s any proof? Anybody can claim anything, from having humped madonna (ugh!) to walking on the moon, but given your history of prevarication and without some sort of verification, you are blowing smoke. As usual.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Does anyone ever get shot at? Mine is not a unique case. Only an idiot would think otherwise. If there are no records of it does that mean it didn’t happen? I’m sure in the conservosphere where out of sight out of mind applies you’ll think so.

                    Deadly force was used against me when I posed no threat.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      So you claim. Why didn’t this “fact” come to light long ago? Don’t tell me you had “forgotten” the incident until now…
                      Given your history of histrionics, one can only speculate about your veracity.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Your incredulity is showing again.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “So you claim. Why didn’t this “fact” come to light long ago? Don’t tell me you had “forgotten” the incident until now…”

                      It was mentioned in this blog a long time ago. Your memory is short.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    I refuse to release anything on this blog that will further identify me.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***I refuse to release anything on this blog that will further identify me.***

                      Afraid that your efforts at antagonizing people who oppose your position will bear results, or do your fears spring from being outed as a paid troll?
                      Are you going to again claim that I have “threatened” you?

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          maybe you could ask your zampolit to buy you a dictionary,so you can differentiate between “assault” and “defense”

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Depends in which way the gun is pointing.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              well,when it’s pointing at a thug,it’s obviously in the right direction

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                I once unknowingly walked onto private property while recovering an atmospheric probe. An individual, approximately a quarter of a mile away began shooting at me. I could hear the bullets whizzing through nearby tree leaves. I’m sure you think this is a DGU.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Perhaps the shooter already knew you? I’m sure you went straight to the cops, pissing all the way. Got a police report that verifies this incident?
                  500 yards is a fairly long range, but he should have hit his target within 3 shots. Step over any fences with “No Tresspassing” signs on ’em?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    DGU or assault?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Since you make no mention of legal action, I would think it more likely a figment of your imagination. Wandering on private property without seeking permission, you could have blundered into his target range.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    Perhaps the shooter already knew you? I’m sure you went straight to the cops, pissing all the way. Got a police report that verifies this incident?”

                    much like the young punks tresspassing on my land in Michigan,who threatened to call the sheriff when I enforced the no tresspassing signs with a shotgun?I gave them the number to the sheriff’s department.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    “Since you make no mention of legal action, I would think it more likely a figment of your imagination. Wandering on private property without seeking permission, you could have blundered into his target range.”

                    I’m sure that the quaint notion of private property would be anathema to Tovarich Mark.

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  My guess would be a figment of your imagination,or a result of some of the ‘shrooms for your latest trip to Oregon.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Another one of those responsible gun owners…

                    Ohio Man Arrested With 48 Bombs, Detonators And Other Weapons In His Car
                    by Liam O’Connor
                    An Ohio man pulled over for speeding has been arrested after police found 48 bombs, firearms, detonators and schematics for more explosives in his car.

                    Andrew Scott Boguslawski has been charged with illegally making or possessing explosive devices. He was stopped on New Years Eve for doing 85 mph in a 70 mph zone. The arresting officer asked if he had any weapons in his car. Boguslawski said he didn’t, but when the officer returned with a speeding ticket, he noticed the butt of a gun between the suspect’s legs. The officer then drew his service weapon, trained it on Boguslawski, and called for backup.

                    Investigators are not sure what his plans were. What they have said is that Boguslawski works at a Navy SEALS training facility in Indiana, and among his possessions were “schematics and other plans for buildings” that may have been for the SEALS base.

                    According to Gawker.com:

                    “One prosecutor told Dispatch.com that Boguslawski mentioned to a trooper that he planned to make an explosive vest.”

                    While no details have been released about Boguslawski’s motives or political ties, his car had a bumper sticker which read “IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOU’RE IN RANGE”, a well-known mantra among extreme right-wing terrorists. More details are likely to be released as investigators analyze items seized from his car, including a GPS system, a camera and a laptop.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Can’t give an honest answer huh?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      All the honesty you have shown.

                      Where and when did you find this “bomb plot” article, or is that a secret?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Do you not know how to use google? Search for Andrew Scott Boguslawski. It’s everywhere.

                      Your incredulity is showing.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Why should I be wading through a search when you are too lazy or duplicitous to include your source?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You’ve spent more time and energy bitching in your passive aggressive style than it would have taken to reference the gawker.com site or simply google the mans name. You’ll get no reference from me. Quit being a lazy windbag.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Any time I spend irritating you is recreation.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I would have to care for it to be irritating.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Ah! If you didn’t care, why would you bother answering? Are you paid by the word?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I have my own reasons for replying that you are unable to guess.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      BTW, did you ever look up your gun-buddy Andrew? He’s plastered all over the internet.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      He is not our buddy. Have you stopped beating your wife?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***I have my own reasons for replying that you are unable to guess.***
                      Supplementing your desk clerk job at the motel with soros “paid troll” money?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***BTW, did you ever look up your gun-buddy Andrew? He’s plastered all over the internet.***

                      And why is it the only place he’s to be found is on the internet? Haven’t seen a single media report on the ‘mad bomber’, caught before he could begin his campaign of terrorism because he was so stupid as to be speeding with a car full of explosives and have a handgun exposed. The authorities (fbi, batfe, cid, state cops) are not shy about publicity when they foil bomb plots, even when muslims are the perpetrators.

                      This sounds too much like a script from a TV show.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh, I forgot, it’s not on faux newz so it must not be true.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll sez: “I have my own reasons for replying that you are unable to guess.”

                      This is pretty funny, and hypocritical, after just posting that one damning thing against us is that we have “agendas”. Not one day later, he admits that he’s here for reasons we’re unable to guess. Hmmm, sounds like, oh, I dunno, … yes, I’ve think I’ve got it … an agenda! Hypocrite.

                      Then again, that’s why he’s Mark The Troll.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***Oh, I forgot, it’s not on faux newz so it must not be true.***

                      Mad cow maddow, “Special Ed” shultz, “Tingles” matthews, and “Fake But Accurate” rather didn’t even carry this story. It’s not on radio either.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I have no agenda. I expect no change in attitudes. I do have my reasons for participating and if I told them to you I’m sure you’d accuse me of lying.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s on

                      abcnews.go.com
                      news.msn.com/crime
                      news.yahoo.com
                      http://www.upi.com
                      http://www.washingtonpost.com
                      http://www.businessinsider.com

                      Places you won’t find it.

                      breitbart.com
                      foxnews.com
                      http://www.conservativesacttoday.org
                      http://www.redstate.com
                      michellemalkin.com

                      I’m guessing things are only valid if you see them on your T.V. Try adjusting the rabbit ears.