PDA

View Full Version : If we don't talk about gun control...



Qtec
07-23-2012, 01:06 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>.....after a tragedy like this one, it won't get talked about at all... period.</span>

link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/piers-morgan-day-debate-gun-control-would-ha)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Piers Morgan: The Day to Debate Gun Control Would Have Been Yesterday


I don't watch Piers Morgan's show too often since it's generally just a bunch of celebrity gossip that makes his predecessor, Larry King, look like he practiced serious journalism in comparison, but I caught some of his show following the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado this weekend. And I have to admit I'm really glad I heard someone say what Morgan did this Friday evening about when it's acceptable to talk about gun control.

If we don't talk about gun control after a tragedy like this one, it won't get talked about at all... period. And even if we do have a discussion now, both political parties are so beholden to or scared to death of the NRA, that neither of them are going to act unless there's finally enough pressure from enough voters that siding with the NRA is finally a losing proposition and is going to cost some politicians their seats. Given their huge war chest, that's a big hurdle to overcome. I'm not sure how many more people have to die by gun violence for that to finally become a reality.

Anyway, as I said, I'm no big fan of Piers Morgan, but it was nice to see for once the hypocrisy of not being allowed to talk about the root causes of this many deaths when we don't treat any other issue that way. People die and we want to know why and how to prevent it from happening. Sadly it seems even a Democratic member of Congress being shot wasn't enough to wake these people up that the laws need to be changed. Makes me wonder how many nut jobs out there have to be killing one of their own before enough is enough and Congress is willing to act. Apparently just one wasn't, which still just astounds me. </div></div>

The law may say you can own a gun, it doesn't say you can own something that shoots 60 rounds a minute.

Q

cushioncrawler
07-23-2012, 03:13 AM
If i were prez i would make it a law that every citizen over 17 hazta tote a long barrelled muzzle loader fully loaded at all times, and under the pillow when in bed.
mac.

Ooooooh Hooneeeeey.
Sorry.

LWW
07-23-2012, 03:36 AM
Are you completely devoid of all logic?

Aurora had very restrictive gun laws ... to the point that no movie goer had the legal ability to stop the carnage.

Soflasnapper
07-23-2012, 11:47 AM
From a CNS website piece that agrees with you, but admits something that proves you both wrong:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Currently in Aurora, Colorado, where the shooting took place, there are already laws prohibiting the carry of a concealed dangerous weapon <span style='font-size: 14pt'>(though unenforced, due to state law)</span>,* discharge firearms,** unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range, and have a loaded firearm in motor vehicle within the city limits.***

Yet these laws were unable to stop James Holmes.</div></div>

Wait, WHAT???!?! The city laws were unenforced because of state law?

What does that mean? Here is a listing (http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm) of the many municipal level gun laws throughout Colorado, headed up with this important note:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 2003, the state legislature and the governor deemed that the power to address gun violence in Colorado through laws SHALL NOT be in the domain of the affected communities,
rather it should rest only in the hands of the state. By this legislation (SB03-25),
all of the ordinances on this list have been declared unenforceable. </div></div>

So your point would be more truthfully stated as:

Aurora had very restrictive gun laws (they were not allowed to enforce, by state law, for the past 8 or 9 years)...

Now, for your other fantasies:

OF COURSE, the moviegoers had the legal ability to have the equipment to TRY TO STOP the carnage. Colorado allows CCWs, and Aurora cannot prosecute carrying concealed weapons under their law, going back <s>10</s> 8 or 9 years. CCW license holders know the laws they operate under, generally, especially one in effect for 8 or 9 years.

But remember the two bank robbers in LA wearing body armor like this guy? They stood off 350 trained and armed police officers in the open in broad daylight for some hours, until the police went and got sufficiently powerful long arms that could penetrate the body armor. Their handguns were wholly inadequate, even with 300+ police officers engaging the shooters.

What handgun ordinance do you claim could have stopped this man with his ballistic helmet, throat, groin and leg protection and body armor? There are .50 caliber handguns, I suppose, and maybe Teflon-tipped smaller rounds that might penetrate body armor, neither of which is what an average handgun owner uses.

And assuming the CCW ban of Aurora HAD been enforceable, open carry, allowed by state law, was available as the alternative.

That is, perhaps even had the CCW ban been in place and enforced, people could just walk around with a gun in their open to view outside holster. That's legal throughout Colorado, except for Denver, which won a lawsuit against the state law pre-empting local enforcement of gun restrictions I have mentioned above.

As I discovered these facts in about 5 minutes once I was clued into the situation by the first quote above, this is readily available information, known to anyone familiar with gun laws in Colorado.

Why hasn't it been clarified, since it is a key part of the circumstances of this case?

That not only could the Aurora CCW ban not be enforced to prosecute people, but also, the people could simply OPEN CARRY, as even the Aurora law did not proscribe, had it been in effect and enforced?

Leaving this out of the story is massive deception and spin.

LWW
07-23-2012, 12:16 PM
Do you have any clue how ballistics work?

Do you understand that pistol, with ball ammo no less, is relatively lame at 100 yards regardless of bdy armor?

Are you aware that at short range a pistol is more accurate than an AR?

Are you aware that the odds are in favor of one shooter trying to take out one guy who is trying to take out hundred?

Are you aware that mot police killed by gunfire on duty were wearing bdy armor?

Are you aware there is n such thing as a bulletof vest?

Soflasnapper
07-23-2012, 12:31 PM
That may or may not be true. I'm frankly surprised you didn't point to my extreme errors in describing the N. Hollywood bank robbery incident instead (which were made unintentionally from memory instead of checking the details first).

It is irrelevant to your claim that such an effort was stopped by law, since nobody could carry concealed (or open carry) these weapons. Your claim in chief was false. We can discuss these ancillary questions separately once you admit no law prevented CCWs or open carry weapons.

That is not the law, as those (municipal) laws were swept aside 9 years ago by state law, and the state law allowed both CCW and open carry, regardless of whether my claim it wouldn't have worked anyway is correct or wrong.

eg8r
07-24-2012, 01:28 AM
Great. This trajedy should not drive a discussion like that anyways.

eg8r

Qtec
07-24-2012, 02:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great. This trajedy should not drive a discussion like that anyways.

eg8r </div></div>

So after 9/11, lets not talk about Al Q? Lets ignore the problem?

What the NRA, ie the arms manufacturers won't tell you is that they are part of a bigger plan.

Guns=crime= profit.

Q..the rest is collateral damage.

eg8r
07-24-2012, 02:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guns=crime= profit.

</div></div>Wrong, criminals = crime and they will use whatever they can. So what, we listen to gun weenies like yourself and get them all banned and then start going after knife manufacturers? Maybe next we can try and ban everything with a point?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-24-2012, 05:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great. This trajedy should not drive a discussion like that anyways.

eg8r </div></div>

So after 9/11, lets not talk about Al Q? Lets ignore the problem?

What the NRA, ie the arms manufacturers won't tell you is that they are part of a bigger plan.

Guns=crime= profit.

Q..the rest is collateral damage.


</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">Impossible to educate those who refuse to acknowledge consequences which are obvious to all who have not been brainwashed into a state of non-stop denial.

Just weeks ago, I posted a book recommendation on this very subject. Domestic Violence, and laxed gun control, the growing Right Wing Radical threat to peace, were all included in the very well documented book.

There were others here who apparently didn't even think the subject was worthwhile for discussion.

I wonder if they still think so, after what we have seen during the last few days!

The Repiglican solution for everything, is denial. They just tune in every day to learn what pressing devastation and disaster they should pretend does not even exist.



G.

</span>

LWW
07-24-2012, 06:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The law may say you can own a gun, it doesn't say you can own something that shoots 60 rounds a minute.

Q </div></div>

Actually ... it does.

But, I have an unfair advantage in that I have read the law.

And, FWIW, the Batman shooter could not fire 60 rounds per minute.

Next ridiculous claim?

eg8r
07-24-2012, 06:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Impossible to educate those who refuse to acknowledge consequences which are obvious to all who have not been brainwashed into a state of non-stop denial.

</div></div>What part of his brainwashed response was supposed to be educational? Guns don't equal crime, EVER. Criminals doing criminal acts = crime.

eg8r

eg8r
07-24-2012, 06:31 AM
Should we outlaw booze/beer and cars because they are the fault of drunk driving murder?

eg8r

LWW
07-24-2012, 06:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Should we outlaw booze/beer and cars because they are the fault of drunk driving murder?

eg8r </div></div>

MURDER BY PENCIL! (http://www.examiner.com/article/las-vegas-jail-inmate-murders-cellmate-with-a-pencil)

In this modern age, a pencil only has a single use that couldn't be done better with a pen or computer ... MAYHEM!

These things allow stab rates of up to 60 SPM.

LWW
07-24-2012, 06:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Should we outlaw booze/beer and cars because they are the fault of drunk driving murder?

eg8r </div></div>

STABBED TO DEATH WITH A COMB! (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/world/girl-stabbed-to-death-with-comb-20120717-226wh.html)

LWW
07-24-2012, 06:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Should we outlaw booze/beer and cars because they are the fault of drunk driving murder?

eg8r </div></div>

MURDER BY YACHT! (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6090923&page=1#.UA6Xzd28HjQ)

LWW
07-24-2012, 06:43 AM
The moral of the story is that if you are invited to watch a BATMAN movie on a yacht, and show up to find your host doing a crossword puzzle while combing their hair ... <span style='font-size: 14pt'>RUN AWAY!</span>

Gayle in MD
07-24-2012, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Impossible to educate those who refuse to acknowledge consequences which are obvious to all who have not been brainwashed into a state of non-stop denial.

</div></div>What part of his brainwashed response was supposed to be educational? Guns don't equal crime, EVER. Criminals doing criminal acts = crime.

eg8r </div></div>

Criminals and people who are mentally ill, with hoards of assault weapons, create mass murders, according to statistics.

We are having our safety and that of our children compromised by the National Rifle Association and their supporters, compoased of irrational frightened white men who are too stupid to understand that having weapons that can kill hundreds in minutes, is not rational, nor necessary, in order to protect their homes, or go hunting.

We must go after the NRA, ad sue them when these mass murders occur. The NRA, is a murder factory. They must be stopped!

You're statement, btw, is irrelevant as to the main point of this thread.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map







It's perhaps too easy to forget how many times this has happened. The horrific mass murder at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado on Friday is the latest in an epidemic of such gun violence over the last three decades. Since 1982, there have been at least 50 mass murders* carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 27 states. We've mapped them below, including details on the shooter's identity, the date of the event, and the number of victims injured and killed. We do not consider the map comprehensive (and there are countless incidents of gun violence in America, of course). We used the following criteria to identify incidents of mass murder:

• The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, both of which involved two shooters.)
• The shootings happened during a single incident and in a public place. (Except possibly in the case of a hunter in Meteor, Wisconsin, who killed his victims after a trespassing dispute, and in the case of a party at an apartment complex in Crandon, Wisconsin.)
• The shooter took the lives of at least four people. An FBI crime classification report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—as opposed to a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), and typically in a single location.
• If the shooter died or was hurt from injuries sustained during the incident, he is included in the total victim count.

Click on the dots or use the search box just above the map to go to a specific location. (Note: You'll need to zoom in significantly to see the Fort Hood shooting, located right next to the 1991 Luby's massacre in Killeen, TX. Ditto, with the Seattle cafe and Capitol Hill shootings, and other incidents located close together.)



Sources: research by Mother Jones, with additional data from the Associated Press and Canada.com.

For a rundown on the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, jump over to our explainer.

Update, 11:30 p.m. PDT: Thanks to all our great readers for the comments, and for flagging several other incidents that fit the above criteria for mass murder. We will update the map data soon to include the Xerox killings in Hawaii, the Westside Middle School killings in Arkansas (involving two shooters, like Columbine), the Amish school killings in Pennsylvania, the Trolley Square killings in Utah, the Northern Illinois University killings, and the Oikos University killings in Oakland. (We chose not to include Mark O. Barton in Atlanta, Richard Baumhammers in Pittsburgh, or the Red Lake reservation massacre in Minnesota, whose perpetrators are classified as spree killers.)

Update 2, July 21, 1:30 p.m. PDT: We've added the above incidents to the map, as well the Stockton schoolyard shooting in California, the University of Iowa shooting, the Seattle cafe shooting in Washington, and the Kirkwood city council shooting in Missouri.


Update 3, July 23, 6pm PDT: With additional research, we've added 14 more mass murders to the map (whose total count began at 26 when we first published on Friday evening). Our thanks again for the wisdom of the MoJo crowd. And stay tuned: We'll be adding more data soon on the specific types of weapons used in all of these cases, whether the weapons were obtained legally, and where they were obtained. We're also working on a timeline and some other ways of contextualizing the data.

310
Print
Email



Gavin Aronsen
Writing Fellow
Gavin Aronsen is a writing fellow at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. Follow him on Twitter or send an email to garonsen [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | Twitter



How the NRA and Its Allies Helped Spread a Radical Gun Law Nationwide
Years before Trayvon Martin was killed, gun lobbyists conspired to give Stand Your Ground shooters immunity everywhere.
—By Adam Weinstein

| Thu Jun. 7, 2012 3:10 AM PDT

The Florida law made infamous this spring by the killing of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was conceived during the epic hurricane season of 2004. That November, 77-year-old James Workman moved his family into an RV outside Pensacola after Hurricane Ivan peeled back the roof of their house. One night a stranger tried to force his way into the trailer, and Workman killed him with two shots from a .38 revolver. The stranger turned out to be a disoriented temporary worker for the Federal Emergency Management Agency who was checking for looters and distressed homeowners. Workman was never arrested, but three months went by before authorities cleared him of wrongdoing.

That was three months too long for Dennis Baxley, a veteran Republican representative in Florida's state Legislature. Four hurricanes had hit the state that year, and there was fear about widespread looting (though little took place). In Baxley's view, Floridians who defended themselves or their property with lethal force shouldn't have had to worry about legal repercussions. Baxley, a National Rifle Association (NRA) member and owner of a prosperous funeral business, teamed up with then-GOP state Sen. Durell Peaden to propose what would become known as Stand Your Ground, the self-defense doctrine essentially permitting anyone feeling threatened in a confrontation to shoot their way out.

Or at least that's the popular version of how the law was born. In fact, its genesis traces back to powerful NRA lobbyists and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing policy group. And the law's rapid spread—it now exists in various forms in 25 states—reflects the success of a coordinated strategy, cultivated in Florida, to roll back gun control laws everywhere.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Baxley says he and Peaden lifted the law's language from a proposal crafted by Marion Hammer, a former NRA president and founder of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, a local NRA affiliate. A 73-year-old dynamo who tops off her 4-foot-11 frame with a brown pageboy, Hammer has been a force in the state capital for more than three decades. "There is no more tenacious presence in Tallahassee," Gov. Jeb Bush's former chief of staff told CNN in April. "You want her on your side in a fight."

Ever since neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin point-blank in the chest, the term Stand Your Ground has been widely discussed, but what does it really mean? A Mother Jones review of dozens of state laws shows that the concept is built on three planks from the pioneering Florida legislation: A person claiming self-defense is not required to retreat from a threat before opening fire; the burden is almost always on prosecutors to prove that a self-defense claim is not credible; and finally, the shooter has immunity from civil suits relating to the use of deadly force. While the so-called Castle Doctrine (as in "a man's home is his") has for centuries generally immunized people from homicide convictions if they resorted to deadly force while defending their home, Florida's law was the first to extend such protection to those firing weapons in public spaces—parking lots, parks, city streets.

Stand Your Ground was shepherded through the Legislature with help from then-state Rep. Marco Rubio and signed into law by Bush on April 26, 2005. It was the "first step of a multi-state strategy," Wayne LaPierre, a long-standing NRA official who is now the group's CEO, told the Washington Post. "There's a big tailwind we have, moving from state legislature to state legislature. The South, the Midwest, everything they call 'flyover land.'" The measure was adopted as model legislation by ALEC, a corporate-sponsored national consortium of lawmakers—which is how it ended up passing in states from Mississippi to Wisconsin. "We are not a rogue state," says Baxley, who was bestowed with the NRA's Defender of Freedom Award shortly before his bill passed. "But we may be a leader."





How the NRA Pushed the Right to Pack Heat Anywhere
Thanks to an under-the-radar campaign from gun-rights groups, more and more states are making it easier to buy and carry firearms.

How "Stand Your Ground" Spread Nationwide

The Florida law made infamous this spring by the killing of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was conceived during the epic hurricane season of 2004. That November, 77-year-old James Workman moved his family into an RV outside Pensacola after Hurricane Ivan peeled back the roof of their house. One night a stranger tried to force his way into the trailer, and Workman killed him with two shots from a .38 revolver. The stranger turned out to be a disoriented temporary worker for the Federal Emergency Management Agency who was checking for looters and distressed homeowners. Workman was never arrested, but three months went by before authorities cleared him of wrongdoing.
That was three months too long for Dennis Baxley, a veteran Republican representative in Florida's state Legislature. Four hurricanes had hit the state that year, and there was fear about widespread looting (though little took place). In Baxley's view, Floridians who defended themselves or their property with lethal force shouldn't have had to worry about legal repercussions. Baxley, a National Rifle Association (NRA) member and owner of a prosperous funeral business, teamed up with then-GOP state Sen. Durell Peaden to propose what would become known as Stand Your Ground, the self-defense doctrine essentially permitting anyone feeling threatened in a confrontation to shoot their way out.

Or at least that's the popular version of how the law was born. In fact, its genesis traces back to powerful NRA lobbyists and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing policy group. And the law's rapid spread—it now exists in various forms in 25 states—reflects the success of a coordinated strategy, cultivated in Florida, to roll back gun control laws everywhere.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Baxley says he and Peaden lifted the law's language from a proposal crafted by Marion Hammer, a former NRA president and founder of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, a local NRA affiliate. A 73-year-old dynamo who tops off her 4-foot-11 frame with a brown pageboy, Hammer has been a force in the state capital for more than three decades. "There is no more tenacious presence in Tallahassee," Gov. Jeb Bush's former chief of staff told CNN in April. "You want her on your side in a fight."

Ever since neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin point-blank in the chest, the term Stand Your Ground has been widely discussed, but what does it really mean? A Mother Jones review of dozens of state laws shows that the concept is built on three planks from the pioneering Florida legislation: A person claiming self-defense is not required to retreat from a threat before opening fire; the burden is almost always on prosecutors to prove that a self-defense claim is not credible; and finally, the shooter has immunity from civil suits relating to the use of deadly force. While the so-called Castle Doctrine (as in "a man's home is his") has for centuries generally immunized people from homicide convictions if they resorted to deadly force while defending their home, Florida's law was the first to extend such protection to those firing weapons in public spaces—parking lots, parks, city streets.

Stand Your Ground was shepherded through the Legislature with help from then-state Rep. Marco Rubio and signed into law by Bush on April 26, 2005. It was the "first step of a multi-state strategy," Wayne LaPierre, a long-standing NRA official who is now the group's CEO, told the Washington Post. "There's a big tailwind we have, moving from state legislature to state legislature. The South, the Midwest, everything they call 'flyover land.'" The measure was adopted as model legislation by ALEC, a corporate-sponsored national consortium of lawmakers—which is how it ended up passing in states from Mississippi to Wisconsin. "We are not a rogue state," says Baxley, who was bestowed with the NRA's Defender of Freedom Award shortly before his bill passed. "But we may be a leader."

Florida enacted the self-defense law in 2005. By 2012, with help from the NRA and its allies, 24 more states had adopted similar laws.

Click on each year below to see how the law spread

—By Rick Schmitt, iWatch News

| Tue Nov. 15, 2011 4:00 AM PST


Ever thought about stashing a loaded Glock in your jacket and carrying it into a bar for a little extra protection? In Ohio, thanks to a new state law, you're now free to do so. All you need is a permit.

Ever since Ohio implemented a "concealed carry" law in 2004—allowing the possession of a hidden, loaded handgun in public—changes in state legislation have made it increasingly easy for people to carry guns around. This year, Ohio lawmakers decriminalized having a concealed gun in a bar or restaurant that serves liquor, provided gun-toting patrons don't drink any alcohol. Concealed guns are now allowed in bars, cars, public parks, and parking lots—and today, more than a quarter-million Ohioans have the permits needed to carry them there.

Click on the map below to see where concealed guns are permitted near you.
The changes in Ohio are part of a dramatic expansion of permissive gun laws across the United States. In just the past three years, 22 states have weakened or eliminated laws restricting the possession of concealed weapons, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, a public-interest law firm in San Francisco. These measures are easing eligibility and testing requirements for obtaining a permit, opening up public places to concealed weapons, and expanding legal protections for those who put their guns to use.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The impact of these changes could soon reach a whole new level. A federal concealed carry law now moving through Congress would require states to recognize each other's permits, similar to the way in which driver's licenses are valid across state lines. The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, which passed the House Judiciary Committee in late October, is scheduled for a floor vote in the House on Tuesday. If it goes on to pass in both chambers of Congress and is signed into law by the president (an outcome far from clear), the law would set up a race to the bottom for lax gun regulations. [Update: The bill passed in the House on November 16, 2011.]

Under the federal legislation, out-of-state permit holders would still have to obey individual state restrictions on where they could carry their concealed weapons. But the legislation would force states with strict permitting rules to recognize permits from states with weaker standards. For example, a state like New York—which allows police considerable discretion to deny concealed carry licenses even to persons without a serious criminal record—would have to welcome a concealed carry permit holder from Virginia, where people can obtain a permit online without ever having touched a firearm.

"Congress is simply ignoring the mayhem created by lax concealed handgun laws," says Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based gun-control group. Since 2007, the group has identified 385 people—including 11 law enforcement officers—who have been killed in incidents involving private citizens allowed to carry concealed handguns. "And these incidents are only the tip of the iceberg since the gun lobby consistently blocks any attempt to collect comprehensive data on crimes committed by permit holders," Rand says.

From bars to parks, see a map of where concealed guns are now permitted near you. Source: Legal Community Against ViolenceRegardless of the fate of the federal legislation, the rollback of gun restrictions at the state level is continuing apace. In Wisconsin, for example, as of November 1 a concealed carry law allows weapons on parts of college campuses and in government buildings. In Louisiana, a law enacted in 2010 allows churches and other houses of worship to have armed security forces with concealed weapons. And since last year Arizona has allowed its citizens to carry concealed weapons without any permit at all.

The recent changes across many states reflect a shift in the strategy and tactics of the powerful gun lobby, including a growing emphasis on policy battles beyond the nation's capital. Since 2003, the National Rifle Association has poured $2.3 million into the coffers of candidates for state offices, according to the non-partisan National Institute on Money in State Politics. Meanwhile, scores of grassroots groups with NRA ties have cropped up in recent years, making an impact with their political activism, militant tone, and aggressive tactics.

Recently these groups have been riding the momentum of Republican-controlled legislatures and celebrating what they see as a long-delayed recognition of their Second Amendment rights. They have updated their message, too: Recession-driven cutbacks in state and local law enforcement budgets have made it more important for ordinary citizens to pack heat. "Probably now more than ever," says John Hohenwarter, the NRA lobbyist for Ohio, "people need the ability to defend themselves."

A gun group's aggressive tactics

When the Republican-controlled Ohio General Assembly convened in January, it took up legislation allowing permit holders to bring hidden loaded handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol. Since 2004, it has been legal in Ohio to bring a weapon into, say, a McDonald's. The legislation to allow concealed weapons in establishments serving alcohol was opposed by the state's restaurant and bartender associations, major law enforcement groups, and even by some Republican lawmakers. "We are not making it safer" by adding guns to the mix, said Republican Todd McKenney, who represents a district near Akron.

"If you cross us, we are going to hit back," James Irvine, the chairman of Buckeye Firearms, said in an interview. "Know it is coming."
In addition to Irvine, who works as a commercial airline pilot, the leadership of the Buckeye Firearms Association includes Ken Hanson, a lawyer and NRA firearms instructor, and Chad Baus, a car dealer and the main blogger for the group's website. The group's weekly newsletter has more than 33,000 subscribers, and its website generates about 375,000 page views a month, according to Irvine. Features on the site include a messaging system for contacting legislators and a downloadable "Grassroots Action Guide," with tips on activism and insights into "how the anti-gun mind works." Periodic commentary under the title "The Idiot Chronicles" focuses on anti-gun lawmakers and other adversaries.

Buckeye also has its own PAC, and while its war chest is modest—about $54,000, according to Irvine—its giving is carefully targeted. Among the beneficiaries: the speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, the secretary of state, the chair of the Ohio Republican Party, and the chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.

All this has made Buckeye a player closely watched by other groups. It is "a model that people are emulating and copying," says Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a national group that supports state and local gun activists, which named Buckeye its grassroots organization of the year in 2011.

The group's political activism shows how the power of the gun lobby can cut across party lines. In 2010, Irvine campaigned for the incumbent governor, Democrat Ted Strickland (who ended up losing to Republican John Kasich). He rode around rural Ohio in a camouflaged RV dubbed "Sportsmen for Strickland." The NRA gave $2,500 to Strickland and devoted an additional $26,000 in independent expenditures to his campaign, while Buckeye Firearms gave Strickland $1,000. Strickland, long a gun rights proponent, had earned the NRA's highest candidate rating; Kasich has been considered suspect ever since he voted for a national assault-weapons ban as a member of Congress in the '90s.

Irvine's stumping for Strickland "ticked off a lot of my Republican friends," he says. "People would ask, 'Can we really trust a Democrat on the gun issue?' My answer was, 'I am a Republican. I am riding around with him. If that is the case, we can absolutely trust him.'"

[This story orgininally appeared online with the headline "Locked and Loaded for Happy Hour."]

Next Page: The callers warned: "I am going to kill you" and "You should die slowly."
Page 1 of 2Next
426
Print
Email







Report: States Restoring Gun Rights to Very Scary People
—By Siddhartha Mahanta

| Mon Nov. 14, 2011 11:40 AM PST


Federal law dictates that people with felony convictions on their records lose their right to own guns. But the New York Times reports that states have been reinstating those rights, frequently for violent offenders, and with virtually no review. Take Washington state, for example:

Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights in the state—430 in 2010 alone—according to the analysis of data provided by the state police and the court system. Of that number, more than 400—about 13 percent—have subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degree, child rape and drive-by shooting.

Even some felons who have regained their firearms rights say the process needs to be more rigorous.

"It’s kind of spooky, isn’t it?" said Beau Krueger, who has two assaults on his record and got his gun rights back last year in Minnesota after only a brief hearing, in which local prosecutors did not even participate. "We could have all kinds of crazy hoodlums out here with guns that shouldn’t have guns."

The NRA-backed Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 rolled back a number of federal gun laws, kicking the issue of felons' gun rights down to the states. And the movement to restore gun rights to felons, the Times explains, has picked up speed, thanks to a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. Presently, restoration of firearms rights is automatic in at least 11 states for many nonviolent felons, after staying out of trouble for a certain amount of time.

In Washington, the most serious felons are barred from owning guns. But that didn't prevent at least one tragedy:

In February 2005, Erik Zettergren came home from a party after midnight with his girlfriend and another couple. They had all been drinking heavily, and soon the other man and Mr. Zettergren’s girlfriend passed out on his bed. When Mr. Zettergren went to check on them later, he found his girlfriend naked from the waist down and the other man, Jason Robinson, with his pants around his ankles.

Enraged, Mr. Zettergren ordered Mr. Robinson to leave. After a brief confrontation, Mr. Zettergren shot him in the temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic handgun. He then forced Mr. Robinson’s hysterical fiancée, at gunpoint, to help him dispose of the body in a nearby river.

It was the first homicide in more than 30 years in the small town of Endicott, in eastern Washington. But for a judge’s ruling two months before, it would probably never have happened.

For years, Mr. Zettergren had been barred from possessing firearms because of two felony convictions. He had a history of mental health problems and friends said he was dangerous. Yet Mr. Zettergren’s gun rights were restored without even a hearing, under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to deny the application as long as certain basic requirements had been met. Mr. Zettergren, then 36, wasted no time retrieving several guns he had given to a friend for safekeeping.

"If he hadn’t had his rights restored, in this particular instance, it probably would have saved the life of the other person," said Denis Tracy, the prosecutor in Whitman County, who handled the murder case.

The Times piece is loaded with other, terrifying stories like this. Read them all.





http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/nra-asks-wheres-evidence



How the NRA Blocks Gun Research
—By Siddhartha Mahanta

| Thu Jan. 27, 2011 9:35 AM PST




How much firepower does the gun lobby have? Consider this: since the mid-90s, the NRA has "all but choked off" money for research on gun violence, according to a story today in the New York Times. "We've been stopped from answering the basic questions," said Mark Rosenberg, the former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which used to be the leading source of financing for firearms research. Thanks to the gun lobby's obstruction, questions like whether more guns actually make communities safer, whether the ready availability of high-capacity magazines increases the number of gun-related deaths, or whether more rigorous background checks of gun buyers make a difference, remain maddeningly unanswered.

From the Times:

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of "putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science," said [Chief NRA lobbyist Chris] Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

Pro-gun lawmakers failed to shutter the injury center in 1996, but did manage to prevent the CDC from using its injury prevention funds to push for gun control measures. As a result: the CDC has tiptoed around gun safety issues in the years since, keeping meaningful data on gun violence out of the hands of lawmakers who could use it to help pass sensible reform legislation. Until then, the NRA can rest easy and ask: where's your proof?



http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/nra-asks-wheres-evidence

LWW
07-24-2012, 07:35 AM
I thought criminals were people who broke the law?

eg8r
07-24-2012, 08:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Criminals and people who are mentally ill, with hoards of assault weapons, create mass murders, according to statistics.

</div></div>Guns don't equal crime. It is a simplification that is proven false every single day.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-24-2012, 08:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Criminals and people who are mentally ill, with hoards of assault weapons, create mass murders, according to statistics.

</div></div>Guns don't equal crime. It is a simplification that is proven false every single day.

eg8r </div></div>

Again, your response is irrelevant, since no one here has asserted that guns equal crime.

However, it is a proven FACT, that laxed gun laws, such as those which were allowed and promoted under George W. Bush, and the Repiglican Blank Check Congress, have created situations which allow many in our society to easily acquire assault weapons, which lead to the sort of mass murder which we have seen over and over, and which are connected to the irrational, crooked, irresponsible NRA, and their disgusting behind the scenes actions which make our society prone to more of these horrible mass murders, by mentally ill people who are so easily able to access assault weapons.

Statistics prove, the more loose unregulated guns that are easily acquired, the more murders and mass murders, occur.

We must destroy the NRA, before they destroy all of us.

Having a right to own a gun, should not include easy access to assault weapons for individuals who should never have them.

You can thank Repiglicans, annd the NRA, for these horrible mass murders.

More proof of failed, irrational Repiglican policies.

G.

LWW
07-24-2012, 02:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guns=crime= profit.

</div></div>Wrong, criminals = crime and they will use whatever they can. So what, we listen to gun weenies like yourself and get them all banned and then start going after knife manufacturers? Maybe next we can try and ban everything with a point?

eg8r </div></div>

What scares me is the number of moonbat crazy leftists who wn guns.

PoolFool
07-24-2012, 07:22 PM
The NRA will outlive anyone posting here. While you are blaming guns for the murders in Colorado, just think of how many would have died if he had thrown two pipe bombs instead of smoke bombs into the theater. If he had no guns, he could have killed more people and walked away. All in less than 30 seconds. Google Andrew Kehoe, one of the worst mass murders in American history who killed 37 school children at one time and used no gun.

Sev
07-24-2012, 09:18 PM
According to 2009 CDC Stats

11,493 firearms related homicides were committed.
That does not include suicides. People want to kill themselves they will find a way. The suicide rate in Sweden is higher than the US and firearms are not the predominant method.

Deaths per 100,000. 3.7

It would be interesting to see the race and illegally owned firearms breakdown on that.

What I found quickly is that 50% of the homicides are black on black. Of which blacks are about 13% of the US population.

So that leaves 5,746 spread out between all other race in a remaining population of approx 261 million people.

2009 Stat shows that between 2,500,000 -3,500,000 defensive gun uses in the USA by citizens with legally owned guns.
92% of the guns were unfired.

2010 FBI stat shows homicides committed with firearms dropped to 8,775

It is estimated that:

Civilians own 270,000,000 guns.
Military owns 3,054,553 guns.
Police force owns 897,400 guns.

Have to find a stat on how many people police kill in righteous shoots vs killing innocent civilians.

DiabloViejo
07-24-2012, 09:46 PM
Then you should be really scared that a whole hell of a lot of us know how to use them quite well.

Qtec
07-25-2012, 12:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Guns don't equal crime, EVER. </div></div>

Guns facilitate crime.
If the recent nutjob was only armed with a knife, the casualties would have been a lot lower. A lot of people would not be dead or injured.
You will always have the crazies but they don't always have to be armed to the teeth with WMDs.

Q

Qtec
07-25-2012, 12:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PoolFool</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The NRA will outlive anyone posting here. While you are blaming guns for the murders in Colorado, just think of how many would have died if he had thrown two pipe bombs instead of smoke bombs into the theater. If he had no guns, he could have killed more people and walked away.</div></div>

What if those pipe bombs hadn't gone off or did little damage? There he is,unarmed and an angry mob in front of him.What then?

You are missing the point. Why go to all the trouble of making a bomb when you can just do his way? Just buy your WMDs from your local gun shop and order your ammo on the internet?

Q

eg8r
07-25-2012, 03:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, your response is irrelevant, since no one here has asserted that guns equal crime.

</div></div>Again, your serious refusal to actually read what is posted on these forums...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: qtip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guns=crime= profit.

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, it is a proven FACT, that laxed gun laws, such as those which were allowed and promoted under George W. Bush, and the Repiglican Blank Check Congress, have created situations which allow many in our society to easily acquire assault weapons, which lead to the sort of mass murder which we have seen over and over, and which are connected to the irrational, crooked, irresponsible NRA, and their disgusting behind the scenes actions which make our society prone to more of these horrible mass murders, by mentally ill people who are so easily able to access assault weapons.

</div></div>This runon sentence is the biggest piece of BS you have posted in weeks. It is not a fact but rather a perception in your fantasy. Again, guns don't equal crime. People owning assault weapons do not "lead to the sort of mass murder" that you have seen. Any gun whatsoever could have provided the same means of death.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Statistics prove, the more loose unregulated guns that are easily acquired, the more murders and mass murders, occur.
</div></div>Not a chance. Again, this is just data that you are bastardizing to come up with such frivolous claims. Actual enforcement of laws would do more for our country than coming up with more laws that will still not be enforced.

When wil you accept that gun laws only impact non-criminals?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can thank Repiglicans, annd the NRA, for these horrible mass murders.

</div></div>I would never "thank" anyone. What kind of sick mind do you have to think anyone needs to be "thanked"?

eg8r

eg8r
07-25-2012, 03:11 AM
You are missing the point...If guns were not available do you think he would have just done nothing? When are you going to be championing the removal of all cars and booze since they are obviously killing people daily?

eg8r

LWW
07-25-2012, 03:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then you should be really scared that a whole hell of a lot of us know how to use them quite well. </div></div>

I doubt that very seriously ... but, yes, some leftists do have the proficiency to go on killing sprees ... which makes my point.

LWW
07-25-2012, 03:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Guns don't equal crime, EVER. </div></div>

Guns facilitate crime.
If the recent nutjob was only armed with a knife, the casualties would have been a lot lower. A lot of people would not be dead or injured.
You will always have the crazies but they don't always have to be armed to the teeth with WMDs.

Q </div></div>

Why do most mass shootings occur in nations where gun ownership is prohibited?

Qtec
07-25-2012, 06:31 AM
They don't.

Q

Gayle in MD
07-25-2012, 06:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, your response is irrelevant, since no one here has asserted that guns equal crime.

</div></div>Again, your serious refusal to actually read what is posted on these forums...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: qtip</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guns=crime= profit.

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, it is a proven FACT, that laxed gun laws, such as those which were allowed and promoted under George W. Bush, and the Repiglican Blank Check Congress, have created situations which allow many in our society to easily acquire assault weapons, which lead to the sort of mass murder which we have seen over and over, and which are connected to the irrational, crooked, irresponsible NRA, and their disgusting behind the scenes actions which make our society prone to more of these horrible mass murders, by mentally ill people who are so easily able to access assault weapons.

</div></div>This runon sentence is the biggest piece of BS you have posted in weeks. It is not a fact but rather a perception in your fantasy. Again, guns don't equal crime. People owning assault weapons do not "lead to the sort of mass murder" that you have seen. Any gun whatsoever could have provided the same means of death.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Statistics prove, the more loose unregulated guns that are easily acquired, the more murders and mass murders, occur.
</div></div>Not a chance. Again, this is just data that you are bastardizing to come up with such frivolous claims. Actual enforcement of laws would do more for our country than coming up with more laws that will still not be enforced.

When wil you accept that gun laws only impact non-criminals?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can thank Repiglicans, annd the NRA, for these horrible mass murders.

</div></div>I would never "thank" anyone. What kind of sick mind do you have to think anyone needs to be "thanked"?

eg8r </div></div>

Again, you prove your inability to write your opinions without childish, immature insults.

Assault weapons should be banned. And, in fact, they WERE banned, and would still be banned, if not for the insane radical policies of the Repiglican Party and George W. Bush, and the Repiglican love of NRA money.

I predict that the NRA organization will eventually see an all out public outcry against their growing and damaging threats to maintaining a more peaceful society. Their irrational, irresponsible, shady and corrupt political bribes, are legendary. The NRA was behind the promotion of the dangerous Stand Your Ground, laws.

Every ignorant RED STATE which has adopted the NRA's shady, hehind the scenes tactics to promote the stunningly irrational "Stand Your Ground" laws, has seen a rise in gun murders.

The radical, insane right in this country is frightening enough, without their having access to assault weapons.

There is no reason why any Americans should own these dangerous guns.

Talk to some of your local and state police, as I did over this tragic, sad weekend, and you will find that they are against these dangerous assault weapons being available to the general public, and they are all for tighter gun controls, specifically on assault weapons.

But you don't care about them, do you, you don't have to go out on the streets of this country and try to survive against criminals who are heavily armed enough to fight on a battlefield, with armor piercing bullets...PURE INSANITY!

As usual, ignorant Repiglicans do not accept the FACT, that no laws are effective if they are being weakened in state legislatures, by bribes from the NRA, and ignored by Gun Dealers at Gun Shows, across this country, also a proven FACT...not that I think YOU would know anything about it.

This failure is particularly so among the radical, insane RED STATES where paranoid RWers, apparently mentally and emotionally paranoid, can't feel safe unless they are in possession of assault weapons that shouldn't be sold to the general public, EVER.

The paranoid think they will be safer in a society that ignores the heart breaking potential results of having more guns than people, in our country, and hence, such threatened pawns of the gun lobby could never appreciate a need for sane regulations against the unregulated sale of these dangerous weapons.

Common sense should be exercised when it comes to assault weapons. The availability and easy access to huge, many bullet clips, being easily available to mentally ill people, is absolutely insane, and it must be stopped.

Thanks to Repiglicans, and the corrupt NRA, these nutjobs can go to gun shows, and buy up all of the assault weaponry they want from corrupt gun and munitions dealers who do not observe our laws.

They are only interested in making money, and selling their dangerous wares, without background checks, to those who should never be able to buy them in the first place, who are then free to plan their insane, irrational attacks of hatred, upon innocent Americans. They ignore the laws, to line their own pockets. This was proven in an investigation which was shown on either 20/20 or Sixty Minutes.

Just as the Repiglilcan voter ID policy of disenfranchising legal voters across this country is a fake solution for no existing problem, a lie in the interest of their ulterior motive to throw the coming election, the idea that gun owners should have these dangerous assault weapons, as part of their second amendment rights, is completely absurd.

The Repiglican Party is cutting off it's own snakehead. They look more like nasty, irrational crazy people every day.

This is NOT a discussion about how many other ways people can kill, it should be a discussion which addresses the number of innocent people who can be mowed down in under a minute, with assault weapons, and munitions clips which pierce body armor worn by our first responders, and weather such recurring mass murders of the innocent, are worth living in a society which is pandering to the paranoid, making all of us at risk for more of these sorts of pointless tragedies due to the sales of assault weapons.

Assault weapons, and body armor piercing minitions, should be banned, and IMO, Gun Shows, as well, should be banned.

If people had to go to a gun shop, in their own neighborhood, in order to buy any kind of gun, we'd all be far more safe.

When we can't even feel free to allow our teens to go to the local movie theater to see a movie, or go to school and return home safely, it's far past time to tighten gun laws. Tightening them certainly can't HURT anyone, but failing to tighten and enforce gun laws, can surely hurt many, many Americans.

The goal is an all out American outrage, against the NRA, for their shameful practices.

G.

Qtec
07-25-2012, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This runon sentence is the biggest piece of BS you have posted in weeks. It is not a fact but rather a perception in your fantasy. Again, guns don't equal crime. </div></div>

Nobody ever said it did. This is a strawman invention of yours. The issue here is gun control.

Again, the nutjob without the assault weapons is just another nut.
Over here, we don't think its a good idea for the ordinary citizen/nutjob to have these kind of weapons.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Todd Canady just wanted to buy some milk Monday evening and was simply fumbling for his wallet at the Walmart checkout lane when he heard a loud, eardrum-rattling noise, followed by a sharp pain in the leg.

At that point, the 23-year-old Dallas resident realized what happened: He forgot to put the safety on the Springfield .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol he had holstered inside his pants.

The bullet grazed Canady's leg before it struck the concrete floor, causing shards of cement to fly into the air and hit one woman and her kindergarten-age daughter, </div></div> link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/todd-canady-shoots-himself-buying-milk_n_1698566.html)

What if that kid got a bullet through the head? What would you say? Tough luck?

This kind of thing happens with regularity in America, why is that do you think?

Q




Q

eg8r
07-25-2012, 07:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody ever said it did. This is a strawman invention of yours. The issue here is gun control.

</div></div>Sorry dillhole but you are the one that actually said guns equal crime.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, the nutjob without the assault weapons is just another nut.
Over here, we don't think its a good idea for the ordinary citizen/nutjob to have these kind of weapons.

</div></div>The good thing is that over where you are there has never been a crime with a gun involved.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This kind of thing happens with regularity in America, why is that do you think?
</div></div>There are stupid everywhere.

eg8r

eg8r
07-25-2012, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, you prove your inability to write your opinions without childish, immature insults.

</div></div>LOL, I post down to your level so you understand what I am saying. The sad part is that most times I just can't get down low enough for you to comprehend it.

eg8r

Qtec
07-25-2012, 07:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are stupid everywhere.

eg8r </div></div>

Agreed, but they don't all have access to the firepower they can buy in the USA.


Q

Qtec
07-25-2012, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry dillhole but you are the one that actually said guns equal crime. </div></div>

If you are going to start with the insults, at least have the decency to quote me.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What the NRA, ie the arms manufacturers won't tell you is that they are part of a bigger plan.

Guns=crime= profit. </div></div>

ie, more guns, more people getting shot, more clients for their prisons.

If two neighbours have a disagreement, they might shove each other, swing a few punches and the next day they can drink a beer and laugh about it.

When one of them pulls a gun and shoots the other guy, the prisons just earned a shitload of cash on his 30 to life sentence.

Q

Q

Gayle in MD
07-25-2012, 07:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, you prove your inability to write your opinions without childish, immature insults.

</div></div>LOL, I post down to your level so you understand what I am saying. The sad part is that most times I just can't get down low enough for you to comprehend it.

eg8r </div></div>

Same ol' same ol' insults?

Gayle in MD
07-25-2012, 07:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PoolFool</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The NRA will outlive anyone posting here. While you are blaming guns for the murders in Colorado, just think of how many would have died if he had thrown two pipe bombs instead of smoke bombs into the theater. If he had no guns, he could have killed more people and walked away. All in less than 30 seconds. Google Andrew Kehoe, one of the worst mass murders in American history who killed 37 school children at one time and used no gun. </div></div>

Irrelevant as to the pressing questions we should all be asking ourselves after such a heart breaking tragedy.

Do we need tighter restrictions on who can and cannot buy guns?

Do we want to live in a country where any nutjob can go to a gun show, or their local Walmart, and buy assault weapons, without any background checks? That's what is going on. That IS A FACT!

Do we need to outlaw gun and amunition sales on the internet?

Do you want your children to grow up in a country where the NRA can bribe politicians to push through irrational laws, such as the Stand Your Ground laws, when it has been proven that in every state where the SYG law was pushed through, by Repiglicans, bribed by the NRA, of course, gun murders have gone up?

All Americans should be asking themselves these questions.

G.

Gayle in MD
07-25-2012, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, you prove your inability to write your opinions without childish, immature insults.

</div></div>LOL, I post down to your level so you understand what I am saying. The sad part is that most times I just can't get down low enough for you to comprehend it.

eg8r </div></div>

Trust me, getting lowdown enough will never be a problem for YOU!

LWW
07-25-2012, 03:38 PM
So Norway and South Korea have loser gun laws than the US?

Got any evidence to support that?

Of course you don't.

LWW
07-25-2012, 03:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This runon sentence is the biggest piece of BS you have posted in weeks. It is not a fact but rather a perception in your fantasy. Again, guns don't equal crime. </div></div>

Nobody ever said it did. This is a strawman invention of yours. The issue here is gun control.

Again, the nutjob without the assault weapons is just another nut.
Over here, we don't think its a good idea for the ordinary citizen/nutjob to have these kind of weapons.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Todd Canady just wanted to buy some milk Monday evening and was simply fumbling for his wallet at the Walmart checkout lane when he heard a loud, eardrum-rattling noise, followed by a sharp pain in the leg.

At that point, the 23-year-old Dallas resident realized what happened: He forgot to put the safety on the Springfield .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol he had holstered inside his pants.

The bullet grazed Canady's leg before it struck the concrete floor, causing shards of cement to fly into the air and hit one woman and her kindergarten-age daughter, </div></div> link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/todd-canady-shoots-himself-buying-milk_n_1698566.html)

What if that kid got a bullet through the head? What would you say? Tough luck?

This kind of thing happens with regularity in America, why is that do you think?

Q




Q

</div></div>

You are so cute when you try to act smart.

PoolFool
07-25-2012, 05:10 PM
I am not missing the point. The point is there are evil people that will do harm with or without guns. And for what ifs. What if his gun had jammed after the first shot. When you buy a gun, you have to fill out a form and have a background check. At Walmart, Bass Pro Shops even at gun shows if the seller has a FFL, which most gun show seller have, all have to file the forms with the Federal government. 999 out of 1,000 guns are never fired at a person. (Not a fact, just a good estimate) from someone that has been around guns and gun owners for over 60 years. I havn't shot anyone . Yet.

PoolFool

Gayle in MD
07-25-2012, 05:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From a CNS website piece that agrees with you, but admits something that proves you both wrong:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Currently in Aurora, Colorado, where the shooting took place, there are already laws prohibiting the carry of a concealed dangerous weapon <span style='font-size: 14pt'>(though unenforced, due to state law)</span>,* discharge firearms,** unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range, and have a loaded firearm in motor vehicle within the city limits.***

Yet these laws were unable to stop James Holmes.</div></div>

Wait, WHAT???!?! The city laws were unenforced because of state law?

What does that mean? Here is a listing (http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm) of the many municipal level gun laws throughout Colorado, headed up with this important note:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 2003, the state legislature and the governor deemed that the power to address gun violence in Colorado through laws SHALL NOT be in the domain of the affected communities,
rather it should rest only in the hands of the state. By this legislation (SB03-25),
all of the ordinances on this list have been declared unenforceable. </div></div>

So your point would be more truthfully stated as:

Aurora had very restrictive gun laws (they were not allowed to enforce, by state law, for the past 8 or 9 years)...

Now, for your other fantasies:

OF COURSE, the moviegoers had the legal ability to have the equipment to TRY TO STOP the carnage. Colorado allows CCWs, and Aurora cannot prosecute carrying concealed weapons under their law, going back <s>10</s> 8 or 9 years. CCW license holders know the laws they operate under, generally, especially one in effect for 8 or 9 years.

But remember the two bank robbers in LA wearing body armor like this guy? They stood off 350 trained and armed police officers in the open in broad daylight for some hours, until the police went and got sufficiently powerful long arms that could penetrate the body armor. Their handguns were wholly inadequate, even with 300+ police officers engaging the shooters.

What handgun ordinance do you claim could have stopped this man with his ballistic helmet, throat, groin and leg protection and body armor? There are .50 caliber handguns, I suppose, and maybe Teflon-tipped smaller rounds that might penetrate body armor, neither of which is what an average handgun owner uses.

And assuming the CCW ban of Aurora HAD been enforceable, open carry, allowed by state law, was available as the alternative.

That is, perhaps even had the CCW ban been in place and enforced, people could just walk around with a gun in their open to view outside holster. That's legal throughout Colorado, except for Denver, which won a lawsuit against the state law pre-empting local enforcement of gun restrictions I have mentioned above.

As I discovered these facts in about 5 minutes once I was clued into the situation by the first quote above, this is readily available information, known to anyone familiar with gun laws in Colorado.

Why hasn't it been clarified, since it is a key part of the circumstances of this case?

That not only could the Aurora CCW ban not be enforced to prosecute people, but also, the people could simply OPEN CARRY, as even the Aurora law did not proscribe, had it been in effect and enforced?

Leaving this out of the story is massive deception and spin.


</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Leaving this out of the story is massive deception and spin.


</div></div>

BTW, this part of the story was fully covered on MSNBC's The last Word, by Lawrence O'Donnell, and also on the Chris Mathews' program, Hardball.

G.

Gayle in MD
07-25-2012, 05:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to 2009 CDC Stats

11,493 firearms related homicides were committed.
That does not include suicides. People want to kill themselves they will find a way. The suicide rate in Sweden is higher than the US and firearms are not the predominant method.

Deaths per 100,000. 3.7

It would be interesting to see the race and illegally owned firearms breakdown on that.

What I found quickly is that 50% of the homicides are black on black. Of which blacks are about 13% of the US population.

So that leaves 5,746 spread out between all other race in a remaining population of approx 261 million people.

2009 Stat shows that between 2,500,000 -3,500,000 defensive gun uses in the USA by citizens with legally owned guns.
92% of the guns were unfired.

2010 FBI stat shows homicides committed with firearms dropped to 8,775

It is estimated that:

Civilians own 270,000,000 guns.
Military owns 3,054,553 guns.
Police force owns 897,400 guns.

Have to find a stat on how many people police kill in righteous shoots vs killing innocent civilians. </div></div>

Stats?

LOL...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How much firepower does the gun lobby have? Consider this: since the mid-90s, the NRA has "all but choked off" money for research on gun violence, according to a story today in the New York Times. "We've been stopped from answering the basic questions," said Mark Rosenberg, the former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which used to be the leading source of financing for firearms research. Thanks to the gun lobby's obstruction, questions like whether more guns actually make communities safer, whether the ready availability of high-capacity magazines increases the number of gun-related deaths, or whether more rigorous background checks of gun buyers make a difference, remain maddeningly unanswered.

From the Times:

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of "putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science," said [Chief NRA lobbyist Chris] Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

Pro-gun lawmakers failed to shutter the injury center in 1996, but did manage to prevent the CDC from using its injury prevention funds to push for gun control measures. As a result: the CDC has tiptoed around gun safety issues in the years since, keeping meaningful data on gun violence out of the hands of lawmakers who could use it to help pass sensible reform legislation. Until then, the NRA can rest easy and ask: where's your proof?





</div></div>

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/nra-asks-wheres-evidence

Sev
07-25-2012, 06:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PoolFool</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The NRA will outlive anyone posting here. While you are blaming guns for the murders in Colorado, just think of how many would have died if he had thrown two pipe bombs instead of smoke bombs into the theater. If he had no guns, he could have killed more people and walked away. All in less than 30 seconds. Google Andrew Kehoe, one of the worst mass murders in American history who killed 37 school children at one time and used no gun. </div></div>

Irrelevant as to the pressing questions we should all be asking ourselves after such a heart breaking tragedy.

Do we need tighter restrictions on who can and cannot buy guns?

Do we want to live in a country where any nutjob can go to a gun show, or their local Walmart, and buy assault weapons, without any background checks? That's what is going on. That IS A FACT!

Do we need to outlaw gun and amunition sales on the internet?

Do you want your children to grow up in a country where the NRA can bribe politicians to push through irrational laws, such as the Stand Your Ground laws, when it has been proven that in every state where the SYG law was pushed through, by Repiglicans, bribed by the NRA, of course, gun murders have gone up?

All Americans should be asking themselves these questions.

G. </div></div>

The price of personal freedom comes with the recognition that there will be times when our fellow man will act in a manner that will be tragic.

Qtec
07-26-2012, 01:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After firing one round directly into the air with a pump-action shotgun, he began shooting people at random with a military-style assault rifle capable of dispatching 50 to 60 rounds a minute, witnesses said.

According to reports and at least one witness, Holmes might have killed more people had his assault rifle not jammed. </div></div>

link (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/25/theater-shooter-james-holmes-sent-warning-package-to-psychiatrist-report/)

Q

DiabloViejo
07-26-2012, 01:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then you should be really scared that a whole hell of a lot of us know how to use them quite well. </div></div>

I doubt that very seriously ... but, yes, some leftists do have the proficiency to go on killing sprees ... which makes my point. </div></div>

Yeah, none of us 'lefties' know anything about weapons. Not I, nor my combat veteran "leftie" friends nor any of the democrats at the gun club nor the "leftie" democrat that owns the local pistol range, nor the "leftie" cops and retired cops.

LWW
07-26-2012, 02:16 AM
I didn't say them, I said you.

DiabloViejo
07-26-2012, 03:06 AM
Really? LOL! I don't know anything about rifles, shotguns, pistols, or revolvers.

LWW
07-26-2012, 03:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Really? LOL! I don't know anything about rifles, shotguns, pistols, or revolvers. </div></div>

Don't you feel better after telling the truth.

Gayle in MD
07-26-2012, 07:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The price of personal freedom comes with the recognition that there will be times when our fellow man will act in a manner that will be tragic.</div></div>

How does outlawing assault weapons, and clips that can shoot one hundred bullets in mere minutes deprive anyone of their freedom.

There is absolutely NO REASON why anyone other than soldiers and policemen should own these dangerous assault weapons and armor piercing clips.

Those who are so irrationally afraid and paranoid that they think they have a right to own these weapons and that these sorts of mass murders are worth it, to assuage their gun sickness, are not playing with a full deck.

What about the rights of those who are victims of these insane opportunities for the mentally ill to kill so many innocent people at the drop of a hat, anytime they wish? What about the responsibility of legislators to remove devastating threats to the public at large.

The NRA lies regularly to their members. They promote the paranioa, claiming that President Obama will take away all of their guns if he is re-elected. They flat out lie at every meeting, read this week's TIME magazine.

NRA is a corrupt organization, repulsive in their lack of concern for a safe society, and disgusting in the way they are using shady efforts to weaken gun laws in order to make money, regardless of how many die because of it, all for the sake of profits.

They MUST be stopped. We have seen far too may mowed down, to give a damn about some Yahoo, whining because he can't buy armor piercing assault weapons!

I say screw the paranoid schizophrenics who think they must have assault weapons as a right! and the nutjobs who get their hands on them and go on killing sprees, since one is nearly as sick as the other, IMO.

It is long past time to stand up against this insanity and join in a powerful backlash against the repulsive NRA, their lies, their shady, hidden efforts to bribe state representatives to force their desired changes in gun laws like the idiotic SYG laws, and their quest to sell more assault weapons to nutjobs through shadow efforts to dilute our gun laws!

Protecting the safety of our state policemen and policewomen, our innocent children and all other unsuspecting law abiding American citizens should come before the imagined paranoid needs of the Yahoo RW gun toting nutjobs.

Hundreds of thousand of birds and other animals die every year because of all of the lead bullets that are left in the woods by these polluting Yahoo, Gun toting idiots!

What about everyone else's rights?



G.

eg8r
07-26-2012, 07:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How does outlawing assault weapons, and clips that can shoot one hundred bullets in mere minutes deprive anyone of their freedom.

</div></div>Well, the freedom to shoot 100 rounds in mere minutes (or less) is being taken away for no reason whatsoever.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-26-2012, 08:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How does outlawing assault weapons, and clips that can shoot one hundred bullets in mere minutes deprive anyone of their freedom.

</div></div>Well, the freedom to shoot 100 rounds in mere minutes (or less) is being taken away for no reason whatsoever.

eg8r </div></div>

That isn't freedom, that's carnage and insanity!


Additionally, there are very good reasons, the safety of our policemen, just for starters, and then there are these horrendous, mass murders, where some nutjob who shouldn't even own a gun at all, has access to assault weapons and munitions which sholdn't even exist in our marketplace.

We, as a society, have just as much right to be safe, as some yahoo who WANTS to stock pile weapons which serve no necessary or valuable gain for our society, and in fact, makes all of us less safe, particularly those in law enforcement.


The NRA doesn't care about that. Like many other corporate pigs in this country, they ONLY care about their profits.

Honor and sane efforts to preserve rational safety in our society, a society which cares about the safety of our policemen on and off duty, and our citizens, through reasonable common sense and oversight, legal outlawing of sales of dangerous assault weapons, with armor piercing capability, isn't part of the NRA philosophy, at all. Their only interest is representing the Gun Business, regardless of how negatively Gun Selling, without oversight, impacts our safety.

We, as a society, have a right to outlaw and/or place legal limits on dangerous weaponry, which serves no good purpose, at all, to the masses, but instead, makes all of us less safe.
G.

Sev
07-26-2012, 01:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The price of personal freedom comes with the recognition that there will be times when our fellow man will act in a manner that will be tragic.</div></div>

How does outlawing assault weapons, and clips that can shoot one hundred bullets in mere minutes deprive anyone of their freedom.

There is absolutely NO REASON why anyone other than soldiers and policemen should own these dangerous assault weapons and armor piercing clips.

Those who are so irrationally afraid and paranoid that they think they have a right to own these weapons and that these sorts of mass murders are worth it, to assuage their gun sickness, are not playing with a full deck.

What about the rights of those who are victims of these insane opportunities for the mentally ill to kill so many innocent people at the drop of a hat, anytime they wish? What about the responsibility of legislators to remove devastating threats to the public at large.

The NRA lies regularly to their members. They promote the paranioa, claiming that President Obama will take away all of their guns if he is re-elected. They flat out lie at every meeting, read this week's TIME magazine.

NRA is a corrupt organization, repulsive in their lack of concern for a safe society, and disgusting in the way they are using shady efforts to weaken gun laws in order to make money, regardless of how many die because of it, all for the sake of profits.

They MUST be stopped. We have seen far too may mowed down, to give a damn about some Yahoo, whining because he can't buy armor piercing assault weapons!

I say screw the paranoid schizophrenics who think they must have assault weapons as a right! and the nutjobs who get their hands on them and go on killing sprees, since one is nearly as sick as the other, IMO.

It is long past time to stand up against this insanity and join in a powerful backlash against the repulsive NRA, their lies, their shady, hidden efforts to bribe state representatives to force their desired changes in gun laws like the idiotic SYG laws, and their quest to sell more assault weapons to nutjobs through shadow efforts to dilute our gun laws!

Protecting the safety of our state policemen and policewomen, our innocent children and all other unsuspecting law abiding American citizens should come before the imagined paranoid needs of the Yahoo RW gun toting nutjobs.

Hundreds of thousand of birds and other animals die every year because of all of the lead bullets that are left in the woods by these polluting Yahoo, Gun toting idiots!

What about everyone else's rights?



G.






</div></div>

There are approximately 30,000 gun laws on the books. Gun control does not work.
We would better off emulating Switzerland.

Ice T Defends the Second Amendment.
http://bcove.me/i8wf760a

48 seconds in.

At the rate the police are killing and abusing innocent citizens they are rapidly becoming the enemy of freedom.

Screw the police. They cant take the heat find another profession.
The police are a reactionary force and they proved themselves useless at the theater. They were on site and the trained professionals could not tell there was real gun fire occurring.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is the right of the people.

LWW
07-26-2012, 01:08 PM
Where can I buy an armor piercing clip?

Gayle in MD
07-26-2012, 02:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They were on site and the trained professionals could not tell there was real gun fire occurring.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

</div></div>

Totally untrue. The police knew before they arrived that there were guns being fired, because those who were there had called and told the 911 dispatch, and they knew before they called back for more support, to request that they needed gas masks.

The police also save many lives by carryng the wounded out, giving what immediate first aid they could, and taking the wounded to the hospital, in their own vehicles, instead of waiting for emergency medical recue squads.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are approximately 30,000 gun laws on the books. Gun control does not work.
We would better off emulating Switzerland.

</div></div>
<span style="color: #990000">
Ice Tea? LMAO. Why the hell would I give a flying **** what Ice Tea thinks?

There are plenty of laws on the books for all sorts of dangerous activities, that continue, nevertheless, but that doesn't mean that we should do away with them entirely, or that some of what is allowed, on Wall St., for example, should not be tightened up in the interest of a better, less corrupt market place for all people, rather than accomodating the very few thieves who stole so much of our collective wealth, by just saying, oh well, didn't work, lets just do aways with all oversight, and all laws.

We had laws on the books regarding the banking industry, too! We saw what happened when they were weakened, for sure!

Should we do away with all of those, as well?

Kids are still raped and molested, should we do away with those laws?

Men still beat up their wives, do away with those laws, as well?

Not what I woud call using critical thinking skills, at all, to suggest we need less laws, when our gun murder rates are far higher than other countries with stronger gun laws.

The Constitution does not give anyone the right to easy, illegal access to assault weapons. The right to bear arms, does not supercede rational limits to what kind of arms are sold.

Your gun rights end when they threaten my safety, and that of all other Americans.

It must be changed, and it will be changed. It is just a matter of getting rid of more failed Repiglican policies, more irrational, irresponsible ideologies, that grow out of the fear in weak men's hearts, and not out of rational real threats.

We must all focus on calling out organizations of corruption and dishonor, like the NRA, for using the same sort of fear mongering that led to Bush et al, pumping up Saddam as a huge threat, under false pretences, for less than honorable purposes.

G.</span>

Sev
07-26-2012, 06:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They were on site and the trained professionals could not tell there was real gun fire occurring.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

</div></div>

Totally untrue. The police knew before they arrived that there were guns being fired, because those who were there had called and told the 911 dispatch, and they knew before they called back for more support, to request that they needed gas masks.

The police also save many lives by carryng the wounded out, giving what immediate first aid they could, and taking the wounded to the hospital, in their own vehicles, instead of waiting for emergency medical recue squads.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are approximately 30,000 gun laws on the books. Gun control does not work.
We would better off emulating Switzerland.

</div></div>
<span style="color: #990000">
Ice Tea? LMAO. Why the hell would I give a flying **** what Ice Tea thinks?

There are plenty of laws on the books for all sorts of dangerous activities, that continue, nevertheless, but that doesn't mean that we should do away with them entirely, or that some of what is allowed, on Wall St., for example, should not be tightened up in the interest of a better, less corrupt market place for all people, rather than accomodating the very few thieves who stole so much of our collective wealth, by just saying, oh well, didn't work, lets just do aways with all oversight, and all laws.

We had laws on the books regarding the banking industry, too! We saw what happened when they were weakened, for sure!

Should we do away with all of those, as well?

Kids are still raped and molested, should we do away with those laws?

Men still beat up their wives, do away with those laws, as well?

Not what I woud call using critical thinking skills, at all, to suggest we need less laws, when our gun murder rates are far higher than other countries with stronger gun laws.

The Constitution does not give anyone the right to easy, illegal access to assault weapons. The right to bear arms, does not supercede rational limits to what kind of arms are sold.

Your gun rights end when they threaten my safety, and that of all other Americans.

It must be changed, and it will be changed. It is just a matter of getting rid of more failed Repiglican policies, more irrational, irresponsible ideologies, that grow out of the fear in weak men's hearts, and not out of rational real threats.

We must all focus on calling out organizations of corruption and dishonor, like the NRA, for using the same sort of fear mongering that led to Bush et al, pumping up Saddam as a huge threat, under false pretences, for less than honorable purposes.

G.</span> </div></div>

The cops were at that theater doing crowd control.

I guess you think the constitution threatens your safety.

Qtec
07-26-2012, 08:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Should we outlaw booze/beer and cars because they are the fault of drunk driving murder?

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to the National Rifle Association, Colorado does <u>not require a permit</u> to purchase the assault-type AR-15 rifle that was used in the Aurora massacre. Rifle owners are <u>not required to be licensed</u> and rifles <u>are not required to be registered </u>in the state.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Cars, however, <u>must be registered and drivers are required to be licensed and insured.</u></span> </div></div>

Q

Gayle in MD
07-26-2012, 08:10 PM
Not the cops who came to address the emergency.

The Constitution does not insure any rights to buy or carry assault weapons.

We used to have laws against them, before the blank check, Repiglican Congress of colossal disastrous consequences let them expire.

More reasons why I call them Repiglicans, irrational promoters of historically failed policies.

G.

eg8r
07-27-2012, 03:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That isn't freedom, that's carnage and insanity!

</div></div>I am sorry you don't really know what freedom is. Sitting on a range enjoying your gun has nothing to do with carnage at all. Again, when are the stupid people in this world (ok, lefties) going to learn that laws only affect law-abiders? When is the left going to quit trying to trample on what rights or freedoms are left.

eg8r

Qtec
07-27-2012, 05:00 AM
[quote=eg8r]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That isn't freedom, that's carnage and insanity!

[quote]I am sorry you don't really know what freedom is.</div></div>

<span style="color: #3333FF">I'm sure you are going to tell us.</span>

Freedom is..<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sitting on a range enjoying your gun</div></div>

Try and pay attention. Nobody has a problem with you shooting your beloved gun on a range.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
[this] has nothing to do with carnage at all.</div></div>

It has EVERYTHING to do with carnage!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Again, when are the stupid people in this world (ok, lefties) going to learn that <u>laws only affect law-abiders? </u></div></div>

Really? Try telling that to the 2 million non-law abiders in US prisons and on death row!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When is the left going to quit trying to trample on what rights or freedoms are left.

eg8r </div></div>

It was BUSH with his Patriot Act that took away most of your freedom. You didn't complain then, but hey, you still had your assault weapons- which are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time.

You are now no longer even afforded the protection of the USCON If the Pres declares you an enemy combatant, whatever that means, they can search and they can bug your house without a warrant. They can make you disappear into a black hole for years and it is all legal, but hey, you still got your gun.

Q.

Gayle in MD
07-27-2012, 05:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That isn't freedom, that's carnage and insanity!

</div></div>I am sorry you don't really know what freedom is. Sitting on a range enjoying your gun has nothing to do with carnage at all. Again, when are the stupid people in this world (ok, lefties) going to learn that laws only affect law-abiders? When is the left going to quit trying to trample on what rights or freedoms are left.

eg8r </div></div>


It's pretty telling that RW NUTJOBS think their assault weapons are essential to preserving their human and constitutional rights, but silmultaneously believe that as cowardly, fearful misogynistic men they have the right to dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. That their gun toting, paranoid illnesses must suprecede the right of a society to be safe in their day to day travels.

You folks always have things backwards. IT IS YOUR OWN PARTY that has essentially removed our rights to privacy, personal freedom, and even our rights which ARE Amended into our Constitution. such as:

A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION!

POOR AND ETHNIC AMERICANS EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS.

WOMENS' RIGHTS TO USE AND ACCESS BIRTH CONTROL.

THE RIGHTS OF GAY PEOPLE TO BE TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW.

THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN SERVING OUR COUNTRY IN FOREIGN CAMPAIGNS TO SUE THE MEN WHO KIDNAPPED AND RAPED THEM.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO BE PAID EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK, AND NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINS IN THE WORL PLACE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN!

THE RIGHT OF EVERY AMERICAN TO HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE SAME LEVEL OF GOOD HEALTH CARE THAT IS ONLY TRULY AVAILABLE TO THE WEALTHIEST AMONG US.

IT IS THE REPIGLICAN PARTY, AND THE FLYOVER YAHOOS WHO WANT TO DICTATE TO ALL OTHERS WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO!

IT WAS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WHICH MOST INFRINGED ON THE SIMPLE, FORMERLY HONORED, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO LIBERTY, PRIVACY, AND SELF DETERMINATION.

When are misogynistic Repiglican Yahoos going to stop thinking that assuaging their irrational cowardly fears and mental illnesses and their wishes and desires to dictate to all others, particularly women, what they may and may not do in their personal, private lives, supercedes the constitutional rights of the rest of us?

That is the question! Those are the facts.

G.

Sev
07-27-2012, 06:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not the cops who came to address the emergency.

The Constitution does not insure any rights to buy or carry assault weapons.

We used to have laws against them, before the blank check, Repiglican Congress of colossal disastrous consequences let them expire.

More reasons why I call them Repiglicans, irrational promoters of historically failed policies.

G. </div></div>

Since 50% of all gun related homicides occur in the black community who are only 13% of the population, perhaps legislation should be passed that denies blacks guns.
By your logic it obvious armed blacks are a clear and present danger to your safety.
Of course with what the left has done to the black community it may have been part of the end game in the first place.


The only law was the ban and they let that expire because they knew it was going to the SCOTUS and would be declared unconstitutional.

Your democrats were playing chicken and blinked because they know the American people are the gun lobby and gun control is a loser for the democrats.
The second amendment is supported by a large contingent of registered democrats who are gun owners. So you cant just blame republicans.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The constitution puts no restrictions on what firearms can be owned by the people.

By the way. You own firearms. Are your gun rights endangering you?

Sev
07-27-2012, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not the cops who came to address the emergency.



G. </div></div>

HAHAHHAHAHA!!!

WOW!!!

The situation was an epic failure on the part of the police department.

Meanwhile elsewhere in the country at 1:30AM a citizen was awakened by pounding on his door by unidentified individuals. He answered the door armed.
It turned out it was the police and they shot and killed him.

The police were serving a warrant.

Unfortunately they were at the wrong address.

The citizen was guilty of nothing.

The citizen survived military deployment but could not supply the local police state.

Gayle in MD
07-27-2012, 06:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not the cops who came to address the emergency.

The Constitution does not insure any rights to buy or carry assault weapons.

We used to have laws against them, before the blank check, Repiglican Congress of colossal disastrous consequences let them expire.

More reasons why I call them Repiglicans, irrational promoters of historically failed policies.

G. </div></div>

Since 50% of all gun related homicides occur in the black community who are only 13% of the population, perhaps legislation should be passed that denies blacks guns.
By your logic it obvious armed blacks are a clear and present danger to your safety.


<span style="color: #990000">By my logic race has nothing to do with this, at all. </span>
Of course with what the left has done to the black community it may have been part of the end game in the first place.

<span style="color: #990000">Ridiculous. Without Democrats African Americans would have zero gains in equal treatment under the law, as you well know. </span>


The only law was the ban and they let that expire because they knew it was going to the SCOTUS and would be declared unconstitutional.

<span style="color: #990000">That is a blatant misstatement. Even some justices, Scalia for one, have stated that limits can be set of what kinds of guns are allowed by the laws, and by the Constitution. </span>

Your democrats were playing chicken and blinked because they know the American people are the gun lobby and gun control is a loser for the democrats.


<span style="color: #990000">I agree that Democrats, those from the flyover Bubba states, have failed to persue this problem aggressively enough. I am in hopes that will change, and I intend to work very hard to make that happen. </span>


The second amendment is supported by a large contingent of registered democrats who are gun owners.

<span style="color: #990000">As I have told you over and over, ad as Scalia himself, has stated, this issue of easily available assault weapons, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the second amendment, and there is nothing in the constitution that states that any and all kinds of guns and munitions, must be lawful. </span>


So you cant just blame republicans.

<span style="color: #990000">I can do anything I like, and blaming Repiglicans for this, given that they are the ones who are constanting lying about the issue, spreading false information, and making slanderous false accusation, blaming them is perfectly rational. </span>

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

<span style="color: #990000">What part of this does not include any and every sort of gun, do you not understand? do you think you are more educated about the Constitution than Scalia? </span>


The constitution puts no restrictions on what firearms can be owned by the people.

<span style="color: #990000">Again, the court has stated more than once, it is up to the congress to make that stipulation! </span>

By the way. You own firearms. Are your gun rights endangering you? </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">I am rational enough to know that I don't need assault weapons to protect myself. </span>
<span style="color: #990000">
I have read that 80%, or close to that number, of NRA members agree that assault weapons should be banned.

Stop trying to suggest that by banning the sort of weapons that cause so many deaths when the nutjobs decide to go on a shooting spree, equals denying people the right to bear arms!

Give me one good example why the average citizen need weapons that can kill dozens of people in under two minutes?

It is insanity!

Additionally, there should be no internet sales of weapons, or munitions, AT ALL! NONE!

You want a gun, buy it in your own neighborhood, where your information is easily accessed.

Also, by your logic, three Repiglican Presidents tried to deny you your constitutional gun rights, one of the Reagan, one of them Bush One.</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
<span style="color: #990000">
G. </span>

Qtec
07-27-2012, 06:39 AM
Did it define what a firearm was?


Q

Qtec
07-27-2012, 06:41 AM
You guys NEVER seem to mention this part.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 23pt'> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,</span> the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.</div></div>

Are you part of a 'A well regulated militia'?

I doubt the majority of gun nuts are.

Taken in context, they were fearful that the Brits could slowly gain political power, ban guns and invade the country again.

I can understand that but getting back to reality, they never imagined that 200 years further the nation would be so paranoid to advocate arming everyone to the teeth under the banner of freedom.






Q

Gayle in MD
07-27-2012, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not the cops who came to address the emergency.



G. </div></div>

HAHAHHAHAHA!!!

WOW!!!

<span style="color: #990000">Yes, WOW, amazing how those Americans who only frequent RW media, and ignore all of the rest, are always so blatantly misinformed. </span>

The situation was an epic failure on the part of the police department.

<span style="color: #990000">Sladerous and unfair statement. The police Department in that locality were amazing! They performed magnificently and honorably, and save many lives. </span>

Meanwhile elsewhere in the country at 1:30AM a citizen was awakened by pounding on his door by unidentified individuals. He answered the door armed.

<span style="color: #990000">That was a colosally stupid thing for that person to do. Apparently, he has never taken a firearms course.

When in your home, you never reveal your weapon in advance of determining what you are facing. Stupid man. </span>
It turned out it was the police and they shot and killed him.

<span style="color: #990000"> No kidding! What would you have expected them to do? Back up and drop their weapons?

Unbelievable!</span>

The police were serving a warrant.

Unfortunately they were at the wrong address.

The citizen was guilty of nothing.

<span style="color: #990000">You tell this incredible story, without any proof of the information you are providing, like for example, where did this happen, in a RED STATE, I will bet! </span>

The citizen survived military deployment but could not supply the local police state.


</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">What was he supposed to supply to the local police? Bullets in their chests?

This man was an idiot! He should be in jail! What he did was severely negligent! Unless there is a whole lot more to this story that you are leaving out, like for example, were the policemen in uniform, did they use appropriate identification of whom they were, there is a whole lot I imagnie, to this story, that you are leaving out, so without that possibility, and assumming the police identified themselve, as is standard operations, your story proves him to be your standard paranoid, frightened, fearful, irrational, gun owner, without enough common sense and reasonable caution and care in handling his weapon to justify any rights in owning a weapon in the first place.

Rational gun owners, take courses, go to firing ranges, and also, BTW, don't brag on the internet about owning a boatload of dangerous weapons, assault weapons, while admitting to being a government hater.

Does that show any common sense to you?

G. </span>