Obama’s gun control wish list
I remember when the Democrats were telling us gun nuts during the election earlier this year that we were being irrational in our fears that this president would be coming for our guns, because he hadn’t up until now. ABC News reports that they’ve gotten a bit more specific on the kinds of gun laws they’d like to see;
The White House today indicated President Obama would support legislation that would reinstate the ban on certain types of semi-automatic rifles – known as “the assault weapons ban” — and may support other efforts, such as a proposal to ban high-capacity magazines, in the wake of the deadly massacre in Newtown, Conn.
“He is actively supportive of, for example, Senator Feinstein’s stated intent to revive a piece of legislation that would reinstate the assault weapons ban,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters, publicly backing for the first time legislation Feinstein plans to introduce. The White House had previously been reluctant to publicly named any specific action it might support in an effort to prevent future massacres.
“Certain types of semi-automatic weapons” means that they don’t know what they’re talking about. They plan on going back to banning the sales of scary-looking black rifles with bayonet lugs and flash suppressors – which has nothing to do with the lethality of the weapons, but everything to do feelings of fear. It certainly won’t “prevent future massacres”.
They don’t need to ban high capacity magazines – I spent three hours last night looking for magazines. Cheaper Than Dirt and Amazon have apparently quit selling them, while everyone else is just out of them. Everyone is back ordered on 5.56mm ammo, too, well, except tracer ammo.
The article goes on to say that the president wants to “close the gun show loophole”. I don’t know what that means – I’ve bought two guns at gunshows in the last few years and both times I had to go through the same background checks I would in a store.
The president says that he reached out to my Senator, Joe Manchin for advice. Funny, but I tried to reach out to Manchin yesterday, too, but I went straight to voice mail.
ADDED: NBC broadcast new is reporting that Joe Bite-Me will be spearheading the anti-gun legislation, you know like he spearheaded the strategy in Afghanistan, so we’re boned.
December 19th, 2012 at 7:48 am
“Gun show loophole” is their code for ending all private transfers of guns between individuals. This would end up including a father gifting his son with the .22 that he received from his father, or a grandfather wishing to pass on his hunting shotguns to his family before he passes on. Libs want all of these private, informal transactions to go through the FFL/form 4473/NICS process.
December 19th, 2012 at 8:14 am
According to the BBC Obama is going to give Biden this task, which strikes me as good news. Surely the Republican leadership can stop a politician as incompetent as Joe Bid…oh wait, we’re screwed.
December 19th, 2012 at 8:32 am
Yeah, I’m suspicious about Joey Moron’s role in this. He is the admin’s patsy (well, one of them, anyway. Rice and Generalisimo Martin are members of that club, too) so I’m wondering why him. Is it just to have a ready fallguy if the soon-to-be-announced legislation fails in the House? The NRA hasn’t done squat yet but is readying to loose the hounds. That’s BIG BUCKS for the pols. We’ll see.
December 19th, 2012 at 8:46 am
As long as Barry has people to throw under the bus, he will. The ban will not stop people from causing tragedies such as the one in Newtown, it just makes the moonbat left sleep better at night.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:13 am
I actually asked a gun-control advocate what I was getting in return for stricter gun laws. The response: “You’re getting the same increase in safety everyone else gets when it’s harder for irresponsible people to get their hands on guns.”
Trade my rights for a fluffy feeling of safety that doesn’t exist. Not a good deal.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:19 am
I know a popular saying going around is “We don’t need more gun control, we need more Idiot control” unfortunately for us and the country, the President does not hold to that saying. He has appointed an IDIOT to head up his task force.
Well, here it comes! Biden will turn the powers of the Government loose on the citizens in the guise of DHS, the 21st century, American version of the German SS. Do not be surprised when the suburbans pull up on your property and un-ass a shit load of Gubmint Ninjas in black pajamas!!
My only question and fear is, what will law abiding gun owners do? I know how I will respond, but what will happen to the country when the Government decides to take our Second Amendment and piss all over it, disarming its citizens in idiotic ignorance and pressure from the left?
I have a Grand Daughter that I will protect with every breath and drop of blood I have, against any and all enemies. I will do that with all of the fire power I can muster.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:28 am
I finally had one of my gun control advocate FB friends go on record as saying his end state for gun control laws was a complete ban on all semi automatic weapons and all handguns. Not exactly grounded in reality. I still can’t understand how trying to deport millions of illegal immigrants isn’t feasible, but confiscating 10s of millions of guns is.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:29 am
@5 Right because that’s a zero increase in safety and your gun-control advocate knows it. Because folks who break the law will be so concerned by an additional law that they will suddenly stop acquiring weapons to perpetrate their crimes….
That law will have the same effect as additional “crimes with a firearm” legislation has had on drive-bys in gang related shootings….which is zero for those on the liberal left not able to process simple math.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:30 am
@7 That’s because guns don’t vote for Democrats….
December 19th, 2012 at 9:30 am
We keep referring to and/or hearing about the zombie apocalypse.
First, two convicts escape Chicago’s supremely-tight-security Metropolitcan Correctional Center by making bed dummies out of their prisoner orange jammies and a rope out of bed linens and blankets, crawling through a 5-inch wide window, and descending 15 floors outside the building to the street. One of them is now thought to have $500,000 still unaccounted for from his last stickup. Well, weren’t they just going out for coffee and donuts?
Second, an eagle tries to snatch a kid — well, he was just inviting that youngster to take ride like the hobbits did at the end of LOTR – ROTK, right????
And now Joey BFD Bgfkndeal is in charge of monitoring gun control legislation?
You’re hosing me, right? Well, that does it. I’m going over to Bass Pro Shops and pick me up some of them there camo color bows and arrows. The zombie apocalypse is alive and well in Washington, DC. This proves it.
And I keep asking for a spew alert when you guys post this kind of stuff.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:34 am
I’m preaching to the choir here, but I’m mindful that whenever politicians feel they should be doing something (but don’t know how about doing it), they create “Blue Ribbon Panels” to discuss options and wring their hands, with the intent of providing options as a result of whatever study they’re supposed to undertake. At the conclusion of any panel I’ve ever heard of, no recommendations they put forth were ever implemented.
The last assault weapons ban didn’t work so well, which was enacted on September 13, 1994. Case in point: It had NO influence on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who wrought havoc at Columbine on April 20, 1999 – well into 5 years after the ban went into affect.
Same goes for any other legislation. I can’t think of ANY law that has minimized or prevented drunk driving, murder with any other weapon, or any other criminal offense – and adding more laws is just that… more laws to be ignored by the criminals.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:39 am
@8, they are convinced that if guns are made more illegal criminals will suddenly have a change of heart and behave.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:42 am
For the left the vision is all that matters, they will excuse any excess in the service of that vision and they will make no apologies for the atrocities they commit (“lefties are outraged about everything, but responsible for nothing”).
I have seen it time and again, you will confront a lefty with facts and reason and it will fail to make a dent, because they are enraptured with the vision. They see a world without all the strife and difficulty which are endemic to the human condition and they will do anything to try and achieve that vision-despite the fact that it has been shown time and again to be impossible.
I was in college in 1989 when the Berlin wall fell and I remember my Anthropology professor being almost in tears at the sight of all those eastern Europeans exulting in their new-found freedom. For years after that they still spouted the same discredited Marxist nonsense without the slightest regard for the evidence of the failure of that worldview-and that was because the reality didn’t matter, the vision was beautiful and that was all that counted.
Now they envision a world without the horror that we saw last week-which is admirable enough, but when we point out to them why the controls that they propose will not achieve that end, they disregard what we have to say because that conflicts with the vision. Bear in mind that we are not dealing with people for whom facts and reason matter in this debate and be prepared for the worst sort of manipulative emotional nonsense before this is all over. They will try to paint us as cold uncaring monsters for not simply caving to their demands based on their emotional reaction to tragedy-and they will be abetted in this by their allies in the media.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:53 am
BohicaTwentyTwo: I’m actually surprised your FB friend had the balls to admit that. That’s indeed what most anti-gun whackjobs want, but very few will actually admit it.
The rest of the anti-gun whackjobs – like our own Joey the Rockclimbing Hero? They seem to want to outlaw all private ownership of firearms, period.
IMO, of course.
December 19th, 2012 at 9:56 am
Ex-PH2: are you asking for a “spew alert” in the US sense of the term? Or in the British slang sense?
Or both? (smile)
December 19th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Hondo, remember that joke someone told you when you were in the middle of your favorite beer, and the beer came right out of your nose?
Just asking for a warning, so that I won’t choke while laughing.
I’m gonna get the following movies for my library:
Road to Perdition
Bonnie and Clyde
Public Enemy Number One
Stagecoarch (the original)
Any John Wayne movie
Outlaw Josey Wales and all CE’s spaghetti westerns
All the episodes of “Combat” available (I already have Tour of Duty)
Silverado
Battle at Apache Pass
The Longest Day
Hammburger Hill
Pork Chop Hill
Tora! Tora! Tora!
Midway
Asphalt Jungle
Wackiest Ship In the Army
All episodes of Victory at Sea
I’m going to quit watching dippy romances and go for the guns.
December 19th, 2012 at 10:11 am
Ex-PH2: US usage. Got it.
I’d also recommend a copy of Das Boot (German language version with subtitles). One of the best military films I’ve ever seen.
December 19th, 2012 at 10:12 am
@4- it just makes the moonbat left sleep better at night.
And then when the next mass killing happens in one of their vaunted “gun free zones” they’re going to be all that much more surprised.
December 19th, 2012 at 10:24 am
Yes, and I left out the movie “Hondo”, plus Gray Lady Down — that movie is too tense for words.
I think that banning guns is such a misdirected approach.
It would make far more sense for everyone in this country to be required to own and use guns.
What’s that screeching noise? Sounds like zombies.
December 19th, 2012 at 10:26 am
Is there a movie called “Guns and Glory”?
And I lert out most of Quentin Tarantino’s movies, because I have only two right now. Naughty me.
December 19th, 2012 at 10:30 am
PH2–coners loved “Gray Lady Down” because all the nukes died in the first half hour.
December 19th, 2012 at 10:36 am
Sparky — Yes,and that pot-smoking slug Carradine gets squished by the big submarine.
December 19th, 2012 at 10:54 am
@13 – Well said. Can I use that for my dissertation?
December 19th, 2012 at 11:05 am
Problem solved:
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2012/12/the-time-has-come-to-arm-our-6-year-olds-with-assault-weapons.html#more
December 19th, 2012 at 11:05 am
The left just wants to make more criminals. They hate red-blooded, tax paying Americans, that’s the long and short of it. They know that taking their guns will be the final straw, too many people will refuse. Pass a law like this, BAM! Instant criminality for 47% of America! Lock up people who were law-abiding citizens yesterday, without any change in lifestyle on their part, and you have total control of the country.
I’m beginning to know how the Doughboys coming back from WWI felt when prohibition passed. With no change in their lifestyle, one day they were law-abiding citizens and the next they were criminals. It’s a shame.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:11 am
Like I said in the other post, Joe.
You’re an idiot.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Coming from someone like you, that’s a compliment.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Joe’s gotten stale. We need a better class of vacuous troll.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:15 am
I don’t know how many of you work with horses, but here’s a lesson from the horse world that applies here. When you are training a fine harness horse to pull a carraige, they have to wear a “check-rein” or “bearing-rein” as part of their harness. Even the long-necked, high-bred horses have to be trained to accept the severe rein, which keeps their heads high by the use of a thin bit and strap which will punish the horse if they lean on it. You train the horse to accept this rein by shortening it little by little, over time. If you attempted to apply this rein in its greatest severity all at once, the horse would fight. But when you apply the rein slowly, a little at a time, the horse comes to accept the increasing restriction, and wear the rein.
That is the plan with gun control.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:19 am
It’s an intellectually deficient person who can’t see an insult, Joey. But, we’ve known you for a while now, and it’s not surprising that you are, in fact, intellectually deficient. Now, toodle back to the Brady Center and get stroked, you’ve earned it.
#13 describes you to a T Joey. It’s really all about your “feelings”.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:32 am
“Gray Lady Down”. Damn – you got my hopes up for a minute there, Ex-PH2. I thought you were about to say that the NYT had declared they were going out of business! (smile)
December 19th, 2012 at 11:34 am
I see our Heroic Rockclimber is back.
Offer stands, Joe. Don’t like the US? Then move to Europe (if you can find a country that will take you) and provide proof of renunciation of your US citizenship and I’ll send some $$$ to help cover the cost of your one-way plane ticket.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:39 am
Hondo, we could start a fund for that. Everyone chip in ten cents or something. That would cover a cheap-seats ticket one way, no food included, and a low rider transport to the nearest hovel.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:40 am
Joe – Your ranting is less than amusing, as is the brand of logic you and your ilk ramble on about.
You can keep your histrionics and emotion, but they won’t work here in this forum since you’re obviously not able to grasp anything that is being discussed here.
From here on out, I won’t cast any pearls among swine.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:42 am
@30 Feelings are a correct analysis. The tragedy Friday leaves huge questions in peoples minds, how did this happen, what kind of person does this, how can we stop this from happening again.
For those of us who are already aware that the world is not now, and never has been truly safe the answers are not comfortable but we know them…
How did this happen? A well intentioned mother trained her emotionally unstable and mentally ill son how to use firearms in a very ill conceived notion of bonding with the child.
What kind of person does this? Religious fanatics or lunatics, in this case we have the latter. A child with a history of odd behavior so pronounced his own mother admonished babysitters to never leave him alone for a moment, not to even use the bathroom and to never ever turn your back on him…he was 9 at the time of that warning to the babysitter….
How can we stop this from happening again? Sadly, we probably can’t stop mass murder. We can encourage family members to alert the authorities when a child or sibling is in serious need of mental health assistance, and we can take a hard look at our current mental health policies and attempt to rework them to keep dangerously ill people from wandering the streets. But that won’t stop a determined psychopath who is smart enough to avoid detection, or a religious fanatic determined to commit suicide while committing a mass murder with a bomb….
That last question then opens up a dialog that is uncomfortable, how do we proceed in a world where people want to randomly kill us on any given day? That dialog involves a discussion larger in scope than either mental health or gun control, but it is a dialog that is long overdue.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:49 am
VOV: you left out one category, amigo: evil bastards.
Ted Bundy, the BTK killer, the Green River killer, and their like in general were neither overly religious nor insane. Neither was Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong. They were merely evil sociopaths who turned to mass murder as a way to “get their jollies” or get what they wanted.
The hard and cold fact is that there are indeed evil people in the world who will commit mass murder to get what they want. And – unfortunately – such evil bastards tend to be pretty good at hiding their evil intent until they’re in a position to execute successfully.
December 19th, 2012 at 11:58 am
Hondo, no, sorry, “Gray Lady Down” was a 1978 movie about a submarine imploding and sinking with all hands on board. Unlike the catastrophic implosion of the USS Thresher in 1963, there was a DSRV rescue of the crew in the movie, but it was a sweaty and very tense film.
December 19th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Pinto Nag, the analogy to a check rein is right on the mark. If you apply the check rein gradually, the horse gets used to it and gets a nice arched crest of the neck.
However, if it’s too tight or tightened too quickly, it can and did cause serious accidents. Of course, the toffs who were dumb idiots about horses only wanted that fancy neckline and didn’t care what the consequences were. And those who really wanted a couple of 16-mile-an-hour ‘tits’ would drop the check rein so that their horses could hit that speed.
December 19th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Ex-PH2: I know that. Just making a joke based on the NYT’s nickname. (smile)
December 19th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Hondo: I know, but not everyone else may know what “Gray Lady Down” was about.
Oh, no! Ended a sentence with a preposition again!
December 19th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
@36 Evil bastards….I was kind of hoping that they were covered under the lunatic section because I hope those folks have slipped a gear and are not running with the same ratios we are….but I agree they mask their intentions really well, some to the point of appearing to be one of the good guys….in any case a well delivered touch of kinetic energy through a pointy lead object stops most of them.
December 19th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I lost my first firearm collection after the Hungerford killings. No scary black rifles, just a nice early M1 Garand and a series of collector grade Lee-Enfields. (Do you know how hard to come by high grade Lee Enfields are?) The ban included any firearm that had been military issue. Semi auto, bolt action the lot. Ex military firearms were also excluded from the Government compensation deal. Now, decades later I suspect I will loose my current, somewhat more impressive collection.
We (gun owners) face a number of difficult to overcome problems. Despite the number of guns in private ownership there is an increasing population who have never had or seen a use for firearms. They do not hunt, they do not live in an area where they or their animals need protection from wildlife and they have never used one. Many have been taught that guns are bad, dangerous and unsafe. Put them alone in a room with a hand gun on the table and they will be in fear of their life. With no need or understanding of firearms they will be happy to see a ban.
Another problem is that those who argue that these latest killings would not have happened if private ownership was banned are technically correct. This does not seem like a woman who would have bought guns on the black market. No guns, no killings. What we can’t easily prove is the number of people not killed because of private gun ownership. The number of home robberies turned murder that never happened is unknowable. Can it be proved that my anti gun neighbor is safer because people like me do have guns? I might challenge him to put up a “Gun Free House” sign! This country has a large, armed, criminal element with little or no regard for life. I would be interested to hear law enforcement opinion on setting that lot loose on an unarmed population!
The last problem is that politics overrides everything else. I never thought a Conservative government would enact the ban they did in the UK. Unfortunately they deemed it a political necessity.
December 19th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
@36 You have made an interesting point. You do realize if the boy had only killed his mother, we would never have heard about it. And why do we say this boy was “mentally ill,” when he has done nothing different from all of the school attacks by extremeists in the ME? If a bomb had been used instead of a gun, would we have heard about it? What kind of controls would our administration be hurrying into effect after something like that?
What distresses me greatly is that there is no dialog going on. It’s a case of “here’s what we’ve decided, here’s what we’re going to do, and YOU will, too.”
December 19th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Yeah, Pinto, e.g., here’s what the one side has decided – we’re gonna keep all the guns we have, and we’re gonna order more because we’re afraid.
December 19th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Out of curiosity, Joe…if the young man that shot up the school had been committed involuntarily to a mental hospital before the shooting, would you have considered that a violation of his civil rights?
December 19th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
@44, So what you want is to take everyones guns because YOU are afraid?
December 19th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
@NHSparky
You would think by now that they would have bought a clue from the last few gun free zone massacres.
December 19th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Was he documented as a danger to himself or others? I’ll ask you, what if he had intent, but his mother didn’t have any guns in the house?
December 19th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Gun sales are picking up quickly:
http://newssun.suntimes.com/17096575-417/local-gun-stores-busy-as-gun-control-discussions-grow-louder.html
There’s also this item:
http://newssun.suntimes.com/17098350-417/nra-promises-to-help-prevent-school-shootings.html
I have not yet seen anything about sales at the local Bass Pro Shops, but I’ll post it if I do.
I really do think that if everyone in the US was required to carry, use and train with guns of all kinds, then gun violence would nearly cease.
Passing more gun control laws is ridiculous. We already have plenty in place. You cannot predict human behavior. Gun control will not take away or prevent the “bad” stuff from happening. It isn’t even a form of appeasement.
It is a childish reaction to a cruel, harsh reality — that we are apex predators and some of us are crazy buggers who just don’t like people. And it isn’t going to go away, no matter how many laws you pass against it.
December 19th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
I’ll ask you, what if he had intent, but his mother didn’t have any guns in the house?
Then he still would have tried (and possibly succeeded) in getting SOME SORT of weapon, even if it wasn’t necessarily a gun.
December 19th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
@50 – …or he could have stolen them, or had them purchased for him by somebody like Harris/Klebold did.
December 19th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Bottom line, rage in the mentally ill isn’t exactly something that’s going to stop on a dime. If someone in Lanza’s state of mind is hell-bent on getting a weapon and using it to shoot up a school, etc., chances are he’s not going to stop until he gets one, or something equally nasty.
December 19th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
I struggle with the inconsistency of the outrage. I don’t mind background checks and what-not, so long as at the end of the day I can still buy what I want in accordance with the right. I saw it in a liberal-minded religious committee meeting the other night, which I was heartened went in the direction of “what can we do to help with mental health?” We have a lot of domain knowledge on hand in our religious institution. The visceral reaction to guns by people with limited exposure to them was determined to be unhelpful, when even they admit that there was no law anyone was speaking of that could help.
I am happy that there are some thinking liberals out there on this matter. They acknowledged that the only distinction between a month in Philly and that day in Connecticut is the time frame it takes to generate that number of deaths, and they don’t feel the same sense of actionable outrage when it’s inner city violence. I was glad for the realization that there is a a lot of room for hypocrisy. Why not attack the truly illegal gun market in the demographics most afflicted by gun violence by shoring up the ATF or law enforcement? Apparently, in those cases, it’s still all our collective fault for allowing them to be poor and uneducated, which is why they shoot each other.
So if we attack the underlying causes of gun violence in inner cities, why do they want to attack a non-underlying cause of the violence in Newtown? I’m quite sure it’s because it defies any narrative where they get to blame law abiding members of the working class and afflict them with the consequences of irrelevant laws.
December 19th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Apparently, in those cases, it’s still all our collective fault for allowing them to be poor and uneducated, which is why they shoot each other.
And yet when one of the “community” tries to climb out of the crab bucket and escape the cycle, they’re called, “Oreo”, “coconut”, or worse.
Sorry, I’m saving my crocodile tears for those who deserve them.
December 19th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
A question for the anti gunners. What is your acceptable single incident bag limit on children? How many have to die, at one time, in a preventable manner, before you start calling for a ban on the cause of death?
December 19th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Joe, my question has to do with preventing street violence in the mentally ill. To do that, they have to be diagnosed, and often, involuntarily committed. Would you be willing to see the rights of the mentally ill “infringed” for the sake of public safety?
December 19th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
@48 Joe:
Reports state that the shooter initially attempted to buy a “long gun” from a gun store but didn’t want to wait the 14 days for the store to process the background check, so he pretty much said screw it. So the gun control system did work. And yet he found another place to acquire the weapons. It wasn’t about easy access vs. not easy access, it was about the will and motivation to kill. This was a disturbed young man who was convinced that going out that way was what he wanted, so he found a way to do it. You can’t legislate that into submission.
I have made this point to anti-gunners several times before, and I have yet to hear a rational response, so let’s see if Joe has anything to offer. Consider that there are tens of thousands of scary looking “assault weapons” already in the homes of tens of thousands of Americans. And the numbers will only increase between now and when the Scary Looking Guns Ban will take effect. What is your plan to take care of that? Remember, every scary looking gun that is already legally purchased and owned is grandfathered in, all the Scary Looking Guns Ban will do is limit future legal sale of them. Here’s a hint: I’m trying to bait you into admitting that you are ok with violating multiple Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Make me proud Joe!
December 19th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Thanks JOhn G, I asked thesame question a few days ago and was met with outrage that I was exploiting little kids. It is a perfectly reasonable question. What is the break even point. At what point does the 2nd cost more than its worth?
Pinto, Sparkster, Cannoncocker, here’s another scenario: he couldn’t buy a gun, his mom didn’t have any, and he cooled off, either by himself or with professional help, and the entire event never occurred.
And, Cannoncocker, I have no problem repealing the 2nd and starting from scratch. Massive gun buyback a la Australia. That would get a bunch of guns off the street, and more importantly, get the most accessible guns off the street. Since the Australian slaughter of what, 1996, when the implemented buybacks and other measures, they haven’t had one mass slaughter. Compare that to our record.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Joe, didn’t you, at one point when explaining what a moderate Liberal you are, tell us how you’re pro-2d Amendment? Now, because of one incident, you’re ready to scrap the whole Bill of Rights? Nice.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Joe: ain’t gonna happen, sunshine. So you probably should take me up on my offer, move to Europe, and renounce your US citizenship.
May I suggest Norway. Lots of nice rocks to climb there, and it’s got really strong gun control laws. Or maybe England.
Of course, both have had massacres by lunatic gunmen, too. But they’ve got really strict gun laws!
December 19th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Joe–over on another board on which I post, there are a few Aussies. Ask them how well the gun ban is working for them.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
…he couldn’t buy a gun, his mom didn’t have any, and he cooled off, either by himself or with professional help, and the entire event never occurred.
And yet that’s not what happened. Again, if one is mentally unstable and hell-bent on getting a weapon (ANY weapon), they’re going to get one, rest assured.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Joe: why did you sidestep answering Pinto Nag’s question above about involuntary commitment rather than answer it? C’mon, Joe – be polite. Answer her question.
You also never answered JohnG’s question, Joe. He deserves an answer too. What is the acceptable single-incident limit you’re willing to accept? If it’s zero, go ahead and say so. Then tell us exactly how you propose to “make it so”.
NHSparky: come on, fella – everybody knows guns are the only way mass murders ever kill people. Someone would never use a truck, fertilizer, and diesel fuel to kill a bunch of people.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
@63…or an airplane. Don’t forget airplanes.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Get guns off the street….
Yes, every year, the city of Chicago has a gun turn-in event. You get something in exchange for your weapon(s). This year, the something-in-exchange ran out before all the weapons were redeemed, so those who brought in guns in exchange for something went home empty handed.
There are still drive-by and drive-up shootings, there are still gangs with guns, there are still shootings at parties and now basketball games, there are still holdups in banks and grocery stores and convenient stores.
GUN TURN-IN HASN’T STOPPED ONE DAMNED THING.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
And to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR, that’s entirely related to Chicago, not including the surrouding communities. Maybe I should bring Maywood into the mix. Or North Chicago. Or Evanston. Or Homewood. I could go on forever.
GUN TURN-IN HASN’T STOPPED ONE DAMNED THING.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Yeah Pinto, if Adam Lanza couldn’t lay his hands on a high powered semi-automatic rifle, he could have just hijacked a jet plane and crashed it into the elementary school. So why even bother regulating guns?
December 19th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Joe:”…he couldn’t buy a gun, his mom didn’t have any, and he cooled off, either by himself or with professional help, and the entire event never occurred.”
That’s not an answer. That’s a dream world “what if” scenario. I’m looking for a real answer. As of right now, what is your plan of action? I know that you are ok with repealing the 2nd Amendment, I get that, most of the gun-grabbers are. The 2nd Amendment is apparently the only one you actually know. I mean violating MULTIPLE Amendments. The 4th, for example, of another one you need to willingly violate. What is the PLAN to get all of those scary looking guns out of American homes? Answer please. No what ifs, no hindsight, no dream world scenarios.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Cannonfodder,
Repeal/rewrite the 2nd, big gun buy back spending millions and millions of dollars, phase in laws disallowing the transfer of guns, ban specific types of ammo, and maybe even make certain existing weapons illegal (yeah, I know, cold, dead fingers and all that). We might all be dead of old age before it pays dividends, but just as people looking over the rim of the Yellowstone River thank the visionarys who took the initiative to start the National Park Service 90+ years ago, people reading about Sandy Hook in 2108 will thank the people who forced thru rational gun laws.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Joe–show me where a .22 can’t be just as deadly.
Last time I checked, there isn’t a “mostly dead” category like there was in The Princess Bride.
And you keep using that word “gun control”…I do not think it means what you think it means.
December 19th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Joe…none of which is going to happen. To get 3/4 of the states to override the 2nd Amendment? Hell, to even get 2/3 of the House and Senate to pass such an amendment?
It is to laugh.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Another concept that I’m hearing from people who want to do away with the 2nd Amendment is the argument that they meant muskets and militias, not the weapons of today.
If they are, in this instance, so concerned with Framer’s Intent, why do they allow the even more obviously “antiquated” 3rd Amendment to figure so prominently into the very privacy rulings that run cover for the nuts like Lanza? Sheesh, protection from quartered troops tangentially implies a right to privacy? Hey, I’ll take it, but we have bigger leaps in legal logic in play in this country than going from the right to bear arms to the kinds of arms we bear.
Further, these massacres and the fill-a-hanky legislative response we see are not the norm, and yet, they’re the gun violence we’ll overreact to and legislate to. If Biden comes back from his gun violence study and says anything other than, “hey, we need to enforce existing laws in the areas where real gun violence really hits us daily”, then we know it’s a sham. If these massacres didn’t have such high levels of preventable urban gun violence behind them, the uninformed would understand why we shouldn’t seek feel-good legislative cure-alls.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Joe, take it from the gun owners on this site (who you so cavalierly want to have declared criminals) — the paternal “kindness” of the government is NEVER anything you want to depend on. If the Second Amendment dies, the First goes on the Critical Care list. Instantly. And the rest of them will be DOA shortly thereafter.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Here’s how effective gun buybacks are in Chicago:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/10/pro-gun-group-uses-chicago-firearms-buyback-program-to-fund-nra-shooting-camp/
I, personally, will not be parting with any of my personal property. I’m sure thousands of Americans feel the same way.
Look up the Amendment process. Unfortunately for you, it’s not very easy to Amend the Constitution. Go ahead and give it a try though.
Meanwhile, what do you plan to do about the impending problem of poor access to mental health facilities for those who need it? The problem of mentally unstable people going nuts doesn’t go away with gun buyback programs. And that’s one of my points: anyone who thinks that there is any one solution to the problem, particularly if it’s in the form of gun control, is a complete fool. You never even thought about what we do with mentally unstable people have you?
December 19th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
A few years ago a disturbed individual near me took out his frustrations by driving his car into a preschool playground. He killed two and critically injured another three. It could have been worse. Every week I see a hand holding crocodile of happy little kids from the elementary school walking up the road to whatever little field trip they are on. The guy at the preschool couldn’t get much speed up. If he had seen the elementary kids on the open road??
December 19th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Joe, I have stayed away from engaging your type of idiocy for a while. However, I really do believe you hate this nation.
What you are spouting will be the downfall of your precious 1st Amendment and the start of something you will not have the spine to participate in.
Your ignorant rhetorical mind can spout the what if’s all day long, it still doesn’t change the fact that he was evil and coddled by a mother, that did not do the right thing, a long time ago.
As for your Australia angle, that statement only proves that you are ignorant on FACTS follwing the liberla touted turn in.
I will now go back to conversing with intelligent individuals, have a shitty trip to whatever shithole country of your choosing. Please make it soon.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
I take everything you guys say with a grain of salt, because I know you start with the end point (I, repeat I, need all these guns, and under no circumstances will I, repeat I, allow them to be taKen away.I,me,mine)), which has nothing to do with promoting a civil, safe society, and then work backwards, the logic getting more and more contorted every day. I wonder if any of you has really looked at the pictures of every single one of those little kids ( I can’t look without shedding tears) and thought, “Too bad, there’s nothing we can do”. Cold.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Sorry all you Romney supporters, I’m not gonna “self deport”.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
“I wonder if any of you has really looked at the pictures of every single one of those little kids (I can’t look without shedding tears).” And yet you use their deaths to push your own beliefs on others every chance you get, like most of you twits started to do before their bodies were even cold. You really are a pure piece of shit.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Becoming emotional and jumping to irrational conclusions based on that emotion is a common MO for liberals.
I too, take everything you say with a grain of salt Joe, because I have seen that you are emotionally immature and not capable of interacting adults who disagree with you in a professional and respectful manner. In post #69, you twisted my S/N into cannonfodder, obviously intending to insult me. That is unprofessional and rude. I noticed in another thread that you threatened one member of this message board by telling them that you were going to shove their Bushmaster up their ass. So you can understand when I tell you that you need to grow up Joe. I’m glad that you are not a gun owner, you clearly are not mature enough to handle adult responsibilities.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
http://8minutesoffame.com/america-freedom-vs-freedom/
Read and weep, Joe. One point sticks out in my mind–of the 20-some mass shootings he goes through, nearly 3/4 of them checked themselves out rather than be taken down.
Okay, first off, one has to be pretty jacked up to commit suicide in the first place, but for nearly 75 percent of a given population to do so?
December 19th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Joe, I would rather start by controlling the mentally ill, than controlling guns. Most of the guns in this country are owned by law abiding citizens. Most of the people you talk with on here own guns. Why go after the people who aren’t causing problems while ignoring the ones who are?
And you know better about those children. Most of the people on here have children, too. Tears all around this nation have been shed for those children, and the people on this blog are no exception to that, either. You do us a disservice when you claim we’re inhuman.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Joe, if you want to look at pictures, look for all the kids killed by drivers distracted by cell phones. I can think of three recently, in one school district, in one town. What the numbers are nationally I hate to think. Two were killed by a mom who had dropped her own kids off and then blazed through a crosswalk. Another was killed by a man texting a drug buy when he lost control of his truck. No one needs a cell phone. They are a mere convenience. The laws against using them while driving don’t work and I would have no problem banning them entirely. Think of the lives that would be saved.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
#82 That’s the whole problem with liberal logic (or lack thereof). Passing legislation on inanimate objects, because it sounds good, and it’s easy. Instead they should be going for the root of the problem, and that sure as shit is NOT an inanimate object.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
I was pretty sure Joe wouldn’t have the balls to live up to his convictions. And based on his screed in comment 77, I’m guessing he has issues with the concept of private property, too.
Maybe we were wrong to suggest he move to Europe. Perhaps Cuba or North Korea would be more to his liking. And both of them have plenty of mountains – which means plenty of rocks to climb, too! So long as the government lets him, of course.
Oh, and Joe? I know it’s a hard concept for you to grasp – but some people who don’t even own a gun support the 2nd Amendment. Really. Why don’t you ask Ex-PH2 how many guns she owns?
December 19th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
That’s right Joe: I, I, I, me, me, me. I, the individual, have certain defined rights and freedoms, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms which I will zealously defend. Society? That seems to be whatever you nasty collectivists deem it to be in order to usurp the rights of individuals and consolidate your grip on power.
I’ll make it short and sweet for you Joe-will I accept the repeal of the 2nd amendment? FYNQ!
December 19th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
I’ll go you one better, JohnG. The OKC bombing was done with a rented truck, fertilizer, and diesel fuel. No one needs those; they’re all mere conveniences too (you can always hire someone to move your stuff, hire a lawn service, or drive an electric vehicle or ride a bike). So using Joe’s logic, we should ban rental trucks, fertilizer, and diesel fuel – because we don’t really need those and someone has used them to do evil things in the past.
Yes, I’m being sarcastic as hell. But that’s exactly the logic Joe and his fellow anti-gun/repeal the 2nd Amendment “useful idiots” are espousing: because someone, somewhere, used a tool to do evil, we must confiscate the tool.
December 19th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
@ 80 – Joe wanted to physically assualt some one on here?!?! Oh, Please Joe, do come to my turf and try that, I’ll give you the first move. It could be an easy thing for you, as I will be unarmed.
As for repealing the 2nd Amendment, I do hope you are the one that shows up at my door to enforce that.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Joe, you want to repel the 2nd Amendement? All you’re doing is trying to prevent this exact scenario to ever happen again and no two scenarios are ever the same.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Sorry to the normal folks on this site for my statements #88. I just got off of the phone with another of these idiots and it fed over to this forum. I will take care of the other idiot later this evening, a good face to face conversation, I believe.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
#80 – people on this site being rude? Get out…..
December 19th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
PintoNag: Joe’s OK with using dead children to score political points – in fact, that’s exactly what he’s doing in comment 77 above. Doing that is crass, cold, calculating, and despicable – not empathetic. What makes you think he gives a damn about offending anyone who disagrees with him?
December 19th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
If you really want to ensure childrens safety have a team of 3 to 4 guards manning the entry points of every school.. Not enough man power you say? How many veterans are in need of jobs right now? Pay them 12 to 15 dollars an hour to do this and they don’t even have to be armed, although I would prefer them to be.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Of course the left would never allow this because we can’t have crazy veterans near our children and the right would never allow it because it would be to expensive and the teachers unions would never allow it because the money used for that may take away from their bonuses and pay raises..
And I am not talking about hiring some 60 year old who is overweight to do these jobs.. I am talking PT standards and younger people who will take it seriously who are either veterans, retired military or law enforcement.. Pass a somewhat challenging PT test and psych eval.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
RUSH: actually, the idea has merit. And if you used 3-4 folks per school part time, it might not be as expensive as you think. IMO one or two armed guards at a school would deter 90+% of the crazies, if not 99+%.
Of course, you’re correct that the NEA and other teacher’s unions would never go for that. They’re all about the kids – until it starts to affect their pay and benefits.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
I agree Hondo, but in my opinion this would be the only real way to guarantee safety I would be curious to see how parents would vote on this issue.. Arming teachers or principals is an awful idea.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Rush, I think you have something there. I know of a few that would do it for free, even if unarmed. If nothing else, they would sacrifice themselves as an early warning to the teachers and students and probably would still take out the perpetrator. I do not think Joe is cut of the same material though.
I know I would gladly serve in that capacity, lord knows I signed up for the same type service for 20 plus years in the Army.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
I think if such a program ever got off the ground it should target newly seperated veterans, so it could almost kill 2 birds with one stone.. easing the veteran unemployment rate and keeping schools safe..
But it would undoubtedly turn into cops or other people who already have a job doing it for beer money with how corrupt local school boards are.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
RUSH: I’m curious. Why do you see allowing school staff to be armed as a bad idea? Had the principal or someone in the front office been armed in CT, the shooter would very likely not have had the chance to harm even one child.
Note that I’m not talking about making it compulsory. But I think optionally allowing it provided certain conditions are met (CC permit, firearms training, mandatory periodic refresher training) is definitely worth considering. Under those conditions, I don’t see that as any better or worse than having an armed security guard at the door with another roaming the halls.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
RUSH’s idea is worth exploring.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
I have a hard time seeing a teacher or a principal being or wanting to be proficent with a pistol.. I think it would just be easier to have guards who have years of training in the military or law enforcement using firearms and have that type of mentality..
Most educators are females who are afraid of firearms or have never used one.. They didn’t become teachers to use firearms I just think it is a bad fit to be honest.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
An unarmed security guard is called a “target.” And it’s no kind of security, either. Anyone can dial 911.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
OK, Joe, I’ve got a few questions for you based on your comment 100:
1. Why is having 1-4 armed private security guards at a school acceptable while even one armed law-abiding citizen minding their own business at home not acceptable? (Hey – you’re the one who said you’re OK with repeal of the 2nd Amendment. One logical corollary to repealing the 2nd Amendment is that you believe it’s OK for private ownership of firearms to be made illegal.)
2. Why is it OK for said private security guards (NOT COPS) to have a firearm instead of Joe Normal sitting in his house having dinner with his wife?
3. Why is it OK for said security guards to shoot someone trying to commit a crime at a school but not for an armed law-abiding lady to shoot someone who’s broken into her apartment at 3AM, is holding a knife, and threatening to rape her and then kill her?
4. Why is it OK for someone to have a weapon at work, but not for that same person to have that same weapon at home? Hell, you’re willing to trust him/her with it around other people’s kids!
I’d love to hear your answers to the above. I’m guessing I won’t, though.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
@102 I would like them to be armed but I doubt school boards would allow that.. At least it provides an extra layer a shooter has to breach before making it to the faculty and children..
December 19th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
RUSH: Fair enough rationale for your position. I don’t agree, but I’ll allow you could be right. But you also might well be surprised, particularly in rural or inner-city areas.
I’m guessing you didn’t go to school in a rural area. Some of my teachers in junior high and high school were hunters. They’d have had no issue with being proficient with weapons – they already were.
And PintoNag is right. If they’re not armed, in this context security guards are just additional targets vice providing any meaningful security. Don’t think there’s all that many people willing to work as an unarmed security guards, either – even these days. But I could be wrong.
December 19th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
1) Gotta get thru the transition during the repeal/rewrite of the 2nd, protect the kids in the meantime with trained guards (vets?).
2) I would hope we get to the day when neither of them need guns.
3) It’s OK in cases of imminent danger. Nonlethal force? Legalize private use of tasers?
4) See #2
December 19th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Rush, both you and Hondo are on the right track. Like Hondo, I believe the option for a school employee should be compulsory. However, in my neck of the woods, quite a few of the employees would rush to the chance. But, then again, I live in WV where most of the teachers come from the local community and have grown up shooting and hunting. You are correct in making the generalization that most do not come from that back ground, nor, elected to teach while armed.
Either way, the armed individual should be vetted, trained and given refresher training on an ongoing basis and in good shape, mentally and physically.
I think some of the more educated members of this forum could actually write a viable porposal regarding this option. Lord knows, Biden and clowns will not come up with anything viable.
December 19th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
@105 No I went to school on the Jersey Shore very anti gun here, the first time I fired a weapon was at basic training so you’re probably right about rural areas..
December 19th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Rush, that would be a problem. Then you get into standards, and who sets them. That, of course, will lead to hearings in the state legislature, or Congress.
First thing you know, you’ve got a bureaucracy and friends of friends getting those jobs. And, they’ll have to unionized. The NEA will insist on it, so will asshats like Schumer, Durbin, Pelosi and Reid, not to mention Baracka the First.
But, it’ll still be good, because “something” was done, right Joey?
@87, Hondo, the Bath, Michigan school house was destroyed by dynamite, by a man who lost an election, and beat his wife to death with his fists, then drove to town after the school was bombed and blew up his truck.
By Joey’s logic, we can ban elections, wives, fists, dynamite, schools, towns and cities and trucks.
December 19th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
#42 – No guns, no killings? Knives, hammers, baseball bats, punches, beatings, drapery cord, etc. etc. (shakes head).
December 19th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
#110 – fewer people taken out in a given amount of time. You’re probably not gonna take out 20 squirmy, innocent little kids and six adults in 3-4 minutes with a bat.
December 19th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
OK, Joey, you’re determined to eliminate yourself from consideration. #2 is idiotic. We don’t need to ban guns, or eliminate them, murder is already against the law.
If you want to repeal the 2nd, we get to repeal/amend the First. And, you won’t like what we come up with, guaranteed.
#3. BwaHaHaHaHa. You’re good entertainment, but no one who lives in the here and now should even take you seriously.Why do you think that the law provides for self-defense? Non-lethal force creates the same thing that no force creates, victims.
December 19th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Joe: you didn’t actually answer my questions.
Your answer to question 1 sidestepped the question entirely. Please answer it – the question was why it’s OK to have armed private guards at schools but it’s not OK for private citizens to be armed.
Your answer to 2 is a non-answer. You didn’t even attempt to answer the question; you wished for Utopia instead. Try again.
Your answer to 3 is illogical. A person facing an armed intruder in their home is in just as much danger as a person (child or school staff) facing an armed intrude at that a school. Your stated position is that it’s OK to use deadly force under conditions of imminent danger. That is not logically consistent with other positions you’ve taken, which would allow use of deadly force in one situation but not the other. And the use of a tazer? Please. If it’s a wand, you’d never get close enough. And a person being tazed can still carve/slash the hell out of you with a knife if they’re close enough before they’re hit with the tazer.
Your answer to 4 is a repeat of 2. Utopia is not an answer; that’s a pipe dream.
Big NO GO; try again. Maybe you should actually think about the questions first this time. And maybe you should actually answer the questions, too.
December 19th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
OK Hondo,
#2 – because now it seems schools have become targets. protecting hundreds of kids at one site is qualitatively a different matter than protecting one home.
# 3 – there are more and more non-lethal weapons being developed all the time (sticky goo, noise, light, tasers, etc.), I don’t claim to know them all. You probably couldn’t kill 20 kids in under 3 minutes wtih them.
#4 – let’s see; strive for utopia realizing it’s unreachable but still a noble goal, or sit on our asses and say not much can done but I want to have a bunch of guns.
December 19th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
@114 Utopis is a subjective term. I can GUARANTEE you that what YOU envision utopia as is not my vision.
December 19th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
I shudder to think what your vision is….
December 19th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
@116
My “vision” is based in reality, because despite all YOUR dreams, I realize that human nature is flawed. If you base your vision of Utopia in reality then MAYBE it is attainable. If you base it in fantasy, then you can try until your blue in the face- but all you will get is fascism cloaked in “what is good for you.”
December 19th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Jeezus, Joe – how freaking long did the OKC bombing take? Less than one damn second! 168 dead, including a shitload of kids (19 under the age of 6 plus an unknown number between the ages of 7 and 20), plus 680 injured. The Bath school bombing? 44 dead, no guns. The Daegu Subway and Hartford Circus fires? Nearly 200 and 170 dead, respectively – no guns. Ditto the Lady of the Angels School fire, which killed close to 100.
In fact, a quick look shows that in history the biggest single-event mass-murders by individuals have not involved firearms. Rather, for those the weapons of choice were intentional airplane crashes, bombings, and arson. (The Kaytin Forest massacres and many others indeed used firearms, but were government-run massacres vice the acts of an individual madman or evil bastard.)
An insane or evil bastard can find many different ways to kill a number of people in a single incident, with or without using a gun. That strawman was both stupid and irrelevant the first 47 times you tried it. It still is.
December 19th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
@118: Save your bandwidth, Hondo, Joe is incapable of understanding logic, and facts that don’t fit his narrative, so it’s best to just ignore his dumb ass.
December 19th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Let’s see. Jonestown was supposed to be Utopia, wasn’t it?
I know that was about a million years ago, but it makes for a good example. And that “mass murder” was voluntary!
December 19th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Joe: you still didn’t answer question 1.
Your answer for 2 actually does answer the question, even though it’s illogical. Why is protecting a number of people inherently more important than protecting onself? Why should individuals be denied the right to protect themselves when their government has no obligation to do so and demonstrably cannot do so?
Your answer to question 3 is again a non-answer. Again, you’re wishing for Utopia. We don’t live in Utopia. Why is it OK for a guard to shoot someone at their work site in order to protect himself/herself and others, but not OK for an individual in their own home to do the same? You appear to be deliberately avoiding answering that question. Ditto for question 4.
NO GO number 2. Try again. And this time remember: the questions ask WHY. And your answer should be one that doesn’t depend on a Skittles-shitting unicorn providing a magic solution to the problem, too.
December 19th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
PintoNag: great point. What is passed off as Utopia – never is. The Soviet Union was supposed to be a “worker’s paradise”, too.
In fact, Franklin put it quite well, albeit in a slightly different context: “Those who beat their swords into plowshares often end up plowing for those who didn’t.” But the same basic idea is apropos here, too.
I’ll take my chances being a free citizen in a free but sometimes chaotic and tragic society over being the subject of a dictator any day. Obviously, Joe would prefer to trade his freedom for the illusion of security.
December 19th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Do you wear a tricorne hat and carry a musket when you start spouting this revolutionary war stuff? I think a few thousand nuclear warheads pretty much precludes the chance of invasion and “plowing for those who didn’t”. Sometimes I wonder if you guys and girls were born about 250 years too late. Were not talking about throwing off the yoke of the King George III, we’re talking about the cold blooded murder of 27 citizens, most of them innocent kids. You cry crocidile tears today, then go back to caressing your guns. Are you gonna cry some more after the next slaughter and then go back to business as usual? How many of these incidents is it going to take?
December 19th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
And since when did you guys have a monopoly on the definition of “freedom’?
December 19th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
@119
“Save your bandwidth, Hondo, Joe is incapable of understanding logic, and facts that don’t fit his narrative, so it’s best to just ignore his dumb ass.”
Exactly. I’m not bored enough to be entertained by him.
December 19th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
@124 Because Joe the fundamental difference is that most of us understand what freedom is not. Freedom is NOT more government intervention into our lives.
December 19th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Gotta run. Been real.
December 19th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Jeebus, Joey, how can you type that shit with a straight face?
It hasn’t been necessary to worry about a king, we got rid of him, and the idea that a free citizen is allowed to own a firearm has kept his successors honest, for the most part. Up until the bullshit I heard spewed today at noon.
And,no we’re not talking “about the cold blooded murder of 27 citizens”, you’re talking about “oh my God, do something, even if it’s wrong”. Putz.
Sparky gave you some great advice, months ago. GDIAF.
December 19th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
One of the best arguments for keeping guns legal comes from the FBI’s own figures. According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment, in 2011 there were 1.4 million active criminal gang members in 33,000 gangs. This was an increase of 40% since 2009.
These gang members were responsible for between a low of 48% and a high 90% of the violent crime in their areas of operation.
You might not have visible gang problems in your neighborhood now, but you will eventually. As government money runs out, as it will, and as gang competition increases, as it is, does anyone think the gangs are going to stay within their increasingly poor local turf? Or are they going to look elsewhere? How tempting would a nice, prosperous unarmed neighborhood be?
December 19th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Hondon, you know as well as I do that this isn’t about freedom. It’s about whether or not Joey can hog all the attention by letting all of us know that he’s the only person in the whole wide world who knows ANYTHIN at all about ANYTHING.
I don’t have a gun. I don’t need one. In spite of my lack of gun ownership, I have no need to go buy, even though there are many gun shops within a short distance of my house.
And yet, I still support the 2nd Amendment because if my neighbors feel a need to own guns, then they should have a right to do so, because that is what freedom means. They aren’t going after school children. They aren’t stalking people and making threats. They aren’t holding people up at gunpoint. They aren’t criminals.
If they choose to give up their guns, that’s their business.
However, as both I and someone else in previous posts have pointed out, ad infinitum, the generous offers by the city of Chicago to buy back guns HAS NOT TAKEN ANY GUNS OFF THE STREETS BECAUSE CRIMINALS STILL HAVE THEM.
Little girls and their grandmothers still get shot in their own homes. Promising basketball players still get shot in drive-by shootings. Gangbangers still come out of alleys looking for targets. Jerks still pull out a gun at a party and kill someone.
So what part of that do you not understand, Joe?
I’d really like to know just how dense you are.
December 19th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Joe, if you really don’t understand the application of the Franklin quote to this discussion, I truly feel for you.
But maybe you should go into the music business. You’d obviously be perfect to perform under the stage name “1-DMF”. (The “D” stands for “Dumb”.)
December 19th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
“Gotta run. Been real”
I’ll translate that: “Holy shit, they’re onto my BS and I’m out of ideas. Time to cut and run!”
And quit using murdered children as a prop to score political points. That’s disgusting.
December 19th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
That’s what I said, Hondo. It isn’t about discussing the subject at all. Nothing he says stands up to scrutiny.
December 19th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
On lunch break from school, right now I don’t have the time to quote specific post numbers for rebuttal so I will just list some things that came to mind from reading recent posts;
1. Teachers/principals not wanting to carry a firearm:
– My mom is currently a high school Spanish teacher. She got out of the Army as a SSG back in the ’80s. Obviously she has received adequate weapons training in her time. My dad is currently a Professor of Accounting and Business Ethics at a community college. He retired from the Army in ’98 after 28 years in the Army. He was also on his school’s rifle team when he was in college in the late ’60s (side note, can anyone today even imagine a college with a rifle team? Well they had one at my dad’s school, no shootings either). Both my parents have a Permit to Carry Weapons. Obviously they cannot carry when they go to work. Too bad.
2. The me, me, me, I, I, I, attitude;
– Me, me, me, I, I, I, is how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is written. Those documents repeatedly specify that they protect the rights of the individual citizen. Not groups or society in general, but the individual. Individual rights to free speech, assembly, right to keep and bear arms, secure in the home, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. It is not selfish to have a me, me, me, I, I, I attitude. Don’t like it? There’s an amendment process for that.
3. Gun free zones and how many mass shootings have occurred in them;
– The gun free zone is a product of the gun control crowd, just like you Joe. This is possibly the easiest logic process to walk through. Gun free zones create a large group of people who are not allowed to be armed. A mentally unstable individual will choose these venues to carry out their last act of anger and vengeance on the world for the simple fact that they are unarmed, unprepared, and defenseless in almost every way. The gun free zone is what the gun control crowd wanted, and they got it. The gun free zone is your baby, Joe. It belongs to you. Including the blood spilled in the gun free zone. It’s yours Joe. Own up to it.
December 20th, 2012 at 6:15 am
Bingo, cannoncocker. “Gun-Free Zones” do nothing more than create an area where people are unarmed and defenseless. They’re nothing but publicly-identified soft targets.
In military terms, all they are is potential kill zones. And no, I’m not referring to the video game of that name, Joey-boy. That’s a standard military term relating to the geographical location in an ambush where the enemy is engaged and destroyed.
As you observed, cannoncocker: anti-gun liberals indeed are the ones who created “Gun-Free Zones” and the resulting soft targets. Anti-gun liberals – not law-abiding gun owners – publicly identified these soft targets on creation. And anti-gun liberals – not law-abiding gun owners – were responsible for passage of the laws making armed self-defense there unlawful. Ergo, anti-gun liberals – not law-abiding gun owners – are the ones who are responsible for the predictable consequences.
The reality is that your side created the problem, Joe. The responsibility is yours; the blood of innocents is on your hands. Own it.
December 20th, 2012 at 8:55 am
@123: Joe, you know as much about history as you do anything else. How is you are allowed to walk around unsupervised? Did we have nukes in 1941? No, we didn’t, but what stopped Japan from invading the mainland was the words of Admiral Yamamoto, who said “We cannot invade the mainland of America, because there will be a gun behind every blad of grass”. Our country has a very long history of firearms. Presidents have spoken highly of marksmanship and promoted gun ownership. People like Joe think that just because they don’t like something, that it should be banned. Well, I have heard the argument that a “majority” of people don’t want guns, so we should get rid of the 2nd Amendment. I asked “if a majority of people think that you don’t have a right to privacy; should we get rid of the 4th Amendment, too”?
December 20th, 2012 at 8:56 am
From the DOJ (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm):
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
Translation…most guns used in crimes were not purchased legally by the offender.
Murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults in which firearms were used, numbers of offenses and rates per 100,000 population, 1994 to 2007
Year A B C D
1994 208.4 6.3 98.9 103.2
1995 192.0 5.6 90.6 95.8
1996 172.8 5.0 82.4 85.4
1997 154.9 4.6 73.9 76.4
1998 135.0 4.1 63.1 67.8
1999 124.1 3.7 59.9 60.5
2000 121.5 3.6 59.3 58.6
2001 124.3 3.9 62.3 58.2
2002 124.3 3.8 61.5 59.0
2003 119.6 3.8 59.4 56.3
2004 115.3 3.6 55.5 56.2
2005 124.2 3.8 59.2 61.1
2006 129.9 3.9 63.1 63.0
2007 127.7 3.8 63.2 60.7
A. Rate of Total firearm crimes
B. Rate of Murders with firearms
C. Rate of Robberies with firearms
D. Rate of Aggravated assaults with firearms
Center of Disease Control states “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)
National Research Council states “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence”
and
“due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small….”
(http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=96)
More data
Nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes, 1993-2009
A B
1994 6.0 11%
1995 4.9 10%
1996 4.6 10%
1997 3.6 9%
1998 3.0 8%
1999 2.5 7%
2000 2.4 7%
2001 2.3 9%
2002 1.9 7%
2003 1.9 7%
2004 1.4 6%
2005 1.9 9%
2006*
2007 1.6 7%
2008 1.4 7%
2009 1.4 8%
A Firearm crime rate (Victims per 1,000 residents)
B Firearm crimes as a percent of all violent incidents
*Victimization rate trends excludes NCVS estimates for 2006 because of methodological inconsistencies between the data for that year and the data for other years.
Nonfatal firearm incidents and victims, 1993-2009
A B
1993 5.9 11 %
1994 6.0 11
1995 4.9 10
1996 4.6 10
1997 3.6 9
1998 3.0 8
1999 2.5 7
2000 2.4 7
2001 2.3 9
2002 1.9 7
2003 1.9 7
2004 1.4 6
2005 1.9 9
2006*
2007 1.6 7
2008 1.4 7
2009 1.4 8
A Firearm crime rate (Victims per 1,000 residents)
B Firearm crimes as a percent of all violent incidents
*Victimization rate trends excludes NCVS estimates for 2006 because of methodological inconsistencies between the data for that year and the data for other years.
December 20th, 2012 at 8:57 am
Bah. Tables got dicked up. Still pretty easy to follow and understand. In the years since the ban on the big bad scary weapons went away…no appreciable increase in those crimes and injuries.
December 20th, 2012 at 9:05 am
I’m curious about something, Hondo.
Aren’t Joe’s postings mostly between 8AM and 5PM?
And aren’t those the hours most people are at work?
And in the work atmosphere nowadays, aren’t most people being closely monitored by their supervisors in re: what they’re actually doing at their desks?
And might the posting times indicate that Joe is either goofing off on his employer’s dollar, or (and I like this one, too) home alone while Mom and Dad are at work and he’s on school holidays?
So either he’s shafting his employer, which can get him fired, or he’s been impersonating Ferris Bueller, except Ferris wouldn’t waste his time being a jackanapes when there’s SO MUCH MORE to do with FB’s day off.
December 20th, 2012 at 9:29 am
Now, I predict someone will say “Look at the decline right after the ban was passed…see? It was working.”
I’ll counter that with some more facts.
Three Strikes Law enacted as below:
In 1993: Washington
In 1994: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, North Dakota, and Louisiana
In 1995: Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin
In 1996: Florida, Tennessee,and Virginia
I think it no great coincidence that violent crime and crimes involving firearms plummetted right after manditory tougher sentencing put in place in almost half the states.
December 20th, 2012 at 9:58 am
Nik–and yet funny, ain’t it, how many lib-ruls want to repeal 3-Strikes laws because they’re so “unfair”?
December 20th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Yah. Seems like their motto is “If it ain’t broke, fix it.” Los Angeles’s 2010 homicide count was 297, less than a third of the 1992 high of 1,000 homicides.
To be sure, some adjustments to those laws need to be made, mostly on the qualifiers, but generally speaking…they work.
December 20th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
picky objection – cannoncocker, assuming a woman in the service received adequate training prior to the ’80s is highly suspect – women’s only Basic (which ran until I believe ’76 or ’77) had minimal firearms instruction. Men’s Basic was originally more intensive, then in ’77 a new “gender neutral” training which was very similar to the old women’s training was bought in. I was in the last of the old-era BCT cycles, my wife in the first of the new – she fired less than 50% the rounds I did, never fired an M60 at all, never even saw a LAW or .45, and threw something ike 3 grenade simulators.
December 20th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
So tomorrow I am purchasing my first assault rifle. My local gun shop has an awesome collection. My pistol collection is extensive and I have a variety of other long arms from a Model 99 Ariska to an early bolt action Mossberg, and two very old rifles from the early 1800′s. Considering the climate … I thought I should do my part and support the economy.
My questions is: considering I may want an AR-15 and or M-4 type and or variant, what is the best make and model for the money.
Must be upstate compliant!
December 20th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
I think I’m caught up now…
@123/Joe – You ask: “How many incidents is it going to take?” I’ll get to your answer in a second.
You’ve made it pretty evident how you want the government to respond, and that you hold the value of many lives more valuable than one (“for the greater good” is not something anyone here subscribes to, in case you were wondering), but you’re entitled to your opinion.
Hondo and others have explained that we don’t live in a Utopia. Never have, never will. While we recognize this world can be a terrible place, those terrible events can be mitigated by the rights given to us, and be law abiding while we go about and do it.
You use words like “I wish” and “I hope”, but through the course of the discussion here, what you’re asking for (“Utopia”, while a noble idea – just isn’t possible) translates to dreaming.
@139 – I noticed that, too. Maybe he got caught and was fired after muttering rantings under his breath at his desk for 9 hours strait.
@140/Nik – Good points. Also… Well into 5 years of the last Federal Assault Weapons ban, an incident in Littleton, Colorado occurred. Need I say more?
December 21st, 2012 at 12:58 pm
@145 – Or maybe he’s some disgruntled college kid who thinks he knows more than he actually does.
Here is an article with a video regarding our president’s response to an online petition on gun control, which garnered (I think) some 400,000 signatgures, less than all the secession petitions gathered after the elections:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16063999-obama-on-gun-control-petition-we-hear-you?lite
Notice in the video he addresses everything in a calm, deliberate manner as a parent calmly telling boisterous childre “yes, we’ll deal with that soon”. Great coaching by VJ, by the way. But the crux of the statement is blah-blah-blah which means nothing real will be done. He says clips, not magazines — okay, he probalby thinks magazines are National Geographic and Newsweek, so I don’t care about that part. But the liberal side of the fence wants action NOW!!!!! and I don’t think they’re going to get it, from the way this speech comes across. Or at least, not the way they want it.
December 21st, 2012 at 1:03 pm
@143 – In womens’ basic training, there was little to no arms or weaponry training or handling prior to 1979. In the Navy’s RTC(W), we did not receive any instructions of any kind in regard to any weapons other than nuclear, biological and chemical warfare, and for chemical (nerve gas) warfare, our instructions were to inject atropine into the thigh — assuming that any of us even had access to atropine.
I don’t know about the Women Marines, but I never saw any of those women with weapons, either.
December 21st, 2012 at 1:10 pm
@146
(Hmmpf)
When he said, “This is what we’re going to do…” I fully expected a cartoon narrative to interrupt and explain in a short little 2 or 3 minute story how the gov’t is going to handle it, and then pan back to the President so he could finish. That would certainly satisfy the cry babies that are panicking on the left.
Of course, I’m still waiting to see a video posted by the WH to address the petition that has been submitted to allow military members to put their hands in their pockets.
December 21st, 2012 at 1:11 pm
@123 – Sorry, your answer is “ZERO”. (I owed you that.)
January 16th, 2013 at 9:49 am
I dont know about everyone else but I will not honor any type of gun ban that has feinstiens name on it, I have served my country and I have been a law abiding citizen for 55 years, this ban will turn me into a criminal, so what ?
F*** the government.
If its time to bury your guns,then it is time to use them.