First time visitor? Learn more.

Saturday Afternoon Gun Thread: Wait’ll Yinz Read This!

by coldwarrior ( 192 Comments › )
Filed under Uncategorized at January 19th, 2013 - 3:00 pm

I pulled this from what looks like a concern troll over at Facebook.

 

Let’s debunk this, shall we:

 

So, here’s my two cents (which will end up being closer to $1.50 I’m sure) and I’m sure I will regret posting this later, due to the “friends” I will lose while exercising my First Amendment, but here goes.
Instead of posting a meme with a picture and a falsely attributed quote or a made up statistic, I’ve spent my time researching the gun violence/gun control debate. And I’d like to talk about some of the pervasive themes I’ve seen lately.
First off, Hitler did not say “In order to conquer a country, you must first disarm its citizens.” In fact, Hitler made it his position to enable guns to be obtained more easily. http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp
Secondly, the presidents, and I mean ALL of them, and their families, receive death threats on a daily basis. President Obama did not enact the regulations that REQUIRE Secret Service protection for him and his family. If you believe your children are as much of a target as the president’s children, then you have a self inflated idea of your position in this world. http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml
Thirdly, there is NO law or bill being considered that would allow anyone to come marching into your home to take your legally obtained and legally owned firearms. There are possible laws that are being explored that would require more responsibility on the part of the gun owner or person purchasing a gun (i.e. pass a background check even if buying a gun from a gun show dealer). If you buy a car from a dealer it must be registered (a record of the transfer is documented). If you buy a car from a private citizen, it must be registered. If you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a record of that sale and it is registered. So how is it illogical to require the same for private sales of firearms?
Fourth, there are not more people being killed with baseball bats than guns. If you disagree with that because you saw a picture stating otherwise on the internet, then I would like to offer you the chance to buy some oceanfront property in Arizona and I’ll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge for free. There is no magical solution for solving the problem of gun violence. THAT is what we need to solve. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
We don’t ban cars that are used in DUI related deaths, but we do enact regulations regarding blood alcohol limits, prosecute people who enable a drunk driver to operate a vehicle after serving them, promote a DUI campaign raising awareness and educating drivers on the dangers of driving while intoxicated. All of which has reduced DUI related fatalities by over 40% in a decade. http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics
The media is not hiding other gun related stories because they want to sensationalize the problem, they are simply unable to cover every gun death story because there would be an average of 80 of them each day. So they concentrate (unfortunately) on the massacres which I think we can all agree, happen all too often.
I find the fact that more children are killed in the US by guns than in the entire Middle East region, very disturbing.
I find it disturbing that the NRA blames the rise in violent shootings on video games and then comes out with its own shooting video game (categorized for children as young as 4 years of age) less than a month after Newtown.
I find it disturbing that other countries spend in excess of twice as much as the US on violent video games and have a small fraction of the amount of gun related deaths/injuries.
I find it disturbing that instead of looking for a solution to a problem like Newtown, there are people wasting their time and energy by trying to turn it into a conspiracy theory.
I find it disturbing that guns are the third largest killer of children ages 5-14 in the US.
I find it disturbing that a child in America is 12 times more likely to be killed with a gun than the rest of the “developed” world.
I find it disturbing that there are more guns privately owned in America than the next SEVENTEEN countries combined.
I find it disturbing that all of these statistics are not discussed but fake statistics about a baseball bat death rate are plastered everywhere.
I find it disturbing that some people believe that the ONLY answer to this problem is more guns.
Banning all firearms is NOT the answer, which is exactly why it’s not being proposed. This country has enacted laws that didn’t work before, so they’ve been revised, repealed, reformed, etc. It’s ludicrous to think that as a society, we evolve, but the laws governing us cannot? The NRA states that the assault weapons ban didn’t work the first time. Well, you know what they say, “If at first you don’t succeed, f*%k it.”.
If armed guards are the only answer to ending school shootings, then explain the VT shooting. Virginia Tech had an entire police department complete with a SWAT unit. Explain Columbine, which had an armed officer on staff. When discussing an end to gun violence in schools, there should be NOTHING left off of the table.
Ronald Reagan, a huge gun proponent and signor of the Brady Bill, wrote to Congress in 1994 asking them to propose legislation limiting or stopping altogether the manufacture of guns classified as assault weapon. And anyone saying “assault weapon” is a made up term should remember that every word in every language is, in fact, made up.
And yes, criminals don’t typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No.
Let me be clear, I am NOT anti gun. I have nothing against guns or responsible gun owners. I served proudly in the military, I worked in armed security, I’ve hunted, and enjoy target shooting since I was a kid. And I’m sure most gun enthusiasts are the same way. However, this issue should be discussed logically and rationally, and all I see are comments and pictures that are anything but rational and for the most part, are just viral, inflammatory, unresearched, vitriol.
The president enacted 23 executive actions today, of which only 2 have anything to do with limiting the availability of a category of gun or a magazine capacity. The remaining 21 deal with aspects regarding background checks, school safety and mental health system requirements and deficiencies. Will it be a perfect solution? No. Will it help? We’ll see. Is it better than doing nothing? Definitely. If we keep using the statement, “It’s too soon to talk about it.” after each tragedy, pretty soon, we’ll never talk about it.
OK, so maybe it ended up closer to $2.00 instead of 2 cents. So sue me.

 

It is amazing how people are so willing to give up rights at the drop of a hat.

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

192 Responses to “Saturday Afternoon Gun Thread: Wait’ll Yinz Read This!”
( jump to bottom )

  1. AZfederalist
    1 | January 19, 2013 3:07 pm

    Wow, so much stupid, so little time. Hopefully people on Facebook where this idiot posted are doing a point by point takedown of his supposed facts.

    All of the “points” are easily refuted.


  2. coldwarrior
    2 | January 19, 2013 3:17 pm

    i plan on sending some of the better responses his way.


  3. Lily
    3 | January 19, 2013 3:18 pm

    Doesn’t surprise me at all. What I am hearing from those types of people are, “I am willing to give up that right to bear arms if it saves even one child!” Well….if they are that concerned about saving children and I agree children are our future..but I would rather our children be free and not living under a tryanny….but then again what about the children who are killed under the guise of “pro-choice”? What about saving some of those children? They believe in abortion…but will give up their rights to save one child. How does this make sense?


  4. Lily
    4 | January 19, 2013 3:22 pm

    For one Hitler wasn’t all that pro-gun ….sure he wanted the SS to have as many guns..but it would have been real hard to round up a lot of people if they were allowed to own guns! So how in the hell did he do that if the people *did* guns. Simple the people were not allowed to own guns. Period.


  5. RIX
    5 | January 19, 2013 3:22 pm

    The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” Under the new law:

    The act restricted gun ownership to restrict Jews & undesirables
    Meaning that Party members and Nazi sympathizers could own
    weapons.
    Does anybody think that Obama would restrict Trumpka & other union goons?
    He would restrict you though.


  6. huckfunn
    6 | January 19, 2013 3:26 pm

    Once again the armed citizen prevails. 12-Year-Old Oklahoma Girl Shoots Home Intruder. Via WZ


  7. Lily
    7 | January 19, 2013 3:26 pm

    @ RIX:

    Bingo! Although you used actual facts to back what you said up…Hitler only allowed certain groups to own guns!!!! Most of the little people didn’t own guns…or Hitler would not have been able to murder so many civilians! I am not even going to count any military deaths concerning Hitler. Simply those he killed in the camps reached at least 10 million….(and I’m not counting the Soviet POW here).


  8. Lily
    8 | January 19, 2013 3:30 pm

    @ Lily:

    Darn typos….it’s my keyboard and that’s my excuse and am sticking to it. ;)


  9. RIX
    9 | January 19, 2013 3:30 pm

    @ Lily:
    Yup, Lib logic is that since Hitler allowed Nazis & sympatizers to own weapons
    that it was not actually gun control.
    Just don’t ruin the narrative by pointing out that Jews & non Nazi types
    were restricted.


  10. brookly red
    10 | January 19, 2013 3:32 pm

    register facebook users.


  11. Lily
    11 | January 19, 2013 3:33 pm

    @ RIX:

    It disgusts me whenever they bring up Hitler and say he was something he wasn’t. If a leftist says Hitler was pro-gun…the only thing is to ask, “Then how in the hell was he able to kill so many civilians??”. Riddle me that will ya!


  12. Lily
    12 | January 19, 2013 3:34 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    register facebook users.

    Sure I can go with that. I highly doubt this person ever served in the military…I might be wrong but I doubt it.


  13. RIX
    13 | January 19, 2013 3:35 pm

    In the Lefist world anybody who does not agree has their 15
    minutes of Hitler.


  14. brookly red
    14 | January 19, 2013 3:36 pm

    Lily wrote:

    brookly red wrote:

    register facebook users.

    Sure I can go with that. I highly doubt this person ever served in the military…I might be wrong but I doubt it.

    /obviously it’s the same 8 yr old that sent 0 the letter.


  15. Lily
    15 | January 19, 2013 3:38 pm

    @ RIX:

    Well if they even know who Hitler was. Some think he was the ruler in Russia! Or they have never heard of him. No I’m not kidding. Or they twist themselves up in knots giving Hitler a new image of something he wasn’t. I’d have to slap myself each and every day if I were that stupid.


  16. Lily
    16 | January 19, 2013 3:40 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    brookly red wrote:
    register facebook users.
    Sure I can go with that. I highly doubt this person ever served in the military…I might be wrong but I doubt it.
    /obviously it’s the same 8 yr old that sent 0 the letter.

    Oh I’m sure. You know it is a sad day when adults use children to hide behind and push their agenda. Kids aren’t all that into the news and what obama does.


  17. brookly red
    17 | January 19, 2013 3:41 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Well if they even know who Hitler was. Some think he was the ruler in Russia! Or they have never heard of him. No I’m not kidding. Or they twist themselves up in knots giving Hitler a new image of something he wasn’t. I’d have to slap myself each and every day if I were that stupid.

    excellent point, they don’t even know who he was or what he did… well that’s we get for letting the government run the schools.


  18. RIX
    18 | January 19, 2013 3:41 pm

    There are four signs that you might be delusional,
    1. You’re not sure if Obama is God or not, but you get a tingle.
    2. You get information from Charles Johnson
    3. You are having an affair with Lennay Kekua behind Mantis back
    And most of all,
    4. You think that criminals will obey tougher gun laws.


  19. AZfederalist
    19 | January 19, 2013 3:41 pm

    OK, point by point refuttions (don’t know how much I’ll be able to complete):

    To the point about Hitler not making the comment about disarming people:

    First off Hitler did not say, “In order to conquer a country you must disarm its citizens”

    From the Snopes article (appariently the Facebook idiot believed nobody would actually look up the reference:

    Whether this quote could be considered “true” in the sense that it compactly paraphrases an idea that Hitler once expressed depends upon how one interprets its meaning. The book Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations records Hitler as having said the following sometime between February and September 1942:

    The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.

    Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp#s7s01xD1lKFTAefc.99

    Key takeaway here: It was not all guns in all hands that Hitler sought to take away, he sought to disarm those who would oppose his oppressive regime. Seems like a lesson to be learned here. That the Snopes article conclusions drawn are incorrect is not surprising, the couple who run the Snopes site are leftists. However, they still stumble over some key truths that they ignore: “loosened up laws for non-Jewish Germans to own guns”, “disallowed private ownership of guns in territories conquered”. All seems to point to the fact that Hitler sought to keep guns out of the hands of those he opposed and was oppressing.

    Hitler may not have used those exact words, but Lenin and Stalin did. I’ll let others find those quotes.


  20. Lily
    20 | January 19, 2013 3:42 pm

    I find it disturbing that instead of looking for a solution to a problem like Newtown, there are people wasting their time and energy by trying to turn it into a conspiracy theory.

    Yet did he find it disturbing that there were people saying 9/11 was done by our own government?????


  21. RIX
    21 | January 19, 2013 3:44 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Well if they even know who Hitler was. Some think he was the ruler in Russia! Or they have never heard of him. No I’m not kidding. Or they twist themselves up in knots giving Hitler a new image of something he wasn’t. I’d have to slap myself each and every day if I were that stupid.

    And the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.


  22. eaglesoars
    22 | January 19, 2013 3:46 pm

    Ronald Reagan, a huge gun proponent and signor of the Brady Bill, wrote to Congress in 1994 asking them to propose legislation limiting or stopping altogether the manufacture of guns classified as assault weapon

    Can somebody please find that damn letter? I’ve found lots of REFERENCES to it, but not the thing itself.

    And yes, criminals don’t typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No.

    Strawman.

    Amendment II

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    The amendment assures the RIGHT to defend against tyranny. As I recall, the Revolutionary War was fought against tyranny This IS the law, so no, no one is saying we should have no laws.

    Virginia Tech had an entire police department complete with a SWAT unit.

    After the fact. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

    Explain Columbine, which had an armed officer on staff.

    One. Who DID slow them down -- but he was outnumbered AND OUTGUNNED. After action reports have caused profound changes in the tactics used by first responders, e.g., they will no longer wait for backup when there is an active shooter.

    I served proudly in the military, I worked in armed security,

    Thank you for your service. It saddens me to see that you don’t understand what that servie helps to protect and defend. It saddens me that with your background, a 60 yr old woman with no such background can wipe the floor with your ass in about 2 minutes.


  23. brookly red
    23 | January 19, 2013 3:46 pm

    it would not surprise me at all if the facebook poster was on Soro’s payroll.


  24. heysoos
    24 | January 19, 2013 3:49 pm

    the feds don’t even know how many laws and regs are on the books…LINK


  25. RIX
    25 | January 19, 2013 3:50 pm

    David Burge@iowahawkblog
    #LiberalWesterns Annie Get Your State Firearm Owner Application


  26. Mars
    26 | January 19, 2013 3:53 pm

    As for the press covering all gun deaths maybe this dumbass can explain how the press fails to cover ANY incidents where guns successfully saved families.

    Yes the local does, usually buried on page 8. But they don’t put any of these stories on the television news.

    Second people are not critical of secret service protection. The school the won’s kids attend has ARMED SECURITY as part of the school.

    I have never once heard the argument about baseball bats. Knives, strangulation, cars, yes, the baseball bat thing is just a freaking strawman.


  27. eaglesoars
    27 | January 19, 2013 3:53 pm

    Lily wrote:

    …Hitler only allowed certain groups to own guns!!!! Most of the little people didn’t own guns…or Hitler would not have been able to murder so many civilians!

    I love ya Lily, but you’re missing the historical context. I actually asked Speranza about this last night because I realized I didn’t know if Hitler banned guns for everyone or just for the Jews. Speranza didn’t really know either. So I did some research.

    Gun control was enacted in Germany in 1928 to control the violence of factional political parties that formed after WW I. Granting of permits was left up to local law enforcement authorities who were assumed to know the neighborhood business better than anyone else. The only thing Hitler did was exclude Jews across the board. But not many Jews had guns to begin with. They self-disarmed. They considered themselves loyal Germans, they had been thru pogroms before, and tho suffered, survived. Guns were never part of their culture. Banning Jews from owning weapons changed, really, nothing.


  28. Lily
    28 | January 19, 2013 3:54 pm

    @ brookly red:

    Naw….I’ve seen these types of people who are more than willing to give up their God given rights freely to obama..because you know he cares and they care..but just not for you. Too many idiots out there that will twist themselves all up trying to defend what obama is doing and they don’t even need to be paid. Willful fools, idiots and ignorants. I’ve heard them and they have no idea what they are defending and giving away. Look I just quit smoking..and one obamabot says now aren’t you glad that the government makes it really hard for smokers? I said no. The government is too busy trying to control us..you are over-weight and the government smears you (oh that’s different) no it isn’t. You honestley can’t make them think critically. They gave it up freely.


  29. Mars
    29 | January 19, 2013 3:56 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ RIX:
    It disgusts me whenever they bring up Hitler and say he was something he wasn’t. If a leftist says Hitler was pro-gun…the only thing is to ask, “Then how in the hell was he able to kill so many civilians??”. Riddle me that will ya!

    It’s because they have gone to amazing lengths to hide the fact he was a leftist.


  30. AZfederalist
    30 | January 19, 2013 3:58 pm

    Thirdly, there is NO law or bill being considered that would allow anyone to come marching into your home to take your legally obtained and legally owned firearms.

    OK, this one can be labeled as partially true. The truth would be if he had added the word, “yet” to the end of that sentence. That it is the objective of the gun grabbers to eventually get to that point is indisputable:

    “Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3

    Supporting this quote:

    -Attributed to Sarah Brady, President of Handgun Control, Inc., to Senator Howard Metzenbaum -- The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3.
    This appears to be accurate to the extent that National Educator ran the quote. The nature and accuracy of their source is a matter of some debate. However, neither Brady nor Metzenbaum appear to have denied the statement or accused the National Educator of libel.

    “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” Janet Reno


  31. Lily
    31 | January 19, 2013 3:59 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Well I wasn’t just thinking about the Jewish people…many Polish people were sent to their deaths, many people in occupied countries were most certainly disarmed and sent to their deaths. That is why I used the term *civilian deaths* and not just the Jewish death toll. Hitler most certainly did dis-arm anyone who he thought was his enemy in the occupied countries.


  32. Mars
    32 | January 19, 2013 3:59 pm

    RIX wrote:

    There are four signs that you might be delusional,
    1. You’re not sure if Obama is God or not, but you get a tingle.
    2. You get information from Charles Johnson
    3. You are having an affair with Lennay Kekua behind Mantis back
    And most of all,
    4. You think that criminals will obey tougher gun laws.

    Hannity had a caller last night who used to be a gang member. He said the leftist call for stronger gun laws was a running joke amongst the gang bangers. They though it was hilarious anyone could believe it would even slow them down.


  33. brookly red
    33 | January 19, 2013 4:00 pm

    Lily wrote:

    You honestley can’t make them think critically. They gave it up freely.

    you can’t give up what you never had…


  34. Mars
    34 | January 19, 2013 4:01 pm

    AZfederalist wrote:

    OK, point by point refuttions (don’t know how much I’ll be able to complete):
    To the point about Hitler not making the comment about disarming people:
    First off Hitler did not say, “In order to conquer a country you must disarm its citizens”
    From the Snopes article (appariently the Facebook idiot believed nobody would actually look up the reference:
    Whether this quote could be considered “true” in the sense that it compactly paraphrases an idea that Hitler once expressed depends upon how one interprets its meaning. The book Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations records Hitler as having said the following sometime between February and September 1942:
    The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.
    Read more at Snopes. LINK
    Key takeaway here: It was not all guns in all hands that Hitler sought to take away, he sought to disarm those who would oppose his oppressive regime. Seems like a lesson to be learned here. That the Snopes article conclusions drawn are incorrect is not surprising, the couple who run the Snopes site are leftists. However, they still stumble over some key truths that they ignore: “loosened up laws for non-Jewish Germans to own guns”, “disallowed private ownership of guns in territories conquered”. All seems to point to the fact that Hitler sought to keep guns out of the hands of those he opposed and was oppressing.
    Hitler may not have used those exact words, but Lenin and Stalin did. I’ll let others find those quotes.

    Much like todays libs, it doesn’t make sense to disarm your friends.


  35. eaglesoars
    35 | January 19, 2013 4:03 pm

    @ AZfederalist:

    Um, Sarah Brady may be lots of things, but not a socialist.

    Bogus Quotes

    I don’t know this site, but since you didn’t provide a link, I went looking


  36. Mars
    36 | January 19, 2013 4:06 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Ronald Reagan, a huge gun proponent and signor of the Brady Bill, wrote to Congress in 1994 asking them to propose legislation limiting or stopping altogether the manufacture of guns classified as assault weapon
    Can somebody please find that damn letter? I’ve found lots of REFERENCES to it, but not the thing itself.
    And yes, criminals don’t typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No.
    Strawman.
    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    The amendment assures the RIGHT to defend against tyranny. As I recall, the Revolutionary War was fought against tyranny This IS the law, so no, no one is saying we should have no laws.
    Virginia Tech had an entire police department complete with a SWAT unit.
    After the fact. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.
    Explain Columbine, which had an armed officer on staff.
    One. Who DID slow them down — but he was outnumbered AND OUTGUNNED. After action reports have caused profound changes in the tactics used by first responders, e.g., they will no longer wait for backup when there is an active shooter.
    I served proudly in the military, I worked in armed security,
    Thank you for your service. It saddens me to see that you don’t understand what that servie helps to protect and defend. It saddens me that with your background, a 60 yr old woman with no such background can wipe the floor with your ass in about 2 minutes.

    As ex-AF security I can tell you there were a quite a few idiots I had to work with. Officers were the worst. They had no common sense at all, most just cared about political advantage, and they had a hard time listening to anyone of lower rank.


  37. yenta-fada
    37 | January 19, 2013 4:06 pm

    Drive-by. Obama supporters on “Lie Witness News”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR_uaruZhqg&feature=player_embedded


  38. Lily
    38 | January 19, 2013 4:06 pm

    Mars wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    There are four signs that you might be delusional,
    1. You’re not sure if Obama is God or not, but you get a tingle.
    2. You get information from Charles Johnson
    3. You are having an affair with Lennay Kekua behind Mantis back
    And most of all,
    4. You think that criminals will obey tougher gun laws.
    Hannity had a caller last night who used to be a gang member. He said the leftist call for stronger gun laws was a running joke amongst the gang bangers. They though it was hilarious anyone could believe it would even slow them down.

    Of course they are laughing…business will be good running guns.


  39. heysoos
    39 | January 19, 2013 4:07 pm

    I think it’s highly likely that the feds will require tracking/use devices built into every gun…for the security of the general population…then they’d know exactly where you gun is and when it’s being fired 24/7/365….that would shift the fight to an invasion of privacy issue…if that doesn’t work, they will try a different angle…point being they will never give up, that’s why they are trying to bind gun ownership to Obama care


  40. Lily
    40 | January 19, 2013 4:08 pm

    brookly red wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    You honestley can’t make them think critically. They gave it up freely.
    you can’t give up what you never had…

    True but with obama in office..they are fools on steroids. It really is something how they defend this God-less, rogue president.


  41. RIX
    41 | January 19, 2013 4:09 pm

    Hannity had a caller last night who used to be a gang member. He said the leftist call for stronger gun laws was a running joke amongst the gang bangers. They though it was hilarious anyone could believe it would even slow them down.@ Mars

    Shocking! I thought that gang bangers were just looking for some
    new laws to obey.


  42. Buffalobob
    42 | January 19, 2013 4:11 pm

    @ AZfederalist “so much stupid, so little time”. My exact thought. The stupidity of progs knows no bounds.


  43. RIX
    43 | January 19, 2013 4:11 pm

    @ Lily:
    A gun law that I can get behind is prohibiting Obama & Holder from
    running guns to Mexican drug cartels.


  44. yenta-fada
    44 | January 19, 2013 4:11 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Thanks for the research on Hitler and gun ownership. Not that liberals are impressed with facts when you debate them, but I am.


  45. eaglesoars
    45 | January 19, 2013 4:12 pm

    Lily wrote:

    many Polish people were sent to their deaths, many people in occupied countries were most certainly disarmed and sent to their deaths.

    Most of the armed Poles were military. The remainder were rural who hunted. There was no disarmament effort per se as these people were deported to Germany as slave labor. The same is true for citizens of other conquered countries. The disarmament was collateral, not causal.


  46. eaglesoars
    46 | January 19, 2013 4:15 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    Drive-by. Obama supporters on “Lie Witness News”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR_uaruZhqg&feature=player_embedded

    I want some newspaper to print their names and addresses.


  47. Lily
    47 | January 19, 2013 4:16 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    There were Polish people who were sent to the camps. In fact sometimes they were the first there. Not saying there wasn’t any sent back to Germany or what not. But Hitler wasn’t a huge fan of the Polish people either.


  48. Lily
    48 | January 19, 2013 4:17 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ Lily:
    A gun law that I can get behind is prohibiting Obama & Holder from
    running guns to Mexican drug cartels.

    The problem is most people aren’t all that concerned with F&F. Old news..but I agree with you on this one.


  49. yenta-fada
    49 | January 19, 2013 4:17 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    yenta-fada wrote:
    Drive-by. Obama supporters on “Lie Witness News”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR_uaruZhqg&feature=player_embedded
    I want some newspaper to print their names and addresses.

    You could go to the NYC phone book and pick some at random. Good odds.


  50. 50 | January 19, 2013 4:18 pm

    RIX wrote:

    And the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

    Remember, in an alternate universe…they did!


  51. RIX
    51 | January 19, 2013 4:19 pm

    Lily wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    @ Lily:
    A gun law that I can get behind is prohibiting Obama & Holder from
    running guns to Mexican drug cartels.

    The problem is most people aren’t all that concerned with F&F. Old news..but I agree with you on this one.

    And not that concerned about Benghazi.
    There was more outrage when Bush took a weekend to clear
    brush at the ranch in Crawford.


  52. 52 | January 19, 2013 4:21 pm

    Assuming this person actually did serve in the military, the my question would be “What does the military do when people shoot at them?”

    Here’s a hint -- they shoot back. Usually (unless the ROE are screwed up) with every damned thing they’ve got.

    As to Virginia Tech, it just so happens I went there. I even lived a year in Ambler Johnston, the dorm where the infamous shooting started (2 dead there.) But there was a difference. We all had guns. The very first thing I and my room mate did when we got to AJ was to assemble our combo gun/stereo rack. We had 3 rifles and 2 shotguns on it. Surprisingly (or not), nobody got shot. In fact, I don’t think there was an on-campus shooting the entire 5.5 years I was there, even though a very large percentage of the students had guns in their dorm rooms. I mean not one shooting, much less a mas murder.

    President Obama signed 23 Executive Orders the other day (including one ordering himself to appoint an actual Head of the BATFE, something he had neglected to do the previous 4 years), absolutely none of which would have prevented the Newtown massacre. “leading from behind” again. As to the statistics regrding the effectiveness of the last AWB, the number of people killed by rifle fire v. the number of people beaten to death with plunt objects or just hands and feet, you’re wrong -- check the FBI stats. If you have better data, by all means, bring it out.

    Now, as to Obama’s SS protection of him and his family… I do not believe I’ve heard anybody object to that. We all know presidents are more exposed to directed threats than the rest of us. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the school his children attend had armed swcurity before his children signed up there. Many private schools have armed security, because wealthy people can afford to pay to keep their children safe. Sucks to be poor, doesn’t it?

    But that’s really all sort of trivial. Let’s move on to at least second-rank issues. The second amendment was not intended to protect target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting, or even self-defense against crimminals. The second amendment was intended to empower the “people” (that’s me) to have sufficient power to resist thyranny from their own government. Don’t take my word for it -- read those old deead white guys like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al.

    And finally, let’s step all the way up to the real (if never discussed) primary point here. Namely, that the second amendment (or any other of the first ten amendments) DOES NOT grant rights to the people. This is the primary point folks like you can never eem to grasp. The government DOES NOT grant these rights. These rights are inherent, natural, god or nature (depending on your POV) given, and not subject to over-ruling by the government under any conditions. The “Bill of Rights” simply recongized and enumerated SOME of these rights. The fight over including the “Bill of Rights” was between those who wanted these few rights codified and those who thought no codification would be sufficient to cover all of the inherent rights. That’s why the tenth amendment is there, disdained though it may be today.

    As a corrollary to the above, I’ve had people ask me why there isn’t a codified right to self-defense. The answer is simple -- it never would have occured to the founders to even consider such a question. They weren’t that stupid. The right to self-defense isn’t an American right. It isn’t a human right. It isn’t even an animal right. Plants do it. Black walnuts wage active, aggresive chemical warfare against other plants. And it is up to the individual to make his own arrangemts as to self-defense, and live or die by his decisions. Goes to the old joke --

    Q -- “Why do you carry a gun?”
    A -- “Because a cop is too heavy.”

    Decades of ownership, and my guns still haven’t killed as many people as the late Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile.


  53. RIX
    53 | January 19, 2013 4:22 pm

    Macker wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    And the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

    Remember, in an alternate universe…they did!

    Blutowski said so in Animal House!


  54. Lily
    54 | January 19, 2013 4:23 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    RIX wrote:
    @ Lily:
    A gun law that I can get behind is prohibiting Obama & Holder from
    running guns to Mexican drug cartels.
    The problem is most people aren’t all that concerned with F&F. Old news..but I agree with you on this one.
    And not that concerned about Benghazi.
    There was more outrage when Bush took a weekend to clear
    brush at the ranch in Crawford.

    Indeed!!!!!!!!!! I could never understand why more people didn’t get fire mad about Benghazi???? What the hell?? Ask some of them and their answers vary…but no one knows what went on!!! You tell them people in Washington were watching this in real time…oh come on that is just not true!!!!! They don’t want to believe and they refuse to believe what went on.


  55. eaglesoars
    55 | January 19, 2013 4:23 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    I think it’s highly likely that the feds will require tracking/use devices built into every gun…for the security of the general population…then they’d know exactly where you gun is and when it’s being fired 24/7/365….that would shift the fight to an invasion of privacy issue…if that doesn’t work, they will try a different angle…point being they will never give up, that’s why they are trying to bind gun ownership to Obama care

    I have a few things to say about that. The first is only tangentally relevant.

    1. The Feds want to put ‘black boxes’ on all vehicles. They maintain it will help with collating data about accidents on an aggregate level and also investigating individual accidents. But guess what else?

    - road use taxes based on mileage.
    - taxes based on route (no more toll roads and the mgmt costs). If it is true, as I believe, that Obama’s minions want to concentrate the population in cities and will divert sububurban taxes to support them, it is also true that if you live in theh ‘burbs and commute to the city, the tax burden could be so onerous that the incentive would be to move to the city.
    - the other day, lobo and others were talking about massive databases and noting that there was so much data that it could not reasonably be processed. In the course of the discussion, it came up that the greater concern was planting FALSE information.

    - And that’s our fallback. Alter the devices to transmit false data.

    - Laws requiring trigger locks are pretty much gone so I’m not sure these devices will ever show up


  56. Lily
    56 | January 19, 2013 4:26 pm

    @ Lily:

    Duh! On my part Eagle….you are right…Hitler didn’t disarm them..first Stalin was there then Hitler and then Stalin again. These people were under the boot by both evil fiends. Forgive my ignorance.


  57. yenta-fada
    57 | January 19, 2013 4:27 pm

    3D Metal printing. No reason you can’t make parts for a gun with it afaik. (I know nuttink)


  58. heysoos
    58 | January 19, 2013 4:28 pm

    “Decades of ownership, and my guns still haven’t killed as many people as the late Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile.”

    good one…a simple truth that to me illustrates the liberal mindset…plus I hated that fat sob with a passion…how anything good can be said for him is beyond me


  59. The Osprey
    59 | January 19, 2013 4:31 pm

    Just got back from 2nd A rally at AZ state Capitol.
    Several thousand pistol packin’ rifle totin’ AZ
    bitter clingers in attendance. Russell Pierce and other pro gun AZ state reps, Senators spoke.

    Pics and complete after action report to follow later this evening or tomorrow am.


  60. 60 | January 19, 2013 4:32 pm

    OK, so maybe it ended up closer to $2.00 instead of 2 cents. So sue me.

    No you self important sufferer of verbal diarrhea, it was pretty much worthless. Let’s start with your idiotic straw man argument.

    First off, Hitler did not say “In order to conquer a country, you must first disarm its citizens.” In fact, Hitler made it his position to enable guns to be obtained more easily.

    I do not know of anyone making that claim. What people are saying, and correctly so by the way, is that Hitler started off by enacting a law that required registration of gun ownership under the auspices of making life safer for the German Populace who he claimed were endangered by needless gun violence. As for his making gun ownership more accessible for the average citizens, all they needed to do first was to join one of his, “civilian,” groups, like the Hitler Youth, or the Gestapo, and yes, they were allowed to be exempted from the law requiring registration.

    When the time came to round up the guns later, resistance was useless, since there was an official written record of everyone who owned a firearm.

    Still scratching my head over the remainder of your screed, in between the Pens game.


  61. RIX
    61 | January 19, 2013 4:36 pm

    @ Lily:
    State Department & White House incompetence got those people killed
    in Benghazi.
    I have no doubt that Obama went to bed , so that he could get up & get
    to his fund raiser in the morning.


  62. Lily
    62 | January 19, 2013 4:36 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Still scratching my head over the remainder of your screed, in between the Pens game

    .

    His defense of obama. Plain and simple.


  63. eaglesoars
    63 | January 19, 2013 4:36 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:

    There were Polish people who were sent to the camps. In fact sometimes they were the first there. Not saying there wasn’t any sent back to Germany or what not. But Hitler wasn’t a huge fan of the Polish people either.

    It’s a bit more complex than that. Instead of going about this piecemeal and talking up bandwidth, here is one of my reference bookmarks from the Holocaust Teachers Resource site, using The U.S. Holocaust Museum as its primary resource.

    POLES: VICTIMS OF THE NAZI ERA


  64. Lily
    64 | January 19, 2013 4:39 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ Lily:
    State Department & White House incompetence got those people killed
    in Benghazi.
    I have no doubt that Obama went to bed , so that he could get up & get
    to his fund raiser in the morning.

    Indeed .. indeed… indeed. The man didn’t care one bit. What happened was horrific! And that people chose to ignore it and re-elected this treasonous fool back in office is beyond my scope of reasoning.


  65. Lily
    65 | January 19, 2013 4:42 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    I corrected myself…it is a bit more complicated. But this comment is further down the thread. I have no excuse…(I could find one if needed though). ;)

    Duh! On my part Eagle….you are right…Hitler didn’t disarm them..first Stalin was there then Hitler and then Stalin again. These people were under the boot by both evil fiends. Forgive my ignorance.


  66. Lily
    66 | January 19, 2013 4:45 pm

    @ Lily:

    I blame cardio rehab and it’s a Saturday afternoon for my brains slowness.
    /that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it. ;)


  67. RIX
    67 | January 19, 2013 4:45 pm

    Lily wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    @ Lily:
    State Department & White House incompetence got those people killed
    in Benghazi.
    I have no doubt that Obama went to bed , so that he could get up & get
    to his fund raiser in the morning.

    Indeed .. indeed… indeed. The man didn’t care one bit. What happened was horrific! And that people chose to ignore it and re-elected this treasonous fool back in office is beyond my scope of reasoning.

    He was much more concerned about Trayon Martin.
    I guess nobody who died in benghazi would have looked like his son.


  68. eaglesoars
    68 | January 19, 2013 4:46 pm

    Well, the Algerian hostage situation is over.

    Everybody’s dead.

    It’s gut-wrenching I know. But maybe there’s an upside. The jihadis will think twice if they know hostages lives have no value to the Algerians before they’ll take anymore.


  69. Mars
    69 | January 19, 2013 4:47 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    3D Metal printing. No reason you can’t make parts for a gun with it afaik. (I know nuttink)

    They’re already printing out Poly guns. Pretty darn good ones from what I’ve been reading.

    The gun control debate is screwed if 3d home printing ever becomes affordable to everyone.
    (Not that there should be a debate over our rights.)


  70. Lily
    70 | January 19, 2013 4:47 pm

    @ RIX:

    That was so bizarre! How the media let this slide was so wrong..and where was the outrage??? Only a small segment of America were outraged.


  71. Mars
    71 | January 19, 2013 4:47 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    So, not only did the Won copy Jimmah Carter it wound up being done even worse.


  72. RIX
    72 | January 19, 2013 4:49 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ RIX:

    That was so bizarre! How the media let this slide was so wrong..and where was the outrage??? Only a small segment of America were outraged.

    Very small segment.


  73. eaglesoars
    73 | January 19, 2013 4:49 pm

    Lily wrote:

    I have no excuse

    Who said you needed one sweetie? A few of us here have studied the Holocaust for years -- 15 in my case. And I’ve studied WW II European theater longer than that. Even we aren’t conversant w/every jot and tittle.


  74. Lily
    74 | January 19, 2013 4:49 pm

    @ Mars:

    Apparently so. They are all dead.


  75. Lily
    75 | January 19, 2013 4:51 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    I have no excuse
    Who said you needed one sweetie? A few of us here have studied the Holocaust for years — 15 in my case. And I’ve studied WW II European theater longer than that. Even we aren’t conversant w/every jot and tittle.

    LOL! Sad part is I have studied it too and I forgot the darn several occupations of Poland…oh sure I remembered a day late and a dollar short. Darn it! ;)


  76. RIX
    76 | January 19, 2013 4:52 pm

    Later Gators.


  77. Lily
    77 | January 19, 2013 4:53 pm

    RIX wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    @ RIX:
    That was so bizarre! How the media let this slide was so wrong..and where was the outrage??? Only a small segment of America were outraged.
    Very small segment.

    No kidding..much smaller than I would have thought. I was furious..but apparently a lot of people could care less.


  78. eaglesoars
    78 | January 19, 2013 4:54 pm

    Mars wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    So, not only did the Won copy Jimmah Carter it wound up being done even worse.

    No, this was the Algerians entirely. Our position was that we wanted them to help w/Mali, try to tamp things down. It wasn’t working. The Algerians mounted one rescue operation in which hostages got killed anyway (notice there are no reports of Algerian military casualties) so the Algerians decided they weren’t putting up with anymore shit -- the only way to stop this was to kill jihadis and that’s what they did. Too bad about the collateral damage.

    The fallout is that they won’t be getting anymore foreign workers in their energy sector for the foreseeable future.


  79. Lily
    79 | January 19, 2013 4:54 pm

    @ RIX:

    Later Rix!


  80. Mars
    80 | January 19, 2013 4:56 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    It is too bad about the collateral damage, but I didn’t get stressed when the russians did it, I’m not stressed now.

    The only way to stop this hostage taking crap is to show that the terrorists will die no matter what.


  81. Mars
    81 | January 19, 2013 4:58 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    I hadn’t read the article so I figured the terrorists did it.

    I’m glad that they went with whatever it took. Sorry about the hostages though.


  82. yenta-fada
    82 | January 19, 2013 4:59 pm

    Mars wrote:

    yenta-fada wrote:
    3D Metal printing. No reason you can’t make parts for a gun with it afaik. (I know nuttink)
    They’re already printing out Poly guns. Pretty darn good ones from what I’ve been reading.
    The gun control debate is screwed if 3d home printing ever becomes affordable to everyone.
    (Not that there should be a debate over our rights.)

    I saw one youtube that said they are available in Japan at around the $2,000 level. Imagine if you are a small town and buy one for communal use.


  83. Mars
    83 | January 19, 2013 5:01 pm

    @ yenta-fada:
    Not bad. I know the ones that use different plastics, resins, and poly materials varies between about a grand up to three grand.


  84. yenta-fada
    84 | January 19, 2013 5:03 pm

    Mars wrote:

    @ yenta-fada:
    Not bad. I know the ones that use different plastics, resins, and poly materials varies between about a grand up to three grand.

    Americans are very innovative. I see a great future for people to design small businesses around this thing.


  85. 85 | January 19, 2013 5:04 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Perhaps France should turn all of Algeria into Gerboise Bleue!


  86. Mars
    86 | January 19, 2013 5:05 pm

    @ yenta-fada:
    Yep. You can use them to make basically any 3d model you see online. Or even design your own ideas. You can make a whole piece or a bunch of parts to assemble into a whole item.

    The newest one I saw can now make items up to basketball size.

    Jay Leno couldn’t find a part for one of his oldest cars anywhere so he had one printed out on one of these machines.

    The possibilities are endless. (Though for some reason the first thing people seem to print is a coffee cup, lol.)


  87. eaglesoars
    87 | January 19, 2013 5:06 pm

    Mars wrote:

    I hadn’t read the article so I figured the terrorists did it.

    Maybe they did. I can imagine when the jihadis saw the calvary on the way they dispatched them just for shins and grits.


  88. heysoos
    88 | January 19, 2013 5:07 pm

    Benghazi is not dead…there are people heavily invested into finding the truth and taking revenge…may be a month, may be five years…but someone is going down, one way or another, bet on it


  89. eaglesoars
    89 | January 19, 2013 5:07 pm

    Mars wrote:

    Jay Leno couldn’t find a part for one of his oldest cars anywhere so he had one printed out on one of these machines.

    I think Jeff dunham uses it to make his puppets.


  90. Mars
    90 | January 19, 2013 5:08 pm

    @ yenta-fada:
    I was actually going to post on why I think we still have a future. And it relates to what you said.
    Americans are more innovative than just about anyone, we have more drive, and more just of a screw you I’m going to do it anyway attitude.

    Japan has a lot of that too.

    Europe is done. The times I spent there in the 90′s it was like a funeral home with discos and alcohol.


  91. The Osprey
    91 | January 19, 2013 5:08 pm

    The Soviets and Nazis divided Poland between them.
    In the opening scenes of Andrzej Wajda’s “Katyn” you see the chaos as one group of Polish
    civilians running east to escape the Nazis run into another group fleeing west to escape the Soviets.


  92. eaglesoars
    92 | January 19, 2013 5:10 pm

    Macker wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:

    Perhaps France should turn all of Algeria into Gerboise Bleue!

    With the muslim population France has to deal with, I think it took enormous courage for Hollande to do what he’s done. I’m betting their domestic security services haven’t slept in a week.


  93. Mars
    93 | January 19, 2013 5:10 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Mars wrote:
    Jay Leno couldn’t find a part for one of his oldest cars anywhere so he had one printed out on one of these machines.
    I think Jeff dunham uses it to make his puppets.

    I actually found the halloween hanging skeleton Achmed was designed from at a thrift shop. My brother couldn’t believe it. But it had the exact same design and came out like 10-20 years ago.

    Of course he added the hinged jaw and made it sturdier. But the head design and body design were identical.


  94. yenta-fada
    94 | January 19, 2013 5:15 pm

    Muslim rapper claims the Israeli occupations is preventing Palestinians from going to the moon. I think they should go.

    http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/muslim-rapper-claims-israeli-occupation-prevents-palestinians-from-going-to-the-moon/


  95. eaglesoars
    95 | January 19, 2013 5:15 pm

    Mars wrote:

    came out like 10-20 years ago.

    It’s fun to go back thru the youtube videos and see how Peanut (my fave) has changed physically


  96. eaglesoars
    96 | January 19, 2013 5:17 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    I think they should go.

    I’ll bet Mort Zuckerman would be willing to shell out for some green houses.


  97. Lily
    97 | January 19, 2013 5:20 pm

    The Osprey wrote:

    The Soviets and Nazis divided Poland between them.
    In the opening scenes of Andrzej Wajda’s “Katyn” you see the chaos as one group of Polish
    civilians running east to escape the Nazis run into another group fleeing west to escape the Soviets.

    Yeah saw the movie…my brain let me down. :(
    Not to mention there is a book too about those countries caught between the Soviets and Hitler…Bloodlands
    http://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471

    /I have to redeem myself. ;)

    /but it came back online a day late and a dollar short.


  98. eaglesoars
    98 | January 19, 2013 5:21 pm

    The Blaze has photos of the 2nd amendment rallies across the country.

    My favorite sign: If Guns Cause Crime All Mine Are Defective

    heh


  99. Lily
    99 | January 19, 2013 5:26 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    I have a feeling that guns will be like moonshine if obama and his merry men do much damage to our 2nd Amendment. Americans tend to be like Curr Dogs…they don’t roll that way. Too bad too many rolled that way and re-elected that rogue, God-less president.


  100. AZfederalist
    100 | January 19, 2013 5:31 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    @ AZfederalist:

    Um, Sarah Brady may be lots of things, but not a socialist.

    Bogus Quotes

    I don’t know this site, but since you didn’t provide a link, I went looking

    I checked that on several sites. You will note that this was published in the American Educator magazine. The fact that it was not disavowed is an issue. A Bing search on “Sarah Brady National Educator gun ban” turns up a host of references. There are other quotes from others that demonstrate that the ultimate goal is disarming private citizens, so this quote is not the linchpin upon which the argument turns.

    BILL CLINTON(42nd President of the United States): “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles…that we are unable to think about reality.” (USA Today, 11 March 93, pg. 2A)

    “I don’t think the American people are there right now. But with more than 200 million guns in circulation, we’ve got so much more to do on this issue before we even reach that. I don’t think that’s an option now. But there are certain kinds of guns that can be banned and a lot of other reasonable regulations that can be imposed.” (When asked of the possibility of a federal law banning handguns, interview in Rolling Stone magazine, 9 Dec 93, pg. 45)

    “We’ve banned these guns [‘assault’ weapons] because you don’t need an Uzi to go deer hunting, and everyone knows it.” (Weekly radio address, 15 Nov 97, the Roosevelt Room, the White House)

    MAJOR OWENS (U.S. Congressman): “My bill…establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns.” (Congressional Record 10 Nov 93).

    DIANE FEINSTEIN (California Senator, author of “Feinstein Amendment” which became the ’94 gun ban): “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.” (60 Minutes episode, CBS) [Sen Feinstein holds a CCP]

    DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN (U.S. Senator) “…we could tax them [firearms] out of existence.” (Washington Post 4 Nov 93)

    NELSON T. (PETE) SHIELDS III (Founder, Handgun Control, Inc./National Council to Control Handguns) “We’re going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of all guns -- is going to take time…..The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal.” (New Yorker Magazine, p.57-58, 26 Jul 76)

    WILLIAM GREIDER (writer, Rolling Stone magazine): “The plain fact is that the United States is now hostage to a harrowing epidemic of gun violence, and the Brady bill won’t do much to change that. The National Rifle Association has been saying this all along, and the NRA is right….The NRA has also argued that a waiting period won’t prevent criminals from getting guns. And it’s right about that, too….Enactment of the Brady bill will, however, represent a victory of some political significance -- a visible defeat for the tenacious lobbying power of the NRA….Thus the limited scope of the Brady bill was justified as a necessary first step toward breaking the NRA’s power -- a way to demonstrate that politicians could support a moderate version of control and survive.” (Rolling Stone, article entitled: “A Pistol-whipped Nation -- Pass the Brady Bill -- then ban handguns”, 30 Sep 93, pg. 31)

    These, and more can be found here


  101. heysoos
    101 | January 19, 2013 5:31 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    gets me all choked up…in the future the feds will label these good people as domestic terrorists


  102. heysoos
    102 | January 19, 2013 5:36 pm

    DR. JOYCE BROTHERS (Psychiatrist, TV personality): “Men possess handguns in order to compensate for sexual dysfunction.” [her husband is among NYC elite that has been issued a permit to carry a concealed handgun]….

    a twofer


  103. eaglesoars
    103 | January 19, 2013 5:38 pm

    @ AZfederalist:

    Oh, I KNOW people want confiscation. But as I noted upthread, can anyone find the 1994 Reagan letter? I can find lots of references to it, but I can’t find IT


  104. Lily
    104 | January 19, 2013 5:38 pm

    @ heysoos:

    I have one word…hypocrite.


  105. eaglesoars
    105 | January 19, 2013 5:39 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    “Men possess handguns in order to compensate for sexual dysfunction.”

    uh huh. And what’s her excuse for me? Penis envy?


  106. heysoos
    106 | January 19, 2013 5:40 pm

    @ Lily:
    some of this stuff is hilarious…it begs the question, then why do women carry guns?….you can’t make this shit up


  107. Lily
    107 | January 19, 2013 5:40 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    “Men possess handguns in order to compensate for sexual dysfunction.”
    uh huh. And what’s her excuse for me? Penis envy?

    What she has to say about that is *crickets*.


  108. heysoos
    108 | January 19, 2013 5:42 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    “Men possess handguns in order to compensate for sexual dysfunction.”
    uh huh. And what’s her excuse for me? Penis envy?

    these people are so absorbed they make stuff up


  109. heysoos
    109 | January 19, 2013 5:43 pm

    gun ranges are no different than whore houses…got it


  110. Lily
    110 | January 19, 2013 5:43 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ Lily:
    some of this stuff is hilarious…it begs the question, then why do women carry guns?….you can’t make this shit up

    Because they keep you safe …. you are reading progressives…and to be honest even speaking to them begs the question “and what color of the sky is in your world?”. I don’t just get to read it…I get to hear and see in person. (Personally I don’t think it is healthy for me to experience such things while recovering from bypass surgery…just a hunch.) ;)


  111. Lily
    111 | January 19, 2013 5:45 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    gun ranges are no different than whore houses…got it

    GET OUT!!! Really someone said that? So they know what whore houses are like???


  112. Mars
    112 | January 19, 2013 5:45 pm

    @ AZfederalist:
    Yeah the Brady one was pretty much destroyed (by our the Pro Gun side believe it or not.)

    Those other ones are real and much more frightening. We do a much better job proving our side with accurate quotes than we do with made up stuff.

    Thank you for those quotes, they are great stuff.


  113. heysoos
    113 | January 19, 2013 5:45 pm

    @ Lily:
    I made it up…using Dr Joyces logic


  114. huckfunn
    114 | January 19, 2013 5:46 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    in the future the feds will label these good people as domestic terrorists

    Just a drive by. The future is here… at West Point, no less.
    West Point center cites dangers of ‘far right’ in U.S.


  115. Lily
    115 | January 19, 2013 5:47 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ Lily:
    I made it up…using Dr Joyces logic

    You did good!!! Sounds just like what a lefty would say. ;)


  116. Mars
    116 | January 19, 2013 5:48 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    @ AZfederalist:
    Oh, I KNOW people want confiscation. But as I noted upthread, can anyone find the 1994 Reagan letter? I can find lots of references to it, but I can’t find IT

    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban/2

    Here’s the letter. It was one of those stupid things that someone else wrote and then all the surviving presidents sign.


  117. AZfederalist
    117 | January 19, 2013 5:49 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ Lily:
    A gun law that I can get behind is prohibiting Obama & Holder from
    running guns to Mexican drug cartels.

    My thought was, “there are already laws preventing that”. But then I realized that this bunch is the kind that need an engraved invitation. I.e, they have to have the law specifically apply to them, otherwise they have the attitude, “oh, you mean I can’t do that? I thought that just applied to other people.”


  118. 118 | January 19, 2013 5:50 pm

    A Brady Bunch protestor confronts a man walking out of the gun shop with his new rifle…

    “Why did you buy that gun? Are you compensating for having a small penis?”

    The gun buyer thinks for a moment and then says “well, yes ma’am, I guess you could say that. After all, if I could kill something at 500 yards wit my penis, I sure wouldn’t need a rifle.”


  119. heysoos
    119 | January 19, 2013 5:50 pm

    Lily wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    @ Lily:
    I made it up…using Dr Joyces logic
    You did good!!! Sounds just like what a lefty would say.

    liberals make up all these bizarre associations and never get called out…if you own a pistol you hate dogs or whatever


  120. eaglesoars
    120 | January 19, 2013 5:51 pm

    @ Mars:

    Thank you sweetie


  121. Mars
    121 | January 19, 2013 5:51 pm

    Here’s a great site for accurate quotes and a lot of great second amendment info. At least as far as I could tell spending about 10 minutes there.

    http://www.guncite.com


  122. lobo91
    122 | January 19, 2013 5:51 pm

    Thirdly, there is NO law or bill being considered that would allow anyone to come marching into your home to take your legally obtained and legally owned firearms.

    Actually, there is no law preventing them from doing just that.

    It was done in NY in the past. It was also done in CA.

    If you buy a car from a dealer it must be registered (a record of the transfer is documented). If you buy a car from a private citizen, it must be registered. If you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a record of that sale and it is registered.

    And do you know why those sales are registered? To provide revenue to the state. They could give a crap less how many cars you own, as long as they get their registration fees.


  123. lobo91
    123 | January 19, 2013 5:52 pm

    @ Mars:

    Wasn’t Reagan already suffering from Alzheimer’s at that point?


  124. heysoos
    125 | January 19, 2013 5:56 pm

    I think I’ll mass murder some beer….
    WHO’S WITH ME?


  125. 126 | January 19, 2013 5:57 pm

    @ lobo91:

    No. Reagan only succumbed to Alzheimer’s after his presidency. Before that he was just old and stupid.


  126. 127 | January 19, 2013 5:58 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Never mind.


  127. heysoos
    128 | January 19, 2013 5:59 pm

    @ Mike C.:
    uh oh


  128. lobo91
    129 | January 19, 2013 5:59 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    He wasn’t president in 1994…


  129. eaglesoars
    130 | January 19, 2013 6:00 pm

    Mars wrote:

    Here’s the letter. It was one of those stupid things that someone else wrote and then all the surviving presidents sign.

    Except Bush 41

    they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

    So what are the other 90%? Why not ban those? (my guess is handguns -- it’s difficult to hide a long gun when you walk into a 7-11)

    Same stupid arguments.


  130. lobo91
    131 | January 19, 2013 6:02 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    California banned .50 cal rifles, although I’m not aware of a single one ever being used in a crime.


  131. Lily
    132 | January 19, 2013 6:04 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Rather overkill with .50 cal rifles.


  132. lobo91
    133 | January 19, 2013 6:07 pm

    @ Lily:

    Someone read a book about WWII fighter planes and discovered that most of ours were armed with .50 cal machineguns. Thus, they believe that you can shoot down an airliner with a rifle firing the same round.


  133. eaglesoars
    134 | January 19, 2013 6:09 pm

    Mars wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    I believe so.

    http://main.makeuseoflimited.netdna-cdn.com/tech-fun/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/newspeak.png

    In the end we will make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words to express it.

    I’m reading ‘Gulag’ by Anne Appelbaum. Turns out that’s not what actually happens. Crimes will be invented by the state for a myriad of reasons -- people with certain skillsets are needed for mining so geologists are arrested on invented pretexts. Bureaucrats need to amass more power, so crimes are invented to oppress opponents.


  134. heysoos
    135 | January 19, 2013 6:10 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    Rather overkill with .50 cal rifles.

    most muzzle loaders are .50cal or larger…don’t know about the law…as for modern weapons, I’ve seen a Barrett here at City Range in ABQ (outdoors)…they have a small, but very practical niche and are unbelievably destructive but that is no reason to make them illegal


  135. Lily
    136 | January 19, 2013 6:11 pm

    @ lobo91:

    You are kidding? Just goes to show you that some people with a little information is a dangerous thing. *shakes head*
    /You would think they would be more worried about an RPG than .50 cal…although big not big enough to take down a plane from the ground.
    I bet they watch too many movies.


  136. Lily
    137 | January 19, 2013 6:13 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    @ lobo91:
    Rather overkill with .50 cal rifles.
    most muzzle loaders are .50cal or larger…don’t know about the law…as for modern weapons, I’ve seen a Barrett here at City Range in ABQ (outdoors)…they have a small, but very practical niche and are unbelievably destructive but that is no reason to make them illegal

    I was referring to committing a crime with that. More than necessary.


  137. lobo91
    138 | January 19, 2013 6:13 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Nobody cares about muzzle loading rifles. It’s the .50 BMG rifles that they banned.

    The geniuses in California think they’re protecting airliners.


  138. heysoos
    139 | January 19, 2013 6:14 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    You are kidding? Just goes to show you that some people with a little information is a dangerous thing. *shakes head*
    /You would think they would be more worried about an RPG than .50 cal…although big not big enough to take down a plane from the ground.
    I bet they watch too many movies.

    you could if you blew out the windshield and killed the pilot…the geometry would have to be biblical tho


  139. eaglesoars
    140 | January 19, 2013 6:15 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    I’ve seen a Barrett here at City Range in ABQ (outdoors)…they have a small, but very practical niche and are unbelievably destructive

    I got to fire one when visiting a friend at Ft. Bragg. They are REALLY heavy and altho the recoil isn’t bad and I had ear protection, I wished I’d had a helmet -- the concussive force around my head was considerable. Energy has to go somewhere.

    So, not what I would consider a fun weapon.


  140. Lily
    141 | January 19, 2013 6:15 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    @ lobo91:
    You are kidding? Just goes to show you that some people with a little information is a dangerous thing. *shakes head*
    /You would think they would be more worried about an RPG than .50 cal…although big not big enough to take down a plane from the ground.
    I bet they watch too many movies.
    you could if you blew out the windshield and killed the pilot…the geometry would have to be biblical tho

    But wouldn’t you have to be flying too???


  141. lobo91
    142 | January 19, 2013 6:16 pm

    @ Lily:

    These are the same people who believe that discharging a 9mm pistol inside an airliner will cause everyone to be sucked out of a huge hole.

    Of course, they tend to believe lots of stupid crap, like that exhaust from SUVs is causing global warming, and will lead to a new ice age.

    Or something.


  142. AZfederalist
    143 | January 19, 2013 6:16 pm

    @ Lily:

    No kidding..much smaller than I would have thought. I was furious..but apparently a lot of people could care less.

    Hard to care when you don’t know about it. The White House transcriptionists, i.e. the MSM, failed to report the incident, thus the average citizen had no idea this was going on, or if they did, were not informed fully of this horrific incident.


  143. lobo91
    144 | January 19, 2013 6:17 pm

    @ Lily:

    But wouldn’t you have to be flying too???

    What if Superman got ahold of one and went crazy?
    //


  144. Lily
    145 | January 19, 2013 6:18 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Lily:
    These are the same people who believe that discharging a 9mm pistol inside an airliner will cause everyone to be sucked out of a huge hole.
    Of course, they tend to believe lots of stupid crap, like that exhaust from SUVs is causing global warming, and will lead to a new ice age.
    Or something.

    Can’t fix stupid.


  145. Lily
    146 | January 19, 2013 6:19 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Lily:
    But wouldn’t you have to be flying too???
    What if Superman got ahold of one and went crazy?
    //

    Darn! Indeed…you never know!!!!! ;)


  146. heysoos
    147 | January 19, 2013 6:21 pm

    @ lobo91:
    got it, just chasing down info…the guy I met at the range burned a name into the buttstock….named it Johnny Wad…I was just standing near him not paying attention with my earphones off when he lit that thing up…I swear I nearly fell over, sounded like a grenade going off…not that I actually know what that sounds like, but it was so loud…then he’d fuss and clean and load and redial…fifteen minutes later he do it again…pretty cool, I’d never seen anything like it


  147. Lily
    148 | January 19, 2013 6:22 pm

    AZfederalist wrote:

    @ Lily:
    No kidding..much smaller than I would have thought. I was furious..but apparently a lot of people could care less.
    Hard to care when you don’t know about it. The White House transcriptionists, i.e. the MSM, failed to report the incident, thus the average citizen had no idea this was going on, or if they did, were not informed fully of this horrific incident.

    True. But I even came across people who did know and didn’t care or said “no one could know what really happened!” They twisted themselves to defend obama over it. It was disgusting. But really what is even worse is the media ignored it…like nothing really happened like you said.


  148. heysoos
    149 | January 19, 2013 6:24 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    I’ve seen a Barrett here at City Range in ABQ (outdoors)…they have a small, but very practical niche and are unbelievably destructive
    I got to fire one when visiting a friend at Ft. Bragg. They are REALLY heavy and altho the recoil isn’t bad and I had ear protection, I wished I’d had a helmet — the concussive force around my head was considerable. Energy has to go somewhere.
    So, not what I would consider a fun weapon.

    they are for big dog shooters, testing themselves


  149. lobo91
    150 | January 19, 2013 6:25 pm

    @ Lily:

    True. But I even came across people who did know and didn’t care or said “no one could know what really happened!” They twisted themselves to defend obama over it. It was disgusting. But really what is even worse is the media ignored it…like nothing really happened like you said.

    I wonder how many of them are convinced that 9/11 was Bush’s fault, though?


  150. RIX
    151 | January 19, 2013 6:25 pm

    AZfederalist wrote:

    RIX wrote:

    @ Lily:
    A gun law that I can get behind is prohibiting Obama & Holder from
    running guns to Mexican drug cartels.

    My thought was, “there are already laws preventing that”. But then I realized that this bunch is the kind that need an engraved invitation. I.e, they have to have the law specifically apply to them, otherwise they have the attitude, “oh, you mean I can’t do that? I thought that just applied to other people.”

    They’re actually lawless, in a literal sense.


  151. Lily
    152 | January 19, 2013 6:30 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Lily:
    True. But I even came across people who did know and didn’t care or said “no one could know what really happened!” They twisted themselves to defend obama over it. It was disgusting. But really what is even worse is the media ignored it…like nothing really happened like you said.
    I wonder how many of them are convinced that 9/11 was Bush’s fault, though?

    These type of people? Not Bush’s fault…those are normally in their 20′s when that was the fad…these mental midgets actually thought we deserved it because we meddled too much in the middle east. Okay let’s forget the real reason why they did it and let’s put what we think in there. Facts…who needs stinking facts! Oh yeah I hate to say I know this. :(


  152. heysoos
    153 | January 19, 2013 6:32 pm

    @ RIX:
    @ RIX:
    it’s only fair that hearings into F/F, Benghazi and the like should be televised in real time, just like much of the Watergate hearings…people need access to what’s going on here…why the GOP sits on it’s ass is beyond me, but when by brother and sister Americans die serving the govt, I feel I’m entitled to know wtf went down…my own govt has made me their enemy


  153. eaglesoars
    154 | January 19, 2013 6:35 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    my own govt has made me their enemy

    That’s intentional.


  154. heysoos
    155 | January 19, 2013 6:38 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    my own govt has made me their enemy
    That’s intentional.

    of course….they push and push until someone blows, the call him terrorist…create a problem, assay the public reaction, then custom make a solution in your favor…presto! you’ve just advanced your nefarious ideology


  155. RIX
    156 | January 19, 2013 6:40 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ RIX:
    @ RIX:
    it’s only fair that hearings into F/F, Benghazi and the like should be televised in real time, just like much of the Watergate hearings…people need access to what’s going on here…why the GOP sits on it’s ass is beyond me, but when by brother and sister Americans die serving the govt, I feel I’m entitled to know wtf went down…my own govt has made me their enemy

    There is a Freedom of Information request right now for the F&F documents.
    Holder is in court to get a stay, which would seal them indefinitely.
    Something to hide/? Why yes.


  156. heysoos
    157 | January 19, 2013 6:43 pm

    @ RIX:
    he’s gonna get himself or others killed…I consider the USAG to be a criminal…and he answers to the President, so follow the dots…I hate the feds


  157. coldwarrior
    158 | January 19, 2013 6:45 pm

    thanks for the replies!

    :lol:


  158. RIX
    159 | January 19, 2013 6:46 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ RIX:
    he’s gonna get himself or others killed…I consider the USAG to be a criminal…and he answers to the President, so follow the dots…I hate the feds

    I consider Holder & criminal & a racist.


  159. AZfederalist
    160 | January 19, 2013 6:47 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Mike C.:

    He wasn’t president in 1994…

    Looks like it wasn’t Reagan who was old and stupid in that comment, eh?


  160. RIX
    161 | January 19, 2013 6:50 pm

    Later folks.


  161. Alberta Oil Peon
    162 | January 19, 2013 6:55 pm

    @ yenta-fada:
    You know, if you freeze-dried ‘em first, you could pack quite a few into the nose cone of a Saturn V. It might be doable….


  162. AZfederalist
    163 | January 19, 2013 7:00 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    got it, just chasing down info…the guy I met at the range burned a name into the buttstock….named it Johnny Wad…I was just standing near him not paying attention with my earphones off when he lit that thing up…I swear I nearly fell over, sounded like a grenade going off…not that I actually know what that sounds like, but it was so loud…then he’d fuss and clean and load and redial…fifteen minutes later he do it again…pretty cool, I’d never seen anything like it

    Well, at $4.50 to $6.50 per round, one shot every 15 minutes would be about right. That would be awesome for shooting prairie dogs at 400+ yards, a bit expensive, but fun.


  163. 164 | January 19, 2013 7:03 pm

    Alberta Oil Peon wrote:

    @ yenta-fada:
    You know, if you freeze-dried ‘em first, you could pack quite a few into the nose cone of a Saturn V. It might be doable….

    Doesn’t Space do that anyway?


  164. unclassifiable
    165 | January 19, 2013 7:06 pm

    Incrementalism is the way people are convinced to eat their own shit.

    -- unclassifiable Jan. 2013


  165. coldwarrior
    166 | January 19, 2013 7:09 pm

    The media regularly twists gun numbers to make gun-related deaths appear predominant over every other type of death in this country. However, a rational examination of how small the percentage of gun-related deaths are when compared to the overall number of deaths in any given year helps one to see through the hype.

    For example, in 2011, the total number of gun-related deaths was 8,583.

    Taken by itself, out of context, that number seems overwhelming. But taken in the context of overall deaths in America from--including natural causes--that number represents only .34 percent of all deaths for that year.

    In other words, the percentage of deaths that were gun-related in 2011 does not even equal half of one percent of the 2,513,171 overall deaths for that year.

    And if you really want to see how exaggerated the current anti-”assault rifle” rhetoric is, just look at 2011 numbers for the percentage of rifle-related deaths.

    That figure is .012 percent of the overall deaths in America in 2011.

    Meanwhile, the percentage of overall deaths that were the result of falling off things like rocks and ladders was 1 percent, or nearly three times the percentage of deaths that were gun-related: 26,631 versus 8,583.

    Gun-related deaths represented only .34 percent of all deaths in America 2011. If the left wants us to feel safer, maybe they need to start banning ladders instead of guns.


  166. coldwarrior
    167 | January 19, 2013 7:10 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    Incrementalism is the way people are convinced to eat their own shit.
    -- unclassifiable Jan. 2013

    frog in a pot.


  167. song_and_dance_man
    168 | January 19, 2013 7:14 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    unclassifiable wrote:
    Incrementalism is the way people are convinced to eat their own shit.
    -- unclassifiable Jan. 2013

    frog in a pot.

    All the stupid people on the other side of the TOTUS


  168. coldwarrior
    169 | January 19, 2013 7:16 pm

    new thread.


  169. eaglesoars
    170 | January 19, 2013 7:17 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    new thread.

    Ah nice timing. I was just going to leave to get some reading done. Are you going to let us know your response to the facebook post?


  170. coldwarrior
    171 | January 19, 2013 7:19 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    i may have it compiled by tomorrow night.


  171. AZfederalist
    172 | January 19, 2013 7:40 pm

    One last bit of nonsense to address:

    We don’t ban cars that are used in DUI related deaths, but we do enact regulations regarding blood alcohol limits, prosecute people who enable a drunk driver to operate a vehicle after serving them, promote a DUI campaign raising awareness and educating drivers on the dangers of driving while intoxicated. All of which has reduced DUI related fatalities by over 40% in a decade

    This whole paragraph is nothing but a whole committee of strawmen. Reading this paragraph, you would be led to believe that mayhem committed by firearm has no penalties. The fact is, that just like DUI, there are already penalties for using a firearm to commit a crime. It is already illegal to sell firearms to felons. What is this person trying to push, that if you sell a firearm and the person buying it commits a crime with it sometime in the future, you should be held liable even if you had no indication this could happen? A better analogy would be holding the person who sold the car to the drunk driver liable for DUI crime which is just plain asinine. As far as I know, there really is no need for a campaign to raise awareness that robbing banks, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon. And murder are bad and therefore illegal. Now, if this genius is promoting a campaign promoting gun safety and proper handling, that is something that might be useful. There is really no logic that is remotely relevant in the whole paragraph that this person posted.


  172. Da_Beerfreak
    173 | January 19, 2013 7:43 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    The media regularly twists gun numbers to make gun-related deaths appear predominant over every other type of death in this country. However, a rational examination of how small the percentage of gun-related deaths are when compared to the overall number of deaths in any given year helps one to see through the hype.

    For example, in 2011, the total number of gun-related deaths was 8,583.

    Taken by itself, out of context, that number seems overwhelming. But taken in the context of overall deaths in America from--including natural causes--that number represents only .34 percent of all deaths for that year.

    In other words, the percentage of deaths that were gun-related in 2011 does not even equal half of one percent of the 2,513,171 overall deaths for that year.

    And if you really want to see how exaggerated the current anti-”assault rifle” rhetoric is, just look at 2011 numbers for the percentage of rifle-related deaths.

    That figure is .012 percent of the overall deaths in America in 2011.

    Meanwhile, the percentage of overall deaths that were the result of falling off things like rocks and ladders was 1 percent, or nearly three times the percentage of deaths that were gun-related: 26,631 versus 8,583.

    Gun-related deaths represented only .34 percent of all deaths in America 2011. If the left wants us to feel safer, maybe they need to start banning ladders instead of guns.

    I like this one because everyone uses some form of modern transportation… :wink:

    In 2009, the most recent year for which data is available, 547 people lost their lives in aviation accidents, most of which involved general aviation aircraft. Accidents related to trains and railroad systems killed 695 people. Recreational boating claimed the lives of 736 participants. On our nation’s highways, we experienced 33,868 fatalities involving cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles.

    Something to think about while taking a walk. :grin:


  173. lobo91
    174 | January 19, 2013 7:59 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Two people were killed in one day last week by the NYC subway.


  174. lobo91
    175 | January 19, 2013 8:03 pm

    Obama Executive Order Triples Number Of Agencies Required To Track Guns…

    President Obama is tripling the number of Cabinet agencies with gun control law enforcement responsibilities in his new bid to track guns, adding six agencies to the three typically included–Justice, Homeland Security and Defense.

    Section 1.e of his executive order released Wednesday adds State, Treasury, Interior, Agriculture, Energy, and Veterans Affairs. It reads: “For purposes of this memorandum, ‘Federal law enforcement agencies’ means the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, the Interior, Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, and such other agencies and offices that regularly recover firearms in the course of their criminal investigations as the President may designate.”

    When did the Agriculture department become a “federal law enforcement agency”?


  175. Da_Beerfreak
    176 | January 19, 2013 8:07 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Two people were killed in one day last week by the NYC subway.

    It’s a small wonder that pushing people in front of subway trains doesn’t happen more often than it does.


  176. AZfederalist
    177 | January 19, 2013 8:08 pm

    @ lobo91:

    When did the Agriculture department become a “federal law enforcement agency”?

    When they started fining farmers for raising wheat to feed their own chickens.


  177. Da_Beerfreak
    178 | January 19, 2013 8:11 pm

    @ lobo91:

    What I would like to know is which clause in the Constitution authorizes federal law enforcement agencies in the first place?


  178. Da_Beerfreak
    179 | January 19, 2013 8:17 pm

    From what I have found The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was when the FedGov first started to poke their noses into private business and it’s been all downhill from there. :evil:


  179. 180 | January 19, 2013 8:25 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    And how many of those gun deaths were gang members? Or criminals shot by home or business owners?


  180. lobo91
    181 | January 19, 2013 8:28 pm

    mfhorn wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    And how many of those gun deaths were gang members? Or criminals shot by home or business owners?

    One thing that’s rarely discussed is the fact that 75% of people killed using guns are themselves convicted felons.


  181. Da_Beerfreak
    182 | January 19, 2013 8:30 pm

    mfhorn wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    And how many of those gun deaths were gang members? Or criminals shot by home or business owners?

    Don’t forget to add in the number of Gang-Bangers shot by the police; the anti-gun crowd does it all the time to inflate the number of “children” killed by guns.


  182. 183 | January 19, 2013 8:31 pm

    @ lobo91:
    Not important to the left, of course.


  183. lobo91
    184 | January 19, 2013 8:36 pm

    @ mfhorn:

    They also like to tout the fact that most people are killed by someone they know and interpret that as meaning that they’re friends or family members.

    Of course most people are killed by someone they know. If they don’t know the victim, what motive would they have? Truly random murders are extremely rare.


  184. Da_Beerfreak
    185 | January 19, 2013 8:41 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    mfhorn wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    And how many of those gun deaths were gang members? Or criminals shot by home or business owners?

    One thing that’s rarely discussed is the fact that 75% of people killed using guns are themselves convicted felons.

    I just saw somewhere on the web a Chicago newspaper account of last years 500+ murders saying that over 80% of the victims were convicted felons and less then ten were young children.


  185. lobo91
    186 | January 19, 2013 8:50 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    And 85% of them were black.

    But hey, we don’t want to mention any of those “inconvenient truths”…


  186. darkwords
    187 | January 19, 2013 9:36 pm

    @ 3 Lily: Giving up the right to drive and the right to eat sugar will also save as many or more lives.


  187. darkwords
    188 | January 19, 2013 9:38 pm

    @ 186 lobo91: Gang crime. The media likes to project it as a regular citizen with a gun and lack of common sense getting upset. crimes here in the paper never mention the obvious gang connection.


  188. 189 | January 19, 2013 11:26 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    i plan on sending some of the better responses his way.

    Here ya go!

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ mfhorn:
    They also like to tout the fact that most people are killed by someone they know and interpret that as meaning that they’re friends or family members.
    Of course most people are killed by someone they know. If they don’t know the victim, what motive would they have? Truly random murders are extremely rare.

    And when a random murder does happen, the motive is generally robbery (as when somebody sticks up a public place where there is money, alcohol, or drugs, such as a bank or a store, especially a liquor store or a pharmacy). But then, I’m a retail clerk, and I do worry about being robbed at work.


  189. 190 | January 19, 2013 11:31 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    mfhorn wrote:
    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    And how many of those gun deaths were gang members? Or criminals shot by home or business owners?
    One thing that’s rarely discussed is the fact that 75% of people killed using guns are themselves convicted felons.

    I just saw somewhere on the web a Chicago newspaper account of last years 500+ murders saying that over 80% of the victims were convicted felons and less then ten were young children.

    There’s a politically incorrect but eminently accurate phrase for violent crimes in which both the perp and the victim are “red ink on the ledger of life” — NO HUMANS INVOLVED. Example: gang members killing off rival gang members.

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    Two people were killed in one day last week by the NYC subway.

    It’s a small wonder that pushing people in front of subway trains doesn’t happen more often than it does.

    Ooooooops…


  190. 4_Sticks
    191 | January 21, 2013 11:47 am

    The victims of a crime don’t sit on the jury thats charged with deciding the guilt/innocence of the person(s) charged with perpetrating the crime against them. One reason for this is that they aren’t/can’t be ‘objective’ …

    Ronald Reagan was a shooting victim, witnessed a friend of his get shot and suffer very serious injuries. I would think that shooting victims will suffer from PTSD at some point also.

    I’ve read posts all over the net concerning Reagans ‘letter’ etc. If true, I don’t hold it against him nor do I think he could have an ‘objective’ opinion on the matter after being shot -- I think its all understandable under the circumstances.


  191. RIX
    192 | January 24, 2013 9:46 am

    I just saw somewhere on the web a Chicago newspaper account of last years 500+ murders saying that over 80% of the victims were convicted felons and less then ten were young children.
    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    A lot of areas in Chicago are like free fire zones.
    Street thugs (gangs) rule.
    Mayor Emanuel & the Police Chief don’t really deal with that.
    They are concerned with citizens having weapons for home
    protection etc.
    It’s silly & dishonest.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David