Right to What?

17Dec12
20" (A2 – Fixed Handle) Target Model Bullet Button

20″ (A2 – Fixed Handle) Target Model Bullet Button

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.

Where are the “well regulated militias” that need these weapons?

Advertisements


531 Responses to “Right to What?”

  1. 1 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    I don’t believe that you and I will see eye to eye on this one. The 2nd does not grant the right to bear arms. It is considered an inalienable right. ” a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred ” .

    Let me change a few words in the 2nd and see how it sounds:

    A well regulated Church, being necessary to the freedom of religion, the right of the people to keep and bear Bibles, shall not be infringed.

    Does that mean that I have to be a member of the Church to bear Bibles?
    Does it grant me the right to keep and bear Bibles or does it assume that it is an inalienable right?

    The other question that I have is why are the comma’s where they are and for what reason? Maybe we have an English Prof. that might take that question?

    I believe that if you read the Constitution in whole you will find a reference to inalienable rights.

    Now I’m going to ask you a real “loaded” question, that even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms is unable to answer. They, “BATF” , have a definition of every kind of firearm that has been made. The question is:

    Define “Assault Rifle” without giving make & model?

    The BATF can define every type of firearm without the use of make & model.

    You ask:
    Where are the “well regulated militias” that need these weapons?
    I would suggest that “need” is not in question when we are talking about rights?
    You do not “need” to vote and I believe that there is no Federal Right for anyone to vote?

  2. 2 jezebel282

    Ned,

    I certainly don’t agree that it is an “inalienable” right. We are not born bearing arms. We can certainly survive quite well without guns. We had done so for tens of thousands of years. Personally I have never owned (or borrowed or rented) a gun. Big surprise, huh? Yet here I am with all of my inalienable rights intact.

    “I believe that if you read the Constitution in whole you will find a reference to inalienable rights.”
    Actually, I won’t. It doesn’t say that anywhere in the Constitution. That would be the Declaration of Independence. But that wasn’t a, you know, law.
    However, it did say that “when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands”. I think that means that we should take action when events become intolerable. But the Declaration goes further; “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    So…if we are going to go with “inalienable” rights, shouldn’t we also go with “Safety and Happiness”? Which one is more important? Are we going with ignoring facts? Guns killed “more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined.” *

    “Let me change a few words in the 2nd and see how it sounds:”
    OK, that’s just silly.

    But it does seem that you are correct in one aspect. It is not likely that we will agree.

    *http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/

  3. 3 nedsmithy

    OK you got me on the misquote of rights in the Declaration & not the Constitution. But it is there? Are you saying that because it’s in the Declaration that it has no bearing or connection to the Constitution?

    As to you saying that changing a few words as “silly”, I think not!

    Answer the 2 questions:
    Do I have to be a member of the Militia to bear arms?
    Does the amendment “grant” the right or does it assume the right is inalienable?

    I believe the framers said that the Militia is “All able bodied men over the age of 18 years.”? I’ll research it more and get back to you.

    What about the comma’s?

    I failed to see your definition of an “Assault Rifle”?

    Can you show me in the Constitution where it gives you the right to vote?

    I believe the topic is “Right To What”? I think you want people to stay on topic so I’m staying with the “Rights” topic and not getting into a numbers game of who died, how, why, & by what means. That would be another topic and we can all drag out our versions of the numbers and play word games with them?

  4. 4 mikereynolds

    Since I was 18 I have been a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I was an NRA member and served in the military. I am totally comfortable handling weapons and enjoy shooting them. I do not own a weapon as I don’t feel the need to have one.

    The shooting in Newtown has given me pause. For the first time ever I have actually considered why we need the 2nd Amendment. Is the 2nd Amendment worth 20 dead 1st graders? That doesn’t mean I’m supporting its repeal at this point but it has me thinking.

    What is “gun control”? Our state has some pretty strict measures in place to “control” guns. Unfortunately those measures only apply to people who legally try to obtain guns. Bad guys don’t submit to background checks when they get their guns. Do you want more detailed background checks? Longer waiting periods? That wouldn’t have helped in Newtown since Nancy Lanza was a legal and licensed gun owner.

    Then there is talk about assault type weapons. We can’t really define them but know them when we see them. Most assault type weapons available in this country are semi-automatic. You squeeze the trigger and you get one round going downrange. Yes, someone who really knows what they are doing can convert them to fully automatic but that’s rare.

    Let’s look at Newtown. Adam Lanza had a Bushmaster AR-15, a Glock handgun and a Sig Sauer handgun. All are semi-automatic. In the close confines of a classroom its makes no difference what a shooter uses. Rifle or pistol they aren’t going to miss. The assault rifle in this case looks more menacing than a handgun but in a classroom it just doesn’t matter. Sure, using a handgun a shooter will have to reload more often than using an assault rifle because the rifle can use a 30 round magazine (or in rare cases even larger). A handgun, in most cases, will give you maybe 15 rounds. But the tragedy would still be the same.

    Some argue that there is no reason to have an assault rifle since you can’t use it legitimately for hunting. Agreed. No real hunter is going to use a Bushmaster AR-15 or similar weapon to hunt. There are legitimate hunting rilfes that look like an assault rifle but the big difference is that they only accept a 5 round magazine. So do we get rid of weapons that hold large capacity magazines? Or do we outlaw the manufacturing and sale of large capacity magazines? Again, outlawing the sale of said magazines and weapons only prevents legal gun owners from purchasing them. It will not stop the bad guys from getting them.

    So what’s the answer? I have no freaking clue. Gun control only prevents the legal sale of weapons. Bad guys don’t buy guns at Cabelas or Bass Pro Shops. There are 300 million guns in this country according to what I’ve read over the weekend. You can’t buy them all back and you can’t confiscate them as long as the 2nd Amendment is still on the books.

    All I know is we can’t have another tragedy like Newtown. The pictures of those kids haunt me.

  5. 5 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    During his first term as president, George Washington worked with Secretary of War Henry Knox to reorganize and strengthen the militia. They sent their plan to Congress, and after heated debate Congress, on May 9, 1792, passed what became known as the Uniform Militia Act (1 Stat. 264). This law, which remained the basic militia law until the twentieth century, stated that all free, able-bodied white men, age 18 to 45, were required to serve in their state militias and that they were obligated to supply themselves with the appropriate firearms and equipment. The law provided certain specifications for how militia units were to be organized, but Congress left many details to the states and declined to include sanctions for states or individuals who failed to comply with the law. As a result, the act had little legal weight and served mostly as a recommendation to the states.

  6. 6 nedsmithy

    Rex,

    You ask:
    “why we need the 2nd Amendment”
    The simple reply would be that it is what protects all the other rights.
    I’m sure you do not want a disarmed law abiding populous?

    Assault Weapons:
    ” We can’t really define them but know them when we see them”

    Why must one “see” to define the assault weapon when every other type of firearm is defined by the BATF?
    I can most likely give you a “Written” definition of any firearm. Why is it that for only the Assault Style I need to view it to define it.

    Simply put:
    Semi Automatic:A single round fired for a single depression of the trigger. Firearm will eject the fired round and feed an unfired round into the camber.

    As to the conversion to Automatic. I’m real good at my profession and I can attest to the fact that all current production AR-15, AK-47 etc. produced firearms are so close to impossible to convert that it would be a week long process to even come close. The kitchen table conversion is Bovine Scatology.

    “use it legitimately for hunting”
    There is no place in the Second Amendment that gives you the right to hunt.

    ” legitimate hunting rilfes” Really!
    “the big difference is that they only accept a 5 round magazine”
    ANY firearm that accepts a “detachable” magazine will accept any capacity magazine one can buy.

    ” Or do we outlaw the manufacturing and sale of large capacity magazines? ”
    I think our Politicians have already tried that one.

    Let me end with this:
    I’m getting involved here because I jealousy protect all my rights. When I see the storm clouds on the horizon signalling that someone may be coming to take one of my rights I get upset!

    There are free societies and there are safe societies, but the has never been a “Free Safe Society”. Freedom has it’s price!

    As for the people in the Newtown disaster, my heart goes out to them! I know that crushing feeling when you have to stand beside your Daughter and hold her so tight, as she buries her Mother after some sorry excuse for a human being breaks into her house and shoots her in the heart. How do you respond to that same Daughter when she tells you that if there was a God, her Mother would still be alive. Talk about irony? She was murdered 22 years ago Dec. 13th. Every Christmas my Daughter goes through the same grief I know these families are going to go through.

    Peace

  7. 7 nedsmithy

    Jez:

    I simply MUST reply to your statement:
    ” Personally I have never owned (or borrowed or rented) a gun. Big surprise, huh? Yet here I am with all of my inalienable rights intact.”

    From all of us that have served. There are way too many young men in Arlington and any number of other Cemeteries across this great Earth that have given their all so that you can make just such a statement. You may not have carried a gun BUT someone else did it for you!

  8. 8 rex525

    “Where are the “well regulated militias” that need these weapons?”

    I’d like to offer my deepest sympathies for the victims, their families and the community of Newtown; and all of the people nationwide effected by this egregious inhuman act in one way or another. Words can not convey the heartache that I feel.

    I had hoped people would have had the decency to let these 20 little angels and 7 adult victims be laid to rest before they sensationalized this issue for their own agendas. Watching the political vultures over the weekend I was sickened and disappointed, but sadly not surprised, however, I would have thought you’d have had more class Jezebel.

    While I am absolutely HEART SICK about this tragic act, I can’t help but think that if this tragedy was committed with a Chevy Avalanche in the school parking lot, we wouldn’t be sensationalizing ownership of SUV’s.

    Firearms like SUV’s are inanimate objects, like automobiles they need someone to operate them before ANY act can occur. The operator bares the sole responsibility for the act, not the inanimate object. However in this society no one any longer bares sole responsibility for their acts. That my dear Jezebel is the root of this…and most of America’s problems.

  9. 9 nedsmithy

    Rex,

    You are absolutely spot on! I would pray that this would not have become a political “Football” with people that have an agenda would out of respect wait until the poor souls have been laid to rest. It was pitiful to watch the politics being played in almost every politicians speech on the carnage done in Newtown. I would choose to remain silent BUT I will not stand by and watch someone use the moment of grief that all of us are feeling, to promote their political agenda! I have no agenda. Simply leave me and my rights alone!

  10. 10 jezebel282

    Rex,

    “I would have thought you’d have had more class Jezebel.”

    I’m not sure why it lacks class. I see no reason whatsoever to wait until the sorrow and outrage have become but a scarred memory. Should we just wait to discuss the sacred rights of gun enthusiasts until the next mass shooting? When is the right time to discuss the holiness of firearms? It certainly didn’t prevent Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) from coming out on Sunday with the idea that Dawn Hochsprung should have been armed. Really? Elementary school principals should carry firearms? That is a reasonable solution?

    Ned,

    “You may not have carried a gun BUT someone else did it for you!”
    Maybe that is your answer to the wording of the 2nd amendment? I would suggest that the United States military constitutes a “well regulated” militia. So would, say, a police department.

    We have already established that bearing arms is not an inalienable right. And the fact that it is an amendment to the Constitution does not make it holy. The Constitution has been amended 27 times in the last 225 years. Clearly it is not holy scripture.

    “As to you saying that changing a few words as “silly”, I think not!”
    Of course it is. How many people can you cite as being killed by having a bible thrown at them? Shooting a gun is not worshiping God.

    “I will not stand by and watch someone use the moment of grief that all of us are feeling, to promote their political agenda!”
    Perhaps you can take that up with the residents of Newtown?
    “Hours later about 55 people gathered for a meeting of Newtown United, a new grassroots group that hopes to find positive ways to respond to the tragedy. Like the rest of the country, they disagree on the appropriate response. Some discussed mental health or argued that the shooting shouldn’t be politicized, but mostly they focused on gun control. While they’re still far from reaching a consensus, a delegation from the group is headed to Washington on Tuesday to meet with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and people affected by the shooting in Aurora. “I would like, when you think of Sandy Hook, you think, ‘Oh, that’s where they banned assault weapons,” said Newtown resident John Neuhoff. “If we can ban fireworks, we should be able to ban assault weapons.”
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/newtown-forms-advocacy-group-heads-to-dc.html

    This is not a Republican/Democratic or Left/Right debate. It is a debate that requires reason. Yes, the 2nd Amendment is there. But at that time, the best rifle in the world could fire a single ball of lead with not much accuracy and with a great amount of preparation. Did the framers envision going into your mom’s closet and taking down a weapon that could literally fire hundreds of expanding rounds within 10 minutes?

    We will always have lunatics. They will strap explosives to themselves or figure out some other way to inflict suffering on innocent strangers. But do we have to make it so easy for them?

  11. 11 sudds

    If Ned is done regurgitating the NRA’s spin trying to avoid the initial question that Jez asked… I would like to paraphrase and ask it again…

    Where are the “well regulated militias” that [Adam Lanza’s mother is a member of requiring her to] need these weapons?

    added by Sudds: And how many children would be alive today if years ago we had stopped the b*llshit, and actually followed the ENTIRE sentence (not just the piece that suits your “I want gun” needs) that our forefathers CLEARLY wrote???????????????

  12. 12 jezebel282

    Sudds,

    I’d rather that this not devolve into name-calling. There are many things that can be done. For example, 50 sets of gun laws are probably not the most effective method. The notion that “they” are coming for us has to be trashed. The idea that the hand gun you bought 5 years ago and put in the closet is not really going to keep you safe from the bogeyman. Chances are that when your home is burgled that you won’t be there and it will be the gun they take first.

    And then there are the drive-by shootings, the resolution of any argument with a handgun and the “status” it brings. Actual and real incarceration for the use of firearms in crimes may be a factor instead of pleading it away first.

    There are 300 million guns out there already. We need to focus. Why are there so many? Do we need that many? You have to start somewhere or we will be back here in 6 months talking about the next mindless massacre.

    There are many things to be done.

  13. 13 nedsmithy

    To all concerned:

    I gave this considerable thought today as I sat at my work bench and must voice a regret. I regret that I was unable to take the high ground, as Rex has suggested, and was lured in by the “Right To What” topic. I agree that now is not the time to be debating the “Gun Ban Issue”. There will be plenty of time for that in the near future.

    May God give peace and solace to the victims and their Families of this terrible life changing event. They will never forget this, being this close to Christmas, they will be reminded each & every Christmas to come. Tragic!

  14. 14 cpcalta

    I have to jump in here for two reasons. My high school friend and classmate lost his six-year old daughter in this attack, and another friend was one of the first EMTs on scene who was unable to save one of those children. So yeah, the emotions are a bit raw. But that doesn’t change the fact that the “intent” of the second amendment appears to have become so twisted by the gun lobby that all common sense has gone out the window.

    As Jezebel points out, there is a phrase that many conveniently ignore in the language of the second amendment. Those words “well-regulated” make all the difference. But ignorance is no longer an excuse. It is time that we actually adhere to the words in the second amendment and regulate. I’m not talking about taking away every gun from every individual. I’m talking about common sense regulation. You know regulation that adheres to the “well-regulated” intent of the founding fathers.

    Also, to all those who say teachers and principals should be carrying weapons, I will simply say that is ludicrous. Let’s carry that line of misguided thought to its logical conclusion. Certainly these individuals do not want loaded weapons left exposed to children as young as five, so these weapons would need to be secured. Should this ever happen again (pray that it doesn’t), are these people saying that these educators (NOT first responders, but educators) should take the time to retrieve that weapon instead of taking heroic steps like the ones we are hearing about to make every attempt to move those children to safety? And when did we expect educators to also be law enforcement? I’m sure many of these same people have previously derided teachers as overpaid union slackers, so I’m not inclined to listen to their empty praise at the moment.

    Are guns the only problem? No. But more guns are not the answer. If that assault rifle was not available for sale, it never would have been purchased by his mother and likely never fallen into his murderous hands. And there is just no logical argument for citizens to be able to purchase these kinds of weapons.

    I for one have had enough. Bring it on NRA. You want to “push back”? Go right ahead. But there are 4 million NRA members and 312 million citizens. I for one am done being lectured to about how “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” No. People with guns kill people. And as we have seen, People with access to an arsenal kill many more people.

    Sorry for the rant. I haven’t had much sleep and I plan on being in CT tomorrow for the funeral of my friend’s daughter. I’m sickened right now and trying to maintain some perspective.

  15. 15 jezebel282

    CP and Ned,

    Thank you both for posting.

    There really are no words of solace or good deeds that would be sufficient to lessen the grief of the victim’s families. However, we do owe it to all children to let them know that we are at least trying to find solutions. It begins by talking. If we can’t agree on something we will accomplish nothing and we are simply waiting for the next three year old to be shot in a playground by a stray bullet.

    We can all do this.

  16. 16 jezebel282

    There are 300 million guns already “out there”. Any law Congress passes will have no effect on those guns. 300 million are a lot. Those weapons will be there for generations. Nonetheless, we should do something creative. A reasonable step might be requiring existing holders of permits to demonstrate that they have also purchased a specified trigger lock for weapons in their possession. In addition every new purchase of a gun should require the purchase of a trigger lock. At a minimum, it would reduce the number of usable lost or stolen firearms. It might also prevent the unauthorized use of firearms. It also must be a federal law to ensure consistency. The theory is that if you buy it, you’ll use it….maybe.

    Perhaps someone can post a reason that hollow point bullets are legal?

    Mental health issues are a distraction. There has never been a reliable indicator of who might suddenly seize a firearm and create mayhem and carnage. There is no evidence that any such reliable indicator is possible. Likewise, there is no way to predict who might obtain that cheap handgun and decide to gun down a competitor or rival in the middle of a crowded street or playground.

    And then there are the gun shows where everything seems incredibly available to anyone.

    We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make cigarette smokers essentially pariahs in our society. We can walk into a restaurant with a gun but not a cigarette. Maybe that’s a place to start?

  17. “A reasonable step might be requiring existing holders of permits to demonstrate that they have also purchased a specified trigger lock for weapons in their possession. In addition every new purchase of a gun should require the purchase of a trigger lock.”

    CURRENT CT STATE LAW

    “Perhaps someone can post a reason that hollow point bullets are legal?”

    TO PREVENT OVER PENETRATION OF TARGETS

    “We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make cigarette smokers essentially pariahs in our society. We can walk into a restaurant with a gun but not a cigarette. Maybe that’s a place to start?”

    I’M SURE THAT PSYCOPATHS AND CRIMINALS WOULD NEVER VIOLATE GUN FREE RESTURANT ZONES, THAT CONCEPT WORKED SO WELL IN OTHER VENUES IN THE PAST.

    Sometimes it’s better to remain silent on a subject and thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.

  18. 18 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    “CURRENT CT STATE LAW”
    Excellent.

    “TO PREVENT OVER PENETRATION OF TARGETS”
    As opposed to destroying as much tissue and vitals organs as possible?

    “WOULD NEVER VIOLATE GUN FREE RESTURANT ZONES, ”
    Not my point. As opposed to 30 years ago, cigarette smoking is frowned upon by society. It’s a cultural change.

    Awaiting your suggestions….

  19. 19 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    I am hoping you do not reply with arming our elementary school principals Ms. Armistead, Guerini, DiDomenico, DiIorio, Murphy, Bradford, Mr. Noga or Dr. Paul. Or at least not arming them until gun proficiency is a required course for a degree in elementary or secondary education.

  20. 20 cpcalta

    There are 300 million guns in this country, and the answer for some is to flood our society with MORE guns? Honestly, I can’t comprehend this logic,especially when many of these same people (not all) likely argue against gay marriage and freedom of choice (NOT pro-abortion, yes there is a difference). Many in this country have a sick obsession with guns. People derided President Obama when he talked about people clinging to their guns and religion, but look who is speaking out right now in favor or arming teachers. (http://www.npr.org/2012/12/19/167649305/southern-baptist-leader-gun-free-zones-are-a-fantasy)

    Reverend Richard Land: “Well, I would have no problem with teachers who underwent safety instruction and requisite gun instruction, having guns, just like I have no problem with pilots having guns in the cockpits of airplanes as a last defense against hijacking. Law-abiding citizens who are armed are the best last ditch defense against the kind of horror that we’ve just experienced. If there had been teachers who had been trained and knew how to use their weapons, they could have saved a great many lives.”

    Here is a religious leader calling for teachers, people who choose their profession to work with children, not weapons. This is beyond appalling. We have people advocating, ADVOCATING, carrying weapons into an environment that holds the most precious gift we are given. Disgusting! What the hell is wrong with people.

    A gun has only one purpose, to discharge an instrument of destruction that leads to injury and death. This is no longer an abstract concept for me. I drove in a procession to the cemetery yesterday, behind the casket of a beautiful 6 year old little girl, and looked to my left to see another funeral service at another church in town. This type of tragedy simply cannot occur again. And to suggest that the answer to this type of horror and tragedy is to add MORE guns to the equation is unconscionable.

    By the way, had assault weapons and high capacity magazines not been allowed for sale to the general public, that man would never have had the weapon to use. So yes, I hold those people who think this is acceptable responsible (in some part) for those deaths, and all the deaths caused by these types of weapons.

  21. 21 cpcalta

    Should have written:

    Here is a religious leader calling for teachers, people who choose their profession to work with children, not weapons, to carry a loaded weapon into a classroom.

  22. 22 jezebel282

    CP,

    As I said to “Disgusted”, I am awaiting your suggestions…..

  23. 23 cpcalta

    Suggestions? Let’s start with eliminating gun show loopholes and restricting high capacity magazines. Bring back the assault weapons ban, and this time put some teeth in it and add more weapons to the list.

    Let’s also talk about mental illness and a society obsessed with guns. When you have a culture that promotes violence, be it real or scripted for mass consumption, there is a problem. When you have people who talk about using these weapons for “sport,” (http://www.journaltribune.com/articles/2012/12/19/columnist/doc50d1e03ee432d990562413.txt) perhaps people need to find a new “sport.”

    From the article: “Robert Crook, executive director of the Coalition for Connecticut Sportsmen, explains it for idiots like me this way: “The term ‘assault weapon,’ as used by the media, is a media invention” and “these are semi-automatic firearms that have military cosmetic characteristics. They look like our military firearms, but they’re not.”

    Seriously, the ED of the Coalition for Connecticut “Sportsmen” is blaming the media for the description of the weapon, as if that is the problem. If your perferred “sport” involves a weapon whose sole purpose is to inflict mass casualties, then the mental health issue is more dire that I ever imagined.

    And we need the 300 million people who aren’t members of the NRA to engage and demand our government not only enforce existing laws but provide the resources to deal with the issues.

    Are those good suggestions for a start? Instead of us sitting on here typing back and forth, it is time to take some action. My wife and I have already started, and we plan to engage as many others as we can. This is the moment to stand up. To refuse to be cowed into silence by vocal minority that uses money to get their way. If we learned nothing from the election, it is that money doesn’t always make the difference.

  24. 24 jezebel282

    CP,

    “we plan to engage as many others as we can”

    You are. there are approximately 200+ views every day here. Sometimes a lot more.

  25. 25 cpcalta

    One other suggestion. Rather than arming teachers (a stupid, stupid idea), how about we hire a law enforcement professional for each school who is trained specifically for work in an educational institution? There are many veterans who have significant experience training forces in other countries and working in the area of civilian protection. Obviously a high degree of vetting and ongoing evaluation would be required, but this would be a job that would be well-suited for veterans and then rather than having guns in the classrooms we could have appropriate weapons secured but a dedicated law enforcement professional on-site who not only knows how to use them but is properly trained on his/her role. God forbid this kind of tragedy ever occur again, it would be this individual’s primary responsibility to confront the attacker, and teachers could focus on getting their students to safety instead of loading a weapon.

    By the way, is it just me or is it insane that we have armed guards to protect money (banks, armored cars, etc.), but no plans for on-site protection for children in schools?

  26. “Rather than arming teachers (a stupid, stupid idea), how about we hire a law enforcement professional for each school who is trained specifically for work in an educational institution? …By the way, is it just me or is it insane that we have armed guards to protect money (banks, armored cars, etc.), but no plans for on-site protection for children in schools?”

    AGREED!

  27. 27 cpcalta

    I recently came across this “Yahoo Contributer Network” commentary written in 2011. If we as a society can’t find something wrong with this gun worship mentality, then we as a society are really heading to a dark, dark place.

    “After several disappointing quarters, Walmart announced plans to increase gun sales at many of their stores. Since Walmart is an affordable place to shop, I thought I’d give them a try for my recent firearms purchase. I drooled at the guncases of several North Florida Walmarts before making my purchase.” (http://voices.yahoo.com/buying-gun-walmart-8477529.html?cat=46)

    “I drooled at the guncases. . .” That says it all, doesn’t it?

  28. “I drooled at the guncases. . .” That says it all, doesn’t it?”

    YEP, IT SURE DOES. NOT ONLY SHOULD WE BAN GUNS, I THINK WE NEED TO BAN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION NEXT TO PROTECT OUR SENSIBILITIES FROM IDIOTS.

  29. 29 stfdprofessor1

    “I drooled at the guncases. . .” That says it all, doesn’t it?”

    …here’s what you left out CP:

    “By and large, the guns of Walmart are basic, reliable, shotguns and rifles that meet the needs of hunters and target shooters. Walmart does not sell handguns…The Walmart sports department customer service representative took the rifle out of the case so that I could look it over…A trigger lock kept the firearm secure for the entire time that I reviewed it for blemishes and damage. The next step was to provide my identification and fill out federal background check paperwork. It’s a fairly long and arcane form that is completed by the buyer and the gunshop. Basically, the form provides the information required to perform the “instant background check” and ensures that the buyer attests to not being a felon, a mental patient, or under a restraining order for domestic violence…When the customer has completed the form, the clerk can print out the form and call the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to get the background check and approval…Once a purchase is approved, a Walmart manager approves the sale, the purchase is rung up, and the firearm is boxed up and taped shut. Along the way, the cash register prompts the sales clerk with a couple of redundant questions to ensure that the buyer is an adult. Once my transaction was complete, the manager walked me directly out of the store carrying the firearm for me.”
    http://voices.yahoo.com/buying-gun-walmart-8477529.html?cat=46

    Im not a big fan for everyone having guns but when both sides of an issue begin to exploit an incident truth is an early casualty, usually via “half truths”. I’m sorry for your loss, this incident was a horrible tragedy and loss for all of us, but if this redneck was drooling over a showroom full of pickup trucks would that “say it all”?

  30. 30 jezebel282

    Update:

    The NRA’s “Meaningful” contribution: an armed guard in every school.

    How many school buildings are there in the U.S.? 100,000? 200,000? More? What do we arm the guards with? Their own assault rifles? Uzi’s? Will the NRA pay their salaries and benefits?

    Is any NRA member proud of this “meaningful” contribution?

  31. 31 cpcalta

    Disgusted and professor,

    Apparently neither of you don’t have the comprehension skills to understand my point. If we have a population that worships guns, that yearns to hold, caress, and imagine themsevles as Rambo warriors while playing out their fantasies playing video games depicting graphic destruction or spending hours shooting weapons that have no civilian use at ranges, this society is more hopelessly lost than I could have imagined. Those religious leaders who posture in public screaming about the immorality of gay marriage have no trouble advocating putting weapons in the hands of every individual so “a good guy with a gun” can kill the “bad guy.” Many in our society glorify guns as if they are some sort of panacea to the evil that lurks around every corner. It is simply disgusting. You don’t end bloodshed and heatbreak and loss by advocating for more of the tools that create those things.

    Now to Disgusted, you can type in caps all you like and it won’t change the fact that you really don’t have a clue about moral equivalencies. The case could easily be made that there are more restrictions related to the first amendment then the second amendment. And regardless of how you interpret both the individual words or the entire phrase “well-regulated militia” (the founders had differing opinions on the meaning), the fact is that no right, at least not those enumerated in the US Constitution, is absolute. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, “All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law.”

    Also, if you read my previous posts, I never said we should ban all guns or that people don’t have a right to own them. So your overwrought and unsupported ridiculous statement misses the point completely. As I said above, it is not the words this person used, it is very much about a state of mind that individuals would express such lust for an instrument whose only purpose is to inflict pain, injury and death. This attitude is exacerbated by organizations like the NRA that put these weapons up on a pedestal as if weapons are more important than individuals. Corporations are are not people, contrary to a failed Presidential nominee’s declaration, and guns are not more important than individuals.

    Professor, this was not my loss. I looked across a tiny casket at a family who suffered that loss, and until you do that, and you realize the horrendous impact this gun-crazed culture has had on individuals and families, you can’t really put it into perspective. There was no “truth” lost after a tragedy such as this. It was so much more than an “incident,” and your use of the term is insulting to the memory of those children and the educators that lost their lives. Even tragedy doesn’t do justice, but what description is adequate? The truth is there for every family that lost a loved one, for every first responder who desperately wanted to help, only to find they were helpless in the face of such carnage. Please enlighten us, exactly what “truth” was a casualty? The truth that access to a weapon like this was responsible for this horrible loss of life? I honestly don’t know what “truth” you’re referring to. I do have to wonder about the thought given to describing the truth as a casualty when 26 lives were lost.

  32. 32 cpcalta

    LaPierre is a complete coward. He has the audacity to stand at that podium and blame everyone and everything else, and he doesn’t even have the courage to take questions. Every one of those educators and children had more courage than this piece of garbage.

  33. 33 ronmoreau

    The truth is that there was no one there with the proper tools and guts to stop this “piece of garbage”.

  34. 34 jezebel282

    The truth is that his mother had an assault rifle, 2 semi-automatic hand guns and two other rifles that she gave him access to. That is the truth.

  35. 35 ronmoreau

    Part of owning a firearm is the responsibility of securing them. Had she not paid the ultimate price for not doing so, she most likely would have been arrested and held accountable for this carnage.

  36. 36 jezebel282

    And how many of the 300 million guns are secured properly?
    Or is the answer, “Oh well.”?

    One thing is for sure, the solution is not “more guns!”

  37. 37 cpcalta

    Ron, you might want to check your information about whether those guns were secured.

    “Nancy Lanza kept her guns in what appeared to be a secure case in another part of the basement, Ford said.” (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=167829276)

    Now police may discover that they weren’t secured on that day, or perhaps they were.This was a 20 year-old man. You don’t think he was smart enough to find a way into a secured case or locked door?

    It is amazing how many people don’t understand the difference between correlation and causality. More guns are not the cause for less crime. Just because there is a correlation doesn’t mean there is causality.

    You know what would have stopped this individual from causing this carnage? Not having those types of weapons available for purchase in the first place.

  38. 38 jezebel282

    CP,

    It remains that in the U.S. there are already 88.8 guns for every 100 people. (Not so) Shockingly, the U.S. has the highest firearms murder rate in the world as well. With only 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. accounts for 50% of civilian gun ownership.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

    Clearly, more guns doesn’t seem to be the solution.

    Somehow we need to lower the testosterone level of our culture. It will be the same struggle that we have with drunk drivers or texting while driving except it must be more effective and on a much more massive scale.

    An amazing statistic I heard today that in the week since the horror, 30 people per day have been killed by guns in the U.S. That’s 210 people. Equivalent to a commercial jet crashing and killing all on board every week.

  39. 39 cpcalta

    Agreed Jezebel. The idea of all these Chuck Norris wannabes who believe that in a crisis they will be everyone’s hero and vanquish the bad guy is really disconcerting. I’m not willing to sit idly by letting people like LaPierre force us down a dark path all the while trying to convince us that the only answer to all the death and destruction is to introduce more weapons into the equation. As I said earlier, the carnage is no longer an abstract concept or something to shake my head at as a news anchor reports the latest massacre. As you probably heard a ninth grader was arrested, along with his parents, for threats made against others here in PA. In fact, this was less than an hour away. (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20121221_Bucks_high_school_closed_after_student_makes_threats.html)

    How many more lives need to be lost before we do something? Of course it’s not just about the guns themselves. But they are part of the problem. And you don’t improve the situation if you don’t deal with the weapons themselves. LaPierre blamed everyone and everything except the instruments that, along with the individual, cause the destruction. It was pathetic pandering and he didn’t even have the courage to take questions. He’s trying to control the narrative, and I and others have had enough.

  40. 40 stfdprofessor1

    “Apparently neither of you don’t have the comprehension skills to understand my point.”

    Spoken like a true elitist snob, oh please enlighten us learned one. I am sure you are the only one with the intellect, compassion, experience or empathy to show us the way. We humbly await your further pontification.

  41. 41 jezebel282

    Actually, it is sort of a relief that the NRA didn’t call for arming all elementary/secondary school children as well. After all, if a 6 year old with a Glock had been there….

    The NRA forgot to mention arming members of the clergy to protect churches, synagogues and temples. They seem to be favorite targets as well. Nuns with guns?

    Clearly the only message the NRA has is “more gun sales”.

    The fact on the ground is that gun sales have increased since the horror. The exact opposite should be the fact.

    I am worried that we have lost the ability to reason with each other. It seems that the essence of American debate has become to take an even more extreme position when confronted with an opposing idea.

  42. 42 cpcalta

    Professor,

    Both you and Disgusted ignored the entire first part of my post related to the Yahoo article. Here it is again:

    “If we as a society can’t find something wrong with this gun worship mentality, then we as a society are really heading to a dark, dark place.”

    I was speaking specifically about a culture that places more value on an inanimate object than on a human life. A society that believes it is okay for any citizen to own any weapon, no matter how destructive, because they have interpreted some sort of inalienable right to weapons in our Constitution. Don’t you think they might have used those words, or at least something similar, if that was their “intent”? A society where some believe that everything and everyone else (the media, Hollywood, video games, music videos, and on and on) are to blame, but want to completely absolve the weapons that caused the carnage. Are these things a part of the equation? Without a doubt. But the guns are PART of the problem, and ignoring the availability of weapons is burying one’s head in the sand.

    Whether hyperbole or sincere sentiment, the fascination of many in our country with these types of weapons is nothing short of frightening. That was my point. Not that all guns should be taken away (as Disgusted cynically implied) or that Wal-mart was failing to do what was required. Don’t get me wrong, my family is never stepping foot inside that retailer again, but current law is what it is, and that is another part of the problem. Note that I actually posted the link to the article, I didn’t try to conceal anything. I was responding specifically to the mentality that worships weapons. The laws are another issue to be discussed.

    So you can call me all the names you like, I really don’t care. You implied I was being deliberately by “leaving out” the background check information, when my post was not about that. If you want to have a discussion about that issue I’m happy to engage. But at the very least I would ask that you respond to the aspect of the discussion raised, instead of implying I am somehow intellectually dishonest because I “left out” something that was irrelevant to the point.

  43. 43 cpcalta

    Jezebel, once again I couldn’t agree more. There is an irrational fear perpetuated by a small but vocal cadre of conspiracists who believe our leaders are out to take away all our rights and enslave us. Last time I checked, our elections continue to proceed on schedule and despite the political gamesmanship of both parties our the mechanisms of our government continue to function largely the way the founders intended. I know the debate is often dysfunctional, but I’m hard pressed to find anyone rational person who believes dark forces are at work trying to institute Sharia law and turn the US into a military or religious dictatorship.

    And as for the increase in gun sales, it is truly depressing that this is where some people end up in their thinking. Stockpiling an arsenal in their basement instead of reflecting on how we engage with one another, how we provide treatment for the mentally ill, how we respond to entertainment offerings that do appear increasingly violent and pervasive, and yes, how we deal with an obsession with instruments of destruction. No one element in and of itself is solely responsible, but if we don’t address every aspect of the problem, the situation will never improve.

  44. 44 cpcalta

    “You implied I was being deliberately by “leaving out” the background check information, when my post was not about that.”

    Should have been:

    You implied I was being deliberately deceitful by “leaving out” the background check information, when my post was not about that.

  45. 45 stfdprofessor1

    Wow you are really starting to scare me CP. The way I see it clowns like Wayne LaPierre and these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=greuYvcMLDk&feature=youtu.be
    are on one side of the coin, clowns like you and the Brady bunch are on the other side of the coin, and most of the rest of America is far inbetween wondering what planets you both are from. Now you had your little moment in the sun so why dont you move your pontification back to your native Pennsylvania and allow us citizens of Connecticut to mourn our loss in peace?

  46. 46 jezebel282

    Gentlemen, please. This does not move the discussion forward.

    On the one side you have extremists like Wayne LaPierre and on the other you have…wait a minute…ummm…errr…who is on the other side?

    Come to think of it, I can’t identify anyone who is proposing anything regarding strict gun control. What are we debating here anyway?

  47. 47 cpcalta

    Professor, I’m not going to stoop to your level, and I’m not going to stop posting my comments. If your last post is any indication, you have completely missed the point of my posts, this entire thread, and the larger debate. So unless you can offer something constructive or at least refrain from the name calling, I’ll continue to make my comments and you can do whatever it is you’re doing here.

    Jezebel, back to your call for suggestions, specifically related to gun control. How about we consider a state run agency (directed by federal law) to license and inspect the guns on a consistent basis? We do this with automobiles and pets. Many states require yearly inspections for automobiles and we have to register them yearly as well and provide proof of insurance. Many municipalities require dogs to be licensed and have documentation showing proof of vaccination. So let’s have yearly, or every other year, licensing and inspection of all weapons. The guns would need to be registered just like we do automobiles. A law enforcement professional would be responsible for the inspection. The owner would have to provide proof of proper safety and handling, including gun locks or any other safety measures. The owner would pay a yearly, or every other year, fee for each weapon. We could also add a buy back program so that buy back is something happening consistently.

    If states can require people, cars, boats, and other personal property to be registered, licensed and inspected, then it seems we would have ample precedent to pass legislation requiring the same for guns. After all, the Supreme Court has already said voter ID laws are constitutional, and that requires people to be registered in order to access their constitutional right to vote.

  48. 48 nedsmithy

    I believe your heading on this blog is “Right to What” ? So am I to assume that we are supposed to be talking about “Rights”?

  49. 49 jezebel282

    Ned,

    Yes. Thank you, Ned. That would be a good starting point.

  50. 50 nedsmithy

    I’m under no illusion that anyone’s position is going to change. My hope is that maybe there can be a better understanding of what is law and what is self opinion. Law is fairly clear on it’s face and usually doesn’t require an interpretation by any “Agency or Judge”. They are here to enforce the law and not interpret the law.

    I can understand some people do not agree with the 2nd Amendment. If they do not agree with it then our system allows for the “People” to amend or strike down the amendment. That should be the method of approaching their dislike of the amendment. They can get their votes lined up and amend or repeal the amendment.

    Here is some reading of recent Supreme Court rulings on this subject. Please take the time to research these ruling before engaging the keyboard?

    McDonald v. Chicago (561 U.S. _ (2010))

    District of Columbia v. Heller (128 S.CT. 2783 (2008))

    Thanks

    Nedsmithy

  51. 51 nedsmithy

    As to CP saying:

    “that requires people to be registered in order to access their constitutional right to vote”

    Found this on FAQ on the Constitution:

    Don’t citizens have a right to vote in presidential elections?
    Not necessarily. Article II of the Constitution reads in part: “Each state shall appoint, such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors…” In other words, it is the state legislature and not the citizens of a particular state that determine which presidential candidate receives that state’s electoral votes. In the early decades of the country, several state legislatures actually appointed electors to the Electoral College, rather than hold popular elections in their state. In the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, five justices declared, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.” The Court went on to say that Florida’s legislature has the power to take that power away from the people at any time, regardless of the popular vote tally.

    In addition, it took a constitutional amendment in 1961 to enable residents of Washington, D.C. to vote for president. But the millions of American citizens living in territories like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam still cannot vote for president.

  52. 52 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “They are here to enforce the law and not interpret the law.”

    One minor correction. Judges are the to interpret the law. Almost every amendment has been interpreted and reinterpreted over time.

  53. 53 cpcalta

    Nedsmithy,

    While you cite two Supreme Court rulings, these particular rulings contradict a couple hundred years of previously decided law. So while these two decisions are a part of the country’s understanding of the Second Amendment, they are hardly the only rulings that matter to both our interpretation of the language of the amendment or how it is meant to be enforced.

    The Library of Congress provides an overview of this issue. (http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php) It is pretty clear that the recent decisions (those you cite) upended previous Supreme Court rulings. So to say that “Law is fairly clear on it’s face and usually doesn’t require an interpretation by any Agency or Judge” directly contradicts the role of the Supreme Court, which is to interpret the laws Congress and State Legislatures pass to determine the constitutionality of those laws. The Supreme Court is all about interpretation.

    There are many previous Supreme Court decisions regarding the Second Amendment, and to see the current Supreme Court reverse course after more than 200 years (U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)) indicates that much about this issue, along with every other issue our country confronts, is based on interpretation of the Constitution by politicians and judges. It is ultimately their responsibility to do so.

    The discussion about this issue is about much more than the two most recent cases you cite. So while they are important to the discussion, they are far from the final word on this subject. And I’m not talking about the discussion going on here. I’m talking about laws, the legislative, executive and judicial branches and the Constitution.

    For example, on their face Voter ID laws would appear to directly contradict the 15th Amendment. But interpretation is how the Supreme Court arrived at the decision that these laws are constitutional. Repeal is not the only option, as that suggest that is the only avenue for any change to occur.

  54. 54 nedsmithy

    Jez, you are correct. I mistated. What I meant is:

    The law is supposed to be interpreted as it relates to the Constitution of the state and the United States. Judges are not at liberty to find new law or to make law. These powers correctly lie in the hands of the elected representatives of the people.

  55. 55 nedsmithy

    CP

    Is not the most recent decisions of the Supremes the Law of the land? We can go back to any number of old decisions that have been overturned, but to site them as law after they have been overturned is I believe incorrect. It is the current decisions that we must abide by?

  56. 56 cpcalta

    Nedsmithy,

    Did you actually read that FAQ carefully? “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.” This is referring to voting for members of the Electoral College, not about voting in general. And with respect to residents in US territories, those who are not American citizens would not have the right to vote. If people living there are American citizens, they most certainly do have that right. Under your logic, any American citizen living in any country outside the US wouldn’t be allowed to vote. Those individuals who are not US citizens are considered US nationals, a different classification and not therefore not allowed to vote. And remember that Washington, DC is not a state, and has always been under a different set of rules. A move is underway to grant DC statehood, which would change the equation.

    If you’re going to put forth the information, you should at least make sure it is actually addressing the point of discussion. The FAQs you cite don’t support your argument.

  57. 57 nedsmithy

    As I posted to Jez,

    The law is supposed to be interpreted as it relates to the Constitution of the state and the United States. Judges are not at liberty to find new law or to make law. These powers correctly lie in the hands of the elected representatives of the people.

    If one does not like a law, then go through your representatives to change it.

  58. 58 nedsmithy

    CP

    Site me in the Constitution where it grants you the “Right” to vote.

    What is the purpose of the Electoral College?

    What elects our President? The popular vote, the state votes or the Electoral College votes?

    Is the Electoral College compelled to vote the same as the results of the popular vote in their states?

  59. 59 cpcalta

    Nedsmithy, Supreme Court decisions are often decided on narrow terms, which is why certain aspects of issues often find themselves before the Supreme Court time and again. It is all about interpretation. And if the Supreme Court overturned centuries of decisions, that means that another argument might overturn the current interpretation of the law. If your reasoning were to be applied in all cases, then everyone should simply accept Roe v. Wade and stop attempting to have it overturned. And that could be said of many, many other laws.

    Take the first amendment as an example. Look at this website and the number of cases related to the first amendment. (http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases)

    The same is true of the all other amendments.

  60. 60 nedsmithy

    I’m only quoting and have nearly not enough expertise so on the “Right to Vote” I would suggest to look here and go prove them wrong?

    The Center for Voting & Democracy
    http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-f-a-q#.UNdxG3eQk7s

  61. 61 nedsmithy

    CP

    ” If your reasoning were to be applied in all cases, then everyone should simply accept Roe v. Wade and stop attempting to have it overturned.”

    UNTIL such time as it or any other law is overturned, it will remain the law of the land.

  62. 62 nedsmithy

    CP

    ” And if the Supreme Court overturned centuries of decisions, that means that another argument might overturn the current interpretation of the law. ”

    Might is a very powerful word. Didn’t people say that the end of time “might” be 12-21-12?

  63. 63 nedsmithy

    So you want to find out about the Electoral College?

    It will give you pause.

    Try this:
    http://indeclaration.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/electoral-college/

  64. 64 cpcalta

    Nedsmithy, All of this is off-topic, but here are your answers:

    The 15th Amendment:

    SECTION 1.

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    SECTION 2.

    The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    The Electoral College (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html)

    “Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of proportional representation.”

    I’m not going to repost the entire site here, but suffice it to say the popular vote determines the panel of electors, as each candidate has his/her electors and those included in the “Certificate of Ascertainment” are determined by the winning candidate (most number of votes). If you want specifics, you can link to the site.

    In response to your last question, since the electors are determined by the number of popular votes (the candidate with the most number of popular votes has his/her electors take part in the Electoral College vote in December) I think it is safe to say, unless some extraordinary circumstances occur, then yes the electors are, using your term, compelled to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote.

    Not exactly sure why we went this far down this path, but hopefully we can get back to a substantive discussion about what we can do about gun violence in this country.

  65. 65 nedsmithy

    Because Jez started this post with “Right to What” . That being said then the topic is “Rights” .

    I would suggest that if you want to have a dialogue about “Gun Violence” then someone should start a thread about it & it will be on topic over there?

  66. 66 cpcalta

    Thanks Nedsmithy, but I think I’ll get my information from something other than another blog. (http://indeclaration.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/electoral-college/) While these blogs are interesting places to debate and exchange ideas, I would rather get information about the Electoral college from a more reputable source.

    Again Nedsmithy. with respect to voting, the part you cited here is about voting for the electoral college. It is true that we don’t have a Constitutional right to vote for electors to the Electoral College. But we have a clear Constitutional amendment that says the rights of citizens to vote can’t be interfered with based on certain characteristics. Felons, well that’s another story. And even there re-enfranchisement can occur, although according to the website you identified it is a state-by-state, confusing process.

    The right to vote has certainly changed over time, as women and minorities gained the right to vote. I would say that was a result of both the will of the people fighting for those rights and the enlightenment of those in government who had the courage to recognize the right course of action.

  67. 67 cpcalta

    Nice try Nedsmithy, but look at Jezebel’s post #22. This is much more than a discussion solely about “rights.” And even so, there is much already posted here that addresses Jezebel’s desire to see suggestions for how to deal with second amendment rights and gun violence. The idea that they are mutually exclusive or should reside in separate topics is simply an attempt to throw up a smokescreen.

    Instead of debating voting rights, how about a discussion on restricting the types of guns available for sale? Or perhaps licensing, inspection and registration procedures? Do you see licensing and registration as an infringement on the second amendment? It would not necessarily restrict ownership, only create a registry of where those weapons are located and if they are properly owned and maintained. Do you feel that would run afoul of the second amendment?

  68. 68 nedsmithy

    CP

    “Thanks Nedsmithy, but I think I’ll get my information from something other than another blog”

    Maybe this is more to your liking?
    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions

    their quote not mine:
    “There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States”

  69. 69 nedsmithy

    CP

    “Nice try Nedsmithy, but look at Jezebel’s post #22.”

    Nice try CP, take a look at #48 & #49.

  70. 70 nedsmithy

    CP

    ” Do you see licensing and registration as an infringement on the second amendment?”

    I would ask you if you see a $2.00 poll tax, an infringement on your ability to vote?

  71. 71 nedsmithy

    There is one thing that is evident even to Ray Charles. We ALL have our minds made up on this “opinion” of gun control. Why do you want to pound your chest, pontificate & try to impose your will on another person? If you feel that strongly then you owe it to yourself to contact the individual representatives from your own state and have this dialogue with them and try to sway them to your way of thinking and get the law/laws passed & or repelled that you wish for. Slinging mud & pointing fingers in this blog will have zero outcome on the issue! Although it may show ones inner self and prove things that up until now some only thought to be true!

  72. 72 nedsmithy

    CP

    “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    Not being a Constitutional Lawyer, I’ve read several interpretations of the 15th that say that it does not grant or give the right to vote but simply says that the right to vote cannot be denied ” on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” That would be Race, Color or Servitude.

    The 15th is one of the reconstruction amendments and has everything to do with only the slavery issue.

  73. 73 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    Lest you jest:
    “Come to think of it, I can’t identify anyone who is proposing anything regarding strict gun control. What are we debating here anyway?”

    Let me run, just a few of the words that strike home to me:
    restricting
    licensing
    inspection
    registration
    registry
    proper safety and handling (maybe we should prove literacy to vote?)
    gun locks (Not supported by recent Supreme decision)
    any other safety measures (Measures mean restrictions)
    pay a yearly ************ fee for each weapon (instead of the word Fee, I would bet the word they really meant was tax?

    I could go on but I believe I’ve made my point.

    As I’ve already stated “If you don’t like the law, go change it” BUT until it is changed, it WILL be the law of the land.

  74. 74 jezebel282

    Ned,

    I simply meant I couldn’t think of anyone with the similar “intelligence” level or reach of Wayne LaPierre on the other side of the debate. Maybe if anti-firearm supporters had an industry they could shill for?

    I just find it difficult to believe that owning a gun is that essential to existence as an American. Are you even an American if you don’t own a gun? I would have gone with affordable access the healthcare. But that’s just me.

    The Supreme Court also found against Dredd Scott, just sayin’….

    “If you don’t like the law, go change it”
    I wholeheartedly agree. I think that needs to start now. Reasonable people can reach reasonable policies.

  75. 75 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    “owning a gun is that essential to existence as an American”
    Absolutely not. I would imagine that lots of great Americans chose not to own firearms. It was their choice as to have owned firearms and I will defend with my life the right of that choice. I also have the same choice and chose to own firearms, same right.

    “Are you even an American if you don’t own a gun”
    One need not own a gun to be an American! You know that.

    ” I would have gone with affordable access the healthcare”
    That is a worthy goal that you have the right to pursue. The problem I have with “most” people that want to make this available, is that they want the Government to force me to reach in my pocket to support their goals! It’s almost like an unfunded mandate, but in this case the working class is going to “again” be forced to fund another entitlement program.

    If you think Healthcare is expensive now???? Just wait until it’s free!

    I think I picked a great time to be 70+ and retired with protected income that cannot be stolen from me by my Government!

  76. 76 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    “The Supreme Court also found against Dredd Scott, just sayin’….”
    Exactly the point that I made earlier that you cannot jump back in time and site a case that has been overturned. Once it is overturned it is mute.

  77. 77 nedsmithy

    To All:

    I want to take this opportunity to wish all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your loved ones. Hold them tight and cherish every moment you have with them. Most of all I wish everyone good health and happiness in your life’s pursuit! May God Bless us all & to all a Good Night!!!!!

    MERRY CHRISTMASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

  78. 78 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “70+ and retired with protected income that cannot be stolen from me by my Government!”
    Or until the GOP changes the way the CPI is calculated.

    “is that they want the Government to force me to reach in my pocket to support their goals!”
    Not to start an unrelated topic, but it seems to me health insurance companies have been doing that for years with impunity. By the way, how is Medicare working out for you?

    “I also have the same choice and chose to own firearms, same right. ”
    The problem with absolute positions is that they are absolute. If you only acknowledge the words “shall not be infringed” it is reasonable to oppose any restriction at all on arms sales, including sales taxes, mail order sales, background checks and pretty much anything else. It doesn’t say “guns” it says “arms”. Cannon, stinger missiles, RPG’s are all “arms”. It also means that sales are permissible to any person. “The right of the people” does not exclude anyone including felons and the mentally ill.

    The Second Amendment is qualitatively different than the First Amendment. The First Amendment begins “Congress shall pass no law…”. That is pretty explicit. It doesn’t say “some laws” or “only those that are required” or “what most people”. It says “NO LAW”. The Second Amendment is clearly a qualified statement; “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”.

    Personally, when someone takes an absolute position, my first reaction is that they are wrong. Including cpcalta.

  79. 79 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    “Or until the GOP changes the way the CPI is calculated.”

    Jez, you know better! It’s not just one party, it’s ALL our representatives that will tear our wallets to shreds! On this they are joined at the hip!

    I said:
    “income that cannot be stolen from me by my Government!”
    What I mean by this is that my source of income (that supports me) is not from the Government. If Soc. Sec. goes bankrupt, I’ll still be able to live a very comfortable life.

    “By the way, how is Medicare working out for you?”

    I use Medicare BUT I would much more prefer to have it with the private sector where I can shop and compare prices. What I would REALLY like is to remove the interstate restrictions on the ability of the consumer to shop all insurance providers for any type of coverage!

    “when someone takes an absolute position”
    Here is my unqualified position on this. When I feel that ANY of my rights, not limited to the 2nd Amendment BUT any & all of my rights are being threatened in any manner, I’m going to react like a cornered “Junk Yard Dog”! I will take no prisoners! Way to many of my friends that I grew up with and served with are in their graves, having given their all to protect those rights. If that means that I’m “absolute”, then I will wear that as a “Badge of Honor”. Pretty much every person on this blog has a “favorite right”, I have no favorites, I’ll have & will continue to defend to my death all of our rights. I will not allow “The Camels Nose in The Tent”!!!

  80. 80 cpcalta

    “What I would REALLY like is to remove the interstate restrictions on the ability of the consumer to shop all insurance providers for any type of coverage!”

    For that to happen, wouldn’t the federal government have to step in to set rules and regulations regarding interstate commerce? As it is now, each state is responsible for regulating their particular market, so wouldn’t they have to give up a portion of that oversight in order for your desired outcome?

    “Pretty much every person on this blog has a “favorite right”, I have no favorites, I’ll have & will continue to defend to my death all of our rights.”

    Really, that’s quite a statement considering what you know and don’t know about the other people on this blog, most of whom post anonymously.

    By the way Jezebel, I have not staked out an absolute positions on this particular thread except for the fact that there needs to be a discussion about all aspects of this debate, including sensible gun regulation. Regardless of any one individual interpretation, there are restrictions on every perceived right, and the reason any issue becomes a topic for discussion is because we as individuals interpret, along with politicians and judges, the specifics of particular laws or policies.

    And nedsmithy, you can be sure that me, along with many others, have been contacting our elected representatives and will continue to do so until something changes.

  81. cpcalta: “Rather than arming teachers (a stupid, stupid idea), how about we hire a law enforcement professional for each school who is trained specifically for work in an educational institution? …By the way, is it just me or is it insane that we have armed guards to protect money (banks, armored cars, etc.), but no plans for on-site protection for children in schools?”

    Wayne LaPierre/NRA: “The National Rifle Association’s 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut … who suffered such incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.

    Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.

    Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation’s children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

    The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

    And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

    How have our nation’s priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.

    We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.

    Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

    The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school he’s already identified at this very moment?

    How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking others to try to make their mark?

    A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

    And the fact is, that wouldn’t even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country. Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.

    So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.

    And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

    Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?

    Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like “American Psycho” and “Natural Born Killers” that are aired like propaganda loops on “Splatterdays” and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it “entertainment.”

    But is that what it really is? Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

    In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.

    A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.

    And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

    The media call semi-automatic firearms “machine guns” — they claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers … when all of these claims are factually untrue. They don’t know what they’re talking about!

    Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed!

    As brave, heroic and self-sacrificing as those teachers were in those classrooms, and as prompt, professional and well-trained as those police were when they responded, they were unable — through no fault of their own — to stop it.

    As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is now time for us to assume responsibility for their safety at school. The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?

    Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: “More guns,” you’ll claim, “are the NRA’s answer to everything!” Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word “gun” automatically become a bad word?

    A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn’t a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn’t a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won’t be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

    So why is the idea of a gun good when it’s used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it’s used to protect our children in their schools?

    They’re our kids. They’re our responsibility. And it’s not just our duty to protect them — it’s our right to protect them.

    You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?

    Will you at least admit it’s possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?

    Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.

    Ladies and gentlemen, there is no national, one-size-fits-all solution to protecting our children. But do know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year’s budget, and scrapped “Secure Our Schools” policing grants in next year’s budget.

    With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can’t afford to put a police officer in every school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm.

    Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America’s schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America’s police force.

    The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.

    I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.

    Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over legislation, regulation or anything else, as soon as our kids return to school after the holiday break, we need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security.

    Right now, today, every school in the United States should plan meetings with parents, school administrators, teachers and local authorities — and draw upon every resource available — to erect a cordon of protection around our kids right now. Every school will have a different solution based on its own unique situation.

    Every school in America needs to immediately identify, dedicate and deploy the resources necessary to put these security forces in place right now. And the National Rifle Association, as America’s preeminent trainer of law enforcement and security personnel for the past 50 years, is ready, willing and uniquely qualified to help.

    Our training programs are the most advanced in the world. That expertise must be brought to bear to protect our schools and our children now. We did it for the nation’s defense industries and military installations during World War II, and we’ll do it for our schools today.

    The NRA is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be developed by the very best experts in their fields.

    Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead this effort as National Director of the National School Shield Program, with a budget provided by the NRA of whatever scope the task requires. His experience as a U.S. Attorney, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency and Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security will give him the knowledge and expertise to hire the most knowledgeable and credentialed experts available anywhere, to get this program up and running from the first day forward.

    If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.

    Under Asa’s leadership, our team of security experts will make this the best program in the world for protecting our children at school, and we will make that program available to every school in America free of charge.

    That’s a plan of action that can, and will, make a real, positive and indisputable difference in the safety of our children — starting right now.

    There’ll be time for talk and debate later. This is the time, this is the day for decisive action.

    We can’t wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act. We can’t lose precious time debating legislation that won’t work. We mustn’t allow politics or personal prejudice to divide us. We must act now.

    For the sake of the safety of every child in America, I call on every parent, every teacher, every school administrator and every law enforcement officer in this country to join us in the National School Shield Program and protect our children with the only line of positive defense that’s tested and proven to work.

  82. cpcalta: “LaPierre is a complete coward”

    BUT DIDN’T HE SAY WHAT YOU SAID???????

  83. 83 stfdprofessor1

    hypocrite- hyp·o·crite/ˈhɪp ə krɪt/ Show Spelled [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
    noun
    1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
    2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

  84. 84 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    “For the sake of the safety of every child in America”

    As well as the safety of children in playgrounds, apartments and riding their bikes on the street. Not to mention the 10-15 adults that are shot to death every single day. It’s not just about the elementary schools. It’s also about the 100,000 Americans that are shot (wounded or killed) every year.

    Placing an armed guard in every classroom won’t address the larger issue.

  85. 85 cpcalta

    Disgusted,

    Not to burst your bubble, but had you read my comment you would have noticed that I was specifically referring to the fact that LaPierre refused to take questions during his statement. It certainly wasn’t a press conference. He chose to blame everything except access to these types of weapons and then thumbed his nose at everyone by walking off without answering a single question. That is why I believe he is a coward. And I stand by the statement. If he had the true courage of his convictions, he would have been willing to engage with the press on the subject. And appearing on MTP on Sunday isn’t the same, as it was a blatant attempt to control the narrative.

    As for having armed personnel in the schools, I made that suggestion the day before his press conference. I suspect I’m in a minority among those I usually agree with on the gun control issue, but until we get a handle on the weapons issue, I can’t say I’m opposed to the idea of having a law enforcement officer (much like colleges have campus security) on the campus. What do I mean? Preferably in a separate building on the grounds, removed from students but “on-site.” I get what Governor Christie is saying and I don’t agree that having armed personnel in the school isn’t conducive to learning. And Jezebel is right, you can’t have an armed guard outside every classroom. We don’t want children living in fear, and I think that type of public display would send the wrong message. I also don’t want the NRA providing training, support or any other type of assistance to this effort. If you read my comment about this above, I believe there would need to be very strict and detailed instructions for hiring and training these individuals. I don’t want an organization that thinks more guns are the only way to solve these issues (as Jezebel points out it is not just in schools that guns are a problem) leading the effort when it comes to school safety.

    Congratulations professor, you can copy and paste from merriam-webster.com.

    As I said Jezebel, I agree with your last post, but for now it might be reassuring to know that where schools are concerned, a first responder is seconds away, not minutes. I’m not saying I believe it is a perfect scenario, it just seems to me that at the present time having a law enforcement professional in the vicinity wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world. Deal aggressively with the weapons issue, along with the other societal issues, and hopefully this type of presence isn’t needed.

  86. 86 cpcalta

    Meant to say: “I get what Governor Christie is saying and I agree that having armed personnel in the school isn’t conducive to learning.”

  87. 87 ronmoreau

    cpcalta,

    ” If that assault rifle was not available for sale, it never would have been purchased by his mother and likely never fallen into his murderous hands.”
    “By the way, had assault weapons and high capacity magazines not been allowed for sale to the general public, that man would never have had the weapon to use. So yes, I hold those people who think this is acceptable responsible (in some part) for those deaths, and all the deaths caused by these types of weapons.”
    “You know what would have stopped this individual from causing this carnage? Not having those types of weapons available for purchase in the first place.”
    “He (LaPierre) chose to blame everything except access to ‘ these types of weapons’ and then thumbed his nose at everyone by walking off without answering a single question.”
    It’s obvious to the most casual observer that your knowledge of fire arms is very limited. The Newtown murderer could have inflicted as much damage with three revolvers and speed loaders because there was no one there with the proper tools to stop him.
    A locked gun case behind a locked door is not securing a weapon. A gun safe is.
    Responsible people with a gun permit do not advertise that they are carrying. The weapon is on their person, locked,loadeed and concealed.

  88. 88 cpcalta

    Ron,

    So enlighten us. You mention revolvers and speed loaders, and say the murderer “could have inflicted as much damage.” Yet a revolver that holds six rounds would still need to be loaded five times to equal the amount of bullets in one 30-round magazine. So if I understand you correctly it wouldn’t have made any difference if the shooter would have had to stop and re-load. No slowing him down, a speed loader would have provided the same opportunity as a high capacity magazine that needed no re-loading and fired off 30 rounds in less than a minute. I’m sure we could go round after round about which weapons load faster or hold more rounds, but arguing that having to stop to reload, regardless of a speed loader, wouldn’t have made a difference, especially with respect to time when seconds made a difference, seems off-the-mark. And it sounds like you’re advocating have armed personnel in the schools. Am I correctly interpreting your position with respect to not having the “proper tools”?

    As for the gun safe, are you really telling me a 20-year old man wouldn’t have the intelligence to figure out how to get into a gun safe? You think he wouldn’t have found either the keys or the combination to get into a safe?

    I freely admit that I’m not a gun owner and don’t know every aspect of every weapon on the market. What I do is reference a variety of sources to make myself knowledgeable enough to be able to render my opinion on the subject. Perhaps you work in the firearms industry, or perhaps you are a collector. I never claimed to have any advanced knowledge of the specifics of every weapon. I have a feeling I’m not alone, even with respect to those who have posted here. But here’s the thing, I don’t have to know every nuance and detail about every weapon, speed loader, magazine or bullet to make an informed opinion. Your comment doesn’t address the proliferation of assault weapons and high capacity magazines and the unfettered access to those weapons. Considering 40% of gun sales are conducted through gun shows and sellers at gun shows who are not engaged in the business aren’t required to file any paperwork, we’re not even doing a good job of keeping weapons out of criminal’s hands, especially if we don’t know who is accessing 2 out of every 5 weapons being sold.

  89. 89 jezebel282

    In reality we can ban the manufacture of all firearms tomorrow. That action would do nothing about the 300 MILLION guns out there already. Until we find some sort of reasonable solution there will be no end to the 100,000 deaths and woundings per year.

  90. 90 stfdprofessor1

    Ron Im not a big gun advocate but just to “enlighten” our friend CP this video seems to show you’re right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

  91. 91 cpcalta

    Professor,

    Please tell us how many people in the world can what Jerry Miculek did in this video. Even under the same conditions (this was a competition was it not?), how many people have this ability? You cite the world record holder as though every individual with a revolver can do the same.

    You didn’t provide any “enlightenment.” You might think this video proves your (or Ron’s) point, but it really doesn’t.

    Jezebel, you are correct that we need to do something to deal with the enormous amout of weapons currently in circulation. No one debating this subject reasonably has suggested taking every gun away from every indivdiual. So let’s talk about getting more aggresive with enforcement and stopping the illegal flow of guns into our society. What are your thoughts? You’ve remained somewhat on the sidelines in this discussion with regard to potential actions. How would you suggest changing the culture so that we reduce the carnage? If we continue to go by the “business as usual” approach then nothing will change. We’ll continue to witness these types of massacres and we’ll all lament the loss of life until the next one occurs. That doesn’t seem like an acceptable solution anymore. If we can’t get to a place where we can find those “reasonable solutions” then we truly are lost as a society.

  92. 92 jezebel282

    CP,

    We have to practice the art of the possible. That means a continuation & enhancement of buy-back programs, raising the bar for obtaining licenses on a federal level not just state by state, enhanced enforcement and mandatory sentencing for gun crimes as well as dealing with the myth that a gun in your closet somehow makes you “safer” when every statistic ever published says exactly the opposite. There is simply way too much testosterone involved in firearms discussions.

  93. 93 cpcalta

    Jezebel,

    Everything you mentioned seems entirely reasonable, although the mandatory sentencing is an “after the fact” approach and I’m not sure it is at all a deterrent to anyone. Not saying it shouldn’t be done. Unfortunately you will find a lot of people who believe in and defend the myth of the armed, law abiding citizen who vanquishes the mad gunman. It really is a “frontier justice” mentality that has no evidence to support the concept. I’ll be curious to see now your suggestions play with others engaging in the conversation.

  94. 94 stfdprofessor1

    “although the mandatory sentencing is an “after the fact” approach and I’m not sure it is at all a deterrent to anyone”

    Ummmm you cant deter madmen, predators, psycopaths or sociopaths CP, time to take a breath and rejoin us here on planet earth. The only deterrent for some people is a straight jacket or a cement room with bars, not nirvana but that’s the way the real world is.

    Jez you hit the nail on the head with “enhanced enforcement and mandatory sentencing for gun crimes”, its time we got these criminals and sickos off the street and away from the civilized public once and for all! In Connecticut I understand it is a one year mandatory sentence for carrying a gun without a permit. How many people do you think have been incarcerated the full year in this State? I’d bet you it’s under 20…just sayin. But what the hell, lets pass some more laws we wont enforce to make us all feel better, its about as useful as the gun in the closet…but lets face it, its all about the feelings anyways. At least CP wont have to worry about Chuck Norris wannabees anymore.

  95. 95 jezebel282

    Professor,

    I didn’t mean incarceration to be the only solution. It is not the psychotic mass murderer that causes the most injury. By far and away it is the illegal, cheap and easily obtainable handgun that kills and wounds the most Americans. In Connecticut we can do nothing about the ease of obtaining a cheap handgun in Virginia or the Carolinas. The only sensible solution is national standardization.

    And then there is the American mythology of getting that gun to protect yourself. Of every single gun owner of any age I have ever spoken to not a single one can recount an event where they have successfully repelled an intruder from their house or property. Not one. Even law enforcement officials I have spoken to cannot recall a single event in whatever their length of service has been where they were called upon to draw their weapon and pull the trigger.

    This whole idea of “for protection” is completely unfounded and, frankly, indicates a very high level of paranoia. It is time we start dealing with this dangerous myth.

  96. 96 cpcalta

    “Professor,”

    “Ummmm you cant deter madmen, predators, psycopaths or sociopaths CP, time to take a breath and rejoin us here on planet earth. The only deterrent for some people is a straight jacket or a cement room with bars, not nirvana but that’s the way the real world is.”

    Do you realize you contradicted yourself with your own statements? In your first sentence you say we can’t deter these people, then in the very next sentence you refer to the “only deterrent.” Interesting logical argument. You seem to be arguing more with yourself at this point. But go ahead and insult me if it makes you feel better.

    Perhaps you might try reading this blog from an avid gun owner:

    http://roncfriedman.blogspot.com/2012/12/although-itis-unpopular-probably-even.html?m=1#!/2012/12/although-itis-unpopular-probably-even.html

    To say that the media, video games, and movies are the only factors influencing these types of acts while ignoring that access to certain types of weapons is also a contributing factor is just as out-of-touch. To ignore facts while promoting myths about the second amendment (and all amendments or the Constitution for that matter) is displaying a stubborn refusal to live in the “real world.” The truth is that with every right enshrined in our Constitution comes responsibility. The truth is that we have mechanisms for amending and changing our laws, and yes, that includes amending weapons laws. Last time I checked, an individual can’t own a tank or a ballistic missile, so the right to “bear arms” is not absolute, just as freedom of speech is not absolute. The right to vote can’t be impeded by laws designed to impact certain racial, ethnic or gender groups, however those who are incarcerated can lose that right. So there are no absolutes.

    And Jezebel is correct, there is also this myth about “protection” that needs to be confronted. There are no simple answers or simple solutions, but addressing access to certain weapons (and instruments that enhance the use of those weapons) is one of several actions that can be taken to turn the tide. Gun buybacks should be enhanced and expanded. If we had adequate law enforcement they could go after illegal weapons more aggressively.

    So say what you will “Professor.” While I will continue to post my opinions just as you do yours, I am also engaged in many others actions seeking to prevent future tragedies by joining others to make our voices heard and demand commonsense restrictions along with addressing the larger societal issues Jezebel identified above.

  97. 97 cpcalta

    Worth a read:

    Dr. David H. Newman: “I have sworn an oath to heal and to protect humans. Guns, invented to maim and destroy, are my natural enemy.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/opinion/at-the-er-bearing-witness-to-gun-violence.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

  98. 98 cpcalta

    Just so I’m not accused of critizing law enforcement, my comment about “adequate law enforcement” is in regards to the resources provided for police officers and the number of law enforcement officials available for duty. I should have been more clear in stating that I was referring to adequate financial resources for law enforcement.

  99. 99 stfdprofessor1

    “only deterrent” sorry Chrissy strike and substitute “only solution”, happy now???

    How about this quote-

    “But to think that we can legislate control of a motivated mad person is a feel-good attempt to find a reasonable answer to something that lacks a reasonable answer.”

    This is the best quote I have heard on the subject to date. Of course it wont appeal to lofty emotional types.

  100. 100 stfdprofessor1

    “I didn’t mean incarceration to be the only solution”

    I didnt say you did, but it would be a great start, dont you think?

  101. 101 cpcalta

    Really “Professor”? Am I supposed to be offended by your childish name-calling? Grow up.

    As for your “solution,” do you realize whether you use “deterrent” or “solution” you’re advocating the same position? You stated in a previous post (94) that you can’t deter madmen, then in the very next sentence you say the “only deterrent [solution]” is to lock them up. Regardless of the term you use, you’re making the same conflicting argument.

    The solution you propose, “for some people is a straight jacket or a cement room with bars,” won’t impede a mentally ill person from taking action, it will simply confine them after the fact. That is unless you’re suggesting everyone in the country receive pyscyhological testing and anyone deemed “mentally unfit” be put in a straight jacket or cement room. And who will be responsible for the testing? It is kind of difficult to push the idea of locking up the “undesirables” just because you think they might do something. You know, the fourth amendment might be a problem for you.

    Regaring the quote you cite, if this is the “best” quote you’ve read well, that says a lot. Are we talking here about controlling the person or controlling access to the potential arsenal the person is attempting to stockpile in order to commit the heinous act? Because taken out of context, as you’ve done here, the statement is subject to scrutiny and misinterpretation.

    By the way, for anyone who is interested the quote can be found in this article:

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/more_new_york_state_gun_laws_w.html

    So perhaps, just perhaps, removing access to certain weapons known to be more destructive and those that create more havoc because of their ability to discharge tremendous amounts of firepower in seconds (your world record holder at a competition example notwithstanding) could be a reasonable solution. If these weapons are not available to the general public those inclined to commit these types of acts may be impeded in their attempts to inflict mass casualties. It may also impede them long enough in order to completely thwart their attempt altoghether.

    We did nothing after Arizona and we got Aurora, CO. We did nothing after Aurora, and we have borne witness to Newtown. I don’t accept the proposition that the answer is to throw up our hands and say there’s nothing we can do.

  102. 102 cpcalta

    Worth a read:

    Evil vs. crazy: What’s in the minds of mass murderers?

    “As for progress on restraining or rehabilitating evil people, the past record and future promise are even more dismal. I know of no development that has much reduced recidivism or violence or done more to identify violent offenders in advance than was in place a generation ago.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-debating-newtown-massacre-dont-confuse-crazy-and-evil/2013/01/03/4d12eb62-5136-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html

    Author: Martin Seligman, a former president of the American Psychological Association, is a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “What You Can Change and What You Can’t.”

  103. 103 stfdprofessor1

    “That is unless you’re suggesting everyone in the country receive pyscyhological testing and anyone deemed “mentally unfit” be put in a straight jacket or cement room.”

    Sounds like a great idea, it worked in the past. If we go back to it I sure hope you’re not allergic to steel, cement or nylon (assuming straight jackets are made of nylon).

    “If these weapons are not available to the general public those inclined to commit these types of acts may be impeded in their attempts to inflict mass casualties.”

    Come back from dreamland Chris because there are MILLIONS of guns already out there and more are flying off the shelf by the second thanks to the news media and the politicians adding to the hype for their ratings and 12 seconds of exposure.

    The amazing thing is Im not a gun advocate, I just l just get annoyed at pompous intellectuals with unrealistic expectations who stand on their soapboxes and “pontificate”.

    I thought nedsmithy was slightly over the top but you have taken the cake!

  104. 104 cpcalta

    “Professor,” it appears you have decided to continue with the insults.

    I find it interesting that you, like those at the NRA, blame the media and politicians for guns “flying off the shelf” and not the individuals who allow their irrational fears to lead them to stockpile an arsenal because they think they are going to “take back their government” from those who have supposedly strayed from their own myopic view of the Constitution. So the people who commit these acts, they alone are to blame. We can’t stop them, restricting access to weapons won’t stop them, because they are solely responsible for their actions. But the individuals who stockpile weapons, they’re doing it because of the media. Sure, that line of argument makes a lot of sense.

    Also, when in the history of this country did every individual receive psychological testing? Please give us the dates and laws that allowed for that testing.

    Nothing that I have posted here regarding restrictions, new laws, or other actions related to school safety or public safety has been “unrealistic.” I have never said there is a panacea or that one single action will eliminate all violence in our society. We can never completely eliminate the possibility that a violent act will occur. But we can take steps to remove certain weapons from the public and minimize the potential for people to access (even illegally) those types of weapons. It will take a concerted, multi-faceted approach that will include some sensible restrictions on weapons. It doesn’t mean forcing every American who owns a gun to surrender every gun they own. That has never been suggested. And it means public education efforts designed to minimize the addiction our society has to violence (in all forms of media). It also means giving law enforcement the tools (including laws and money) necessary to take meaningful, sustained action against illegal weapons. We can also implement turn-in amnesty programs for those weapons that are deemed illegal Why not, we do it for tax evaders. Public safety initiatives also need to play a role.

    Finally, I get it. You don’t like the way I express my opinions. But here’s the thing, I really don’t care that my manner of conversation annoys you. I do find it amusing that you don’t want to acknowledge that your comments are at times contradictory or that the only “solution” you have offered to this point has been refuted by a person who has much more experience and knowledge with respect to mental health issues than either you or me. Not to mention you have offered no prescriptions on how these people would be identified and who would be subject to incarceration. You would rather take cheap shots at me and insult me with the expectation that. . . .well, I don’t know what your expectations are. Perhaps you think by attempting to belittle or bully me I’ll stop posting my opinions. That’s not going to happen.

  105. 105 nedsmithy

    Prof said
    “I thought nedsmithy was slightly over the top but you have taken the cake!”

    I’ll take that as a compliment as to my protection of what are my rights.

    OK, time to go back and “watch”!!!

    Bye!

  106. 106 jezebel282

    And the beat goes on:

    AURORA, Colo. (AP) — SWAT officers who stormed a Colorado home where a gunman had holed up found a horrific scene — four dead bodies including that of the gunman.
    http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime/article/Police-kill-gunman-find-3-more-dead-in-Colo-home-4170748.php#ixzz2HCQ7e9qP

  107. 108 ronmoreau

    Poor guy. He was just a sensitive guy looking for some help.(After all he started crying.) Now if they outlawed guns in Georgia this poor guy could have helped himself and been on his way without a scratch.. The woman should be arrested for assault.

  108. 109 jezebel282

    Ron,

    If you’d like to start keeping score to see how many innocent people get shot vs. the one intruder per year, let me set up a paypal account here so I can take your money easier.

  109. 110 ronmoreau

    Assault with a deadly weapon.

  110. 111 cpcalta

    Ron,

    This was a .38 revolver. Show us any rational discussion where anyone has mentioned outlawing this type of weapon. She didn’t need a Bushmaster AR15 or an Uzi to protect her family. She did the right thing and had more than enough firepower to subdue the intruder.

    Why does this continue to be an “all or nothing” proposition for some?

  111. 112 ronmoreau

    The Newtown murderer could have inflicted as much damage with three revolvers and speed loaders because there was no one there with the proper tools to stop him.

  112. 113 ronmoreau

    ‘Gun free zone’ law?

    That worked out well.

  113. 114 cpcalta

    Ron,

    You’re making an assumption that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. You can’t assume that he had the same proficiency at re-loading weapons as a world record holder at a competition. And those seconds gained may have allowed others to move some of the children to safety and allowed for extra time for first responders to arrive. And re-loading three weapons is a lot different than having one weapon with third rounds at the ready.

    So your answer is what? Arm all the teachers and administrators?

    Yeah, that will work out well.

  114. 115 ronmoreau

    So cp, you want to go down this road again? Do the math.

    World record holder…12 rounds in 3 seconds= 240 rounds per minute.

    Average Joe….12 rounds in 10 seconds = 72 rounds a minute.

    Not my point, The nut could have done a lot more damage with a 12 guage shot gun and a box of ammo.

    If one lawfully gun licensed administrator or teacher in the office were allowed to conceal carry their lawfully registered weapon into the school the carnage could have been stopped in the office or at the front door.Why should they not be allowed to do the right thing and have more than enough firepower to subdue the intruder? That can’t happen because they are law abiding and are not allowed.

    “So your answer is what? Arm ‘all’ the teachers and administrators?”

    Why does this continue to be an “all or nothing” proposition for some?

  115. “If you’d like to start keeping score to see how many innocent people get shot vs. the one intruder per year”

    ONE INTRUDER PER YEAR…ARE YOU REALLY THAT NAIVE?

    Did you know…..

    • A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl , Miss. , was halted by the school’s vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

    • A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

    • A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

    • A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy , Va. , came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

    • A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden , Utah , ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

    • A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston , Texas , was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

    • A 2012 church shooting in Aurora , Colo. , was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

    • At the recent mall shooting in Portland , Ore. , the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

    2,500 times last year alone legal gun owners stopped violent crime when confronted with it long before any police assistance … Of course, you probably didn’t know any of this because mainstream media doesn’t find it worth reporting. It’s not sensational enough and doesn’t fit with their agenda. What’s insane is people who think removing rights from responsible people will somehow keep them safe.

    Of course I’m sure that one of you will try to imply that there are 9,000 murders with guns per year so if we get rid of all guns we will save 6,500 people. Not really, most of the murders would likely still occur using alternate means but there will likely be an additional cost of lives from the 2,500 who could have prevented the act but will have been prevented.

    Let’s not forget a vast majority of these crimes are committed by people who never contemplate the consequence of breaking a gun law, or the law against murder for that matter.

    “‘Gun free zone’ law? That worked out well.”
    Funny no replys to that comment!

    Sorry you don’t approve of America’s affection to firearms, but if it bothers you that much here is a list of other countries you may want to consider residing in: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

  116. 117 stfdprofessor1

    It seems cpcalta has symptoms of severe Hoplophobia.

    Hoplophobia- a pejorative[1] neologism originally coined to describe an “irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.”[2] It is sometimes used more generally to describe the “fear of weapons”[3][4] or the “highly salient danger of these weapons ” [5] or the “fear of armed citizens”.[6]

  117. 118 cpcalta

    Ron,

    Teachers are educators, NOT first responders. They are there to educate children. God forbid something like this ever happens again, you would prefer a teacher leave his/her children to go after the assailant? Not only that, you want a concealed weapon on a teacher in a room full of children? Yeah, that seems like a great idea. What could possibly go wrong there?

    Oh right: Vermont teacher surrenders Bushmaster rifle, placed on leave from school after angry YouTube rants and emails

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teacher-semi-automatic-rifle-angry-youtube-vids-article-1.1233763

    This frontier justice myth you put forth has already been addressed by Jezebel and I can’t say it any better than she has said it above.

    I am curious where you are getting your “average joe” numbers. How about this for a reality check (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f30/average-reload-speed-35747/):

    “A revolver may be reloaded very quickly using a speed loader. Standard drill on one of the police courses was fire 6, empty, reload, fire 6 more, MAX 25 second time limit. With a good speed loader, no problem.. . . About 50 years experience”

    That is maybe 24 rounds if you’re lucky, and that is barring the time someone would need to stop and re-load under those circumstances.

  118. 119 stfdprofessor1

    “has already been addressed by Jezebel and I can’t say it any better than she has said it above.”

    Will the shameless pandering to Jezebel ever cease? Time to cut the apron strings Chrissy.

  119. 120 cpcalta

    Once again “Professor” you have proven you can cut and paste, but you haven’t shown much propensity to actually engage in an informed and relevant discussion. Again, since you know nothing about me, your pejorative is misplaced and proves once again that you are uninterested in having a serious discussion on this topic. You simply want to insult anyone who doesn’t think like you. Not a very compelling or persuasive argument, and laughable because it is completely devoid of substance.

  120. 121 nedsmithy

    In reply to Ron, CP writes in message #118

    “I am curious where you are getting your “average joe” numbers. How about this for a reality check (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f30/average-reload-speed-35747/):”

    In reply to me in his message #66
    “Thanks Nedsmithy, but I think I’ll get my information from something other than another blog.”

    Seems like CP has had a change of “Standards”?

    As to using “Police Range Qualifying Standards” as your yard stick! Police (on average) are the worst marksmen that has been known to mankind. Even this “Fat Old Man” has “Spanked” almost every LEO that I’ve competed against in IPSC & PPC course of fire.

    Sorry Jez, just couldn’t let this target of opportunity pass me by!

  121. 122 cpcalta

    While you’re at it “Professor,” how about you read this:

    http://m.forward.com/blogs/forward-thinking/168707/wrestling-with-details-of-noah-pozners-killing

    “Then, unprompted by me, Veronique [Noah Pozner’s mother] described what she saw: “We all saw how beautiful he was. He had thick, shiny hair, beautiful long eyelashes that rested on his cheeks. He looked like he was sleeping. But the reality of it was under the cloth he had covering his mouth there was no mouth left. His jaw was blown away. I just want people to know the ugliness of it so we don’t talk about it abstractly, like these little angels just went to heaven. No. They were butchered. They were brutalized. And that is what haunts me at night.”

    Sorry to post such a graphic depiction Jezebel, but if this conversation is going to continue, let’s put all the facts out there.

  122. 123 nedsmithy

    So quickly we supply exhibit “A” for review of the Blogo-sphere according to CP

  123. 124 cpcalta

    Well nedsmithy, let’s see where Ron got his “average joe” numbers from.

    By the way, you most recent post was misleading, as you didn’t actually include the entire comment from #66:

    “While these blogs are interesting places to debate and exchange ideas, I would rather get information about the Electoral college from a more reputable source.”

    Did you catch that part where I wrote “information about the Electoral college”? I made it very clear what I was referring to with the statement.

    So yes, there are different standards for different information, and the point here is that the reloading argument is much more variable and debatable then information about the Electoral college.

    And before you start in on the blog from post #122, the author wrote the original article for The Jewish Daily Forward. (http://forward.com/articles/168277/noah-pozners-family-remembers-and-mourns/) The blog cited above actually reprinted the piece from a site called the Dart Society (http://www.dartsociety.org/cms/choosing-sensitive-details-in-one-sandy-hook-story/).

  124. 125 nedsmithy

    Blogs are just that, Blogs!

  125. 126 cpcalta

    And not that you seem to care, but here is the description of the Dart Society:

    The Dart Society is a global network of journalists who advance the compassionate and ethical coverage of trauma, conflict and social injustice. We are an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

    http://www.dartsociety.org/cms/who-we-are/

  126. 127 nedsmithy

    And here is the statement that it was her “Reflects” or opinion.

    “Reporter Naomi Zeveloff of the Jewish Daily Forward reflects”

    I’m not discounting the pain of these people, I’ve lived in their shoes and know what it’s like.

  127. 128 nedsmithy

    Cp:
    “And not that you seem to care”

    Up until now you’ve simply been a slight annoyance!
    With that statement you’ve managed to really piss me of! You are clueless!

    My apologies to all concerned for my language.

  128. 129 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    Please delete my message #128.
    The one person that really needed to see it, has!

  129. 130 cpcalta

    Nedsmithy,

    Did you actually read the articles? The author was reflecting “on interviewing the mother of the youngest victim in the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting and on writing a complicated portrait of grief.”

    What she reported in the actual article for The Jewish Daily Forward were the facts as told to her by Noah Pozner’s mother.

    From the Forward article (not a blog): “Just before the ceremony, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy came to the funeral home to pay his respects. Veronique took him by the arm and brought him to the casket. Noah’s famously long eyelashes — which she spoke about in her eulogy — rested lightly on his cheeks and a cloth covered the place where the lower half of his face had been. “I just needed it to be real for [the governor],” she says.”

    Read more: http://forward.com/articles/168277/noah-pozners-family-remembers-and-mourns/?p=all#ixzz2HFmzSx8L

  130. 131 jezebel282

    “Will the shameless pandering to Jezebel ever cease?”
    I don’t mind a little shameless pandering to me.

    None of you seem to be addressing or proposing any solutions. What I am reading are statements of righteous indignation and paranoia.

    I much prefer doing the obvious easy things first. There are 300 million guns already out there. I would venture to say that a goodly portion of them are unregistered and untraceable. Unless and until we can solve that issue through law enforcement and registration reform talking about what to do about firearms yet to be manufactured is irrelevant.

  131. 132 nedsmithy

    Could it maybe be that in any bargaining – compromise – negotiations there is a give and take? One side of this deal has nothing but demands and the other side has rights. The proponents of more restrictive gun laws have no skin in the game. It’s similar to when our representatives propose a tax increase of lets say 12%, but then reduce that demand to 6% and tell us how good they were to save us a 6% tax increase! Even more graphic would be that someone is trying to cut your arm of but instead bargains with you to only cut your fingers of!

    Here’s the deal as I see it with everyone on this blog. NOBODY, NOBODY is going to change or influence any other persons’ view. So what is happening is the Union workers and the scabs are pointing fingers at each other across the picket line.

    Contact your representatives and have the dialog with them! They are the ones you have to influence, not anyone here!

    See Ya in the voting booth.

  132. 133 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “NOBODY, NOBODY is going to change or influence any other persons’ view.”

    Not quite true. Expressing opinions leads (sometimes) to understanding. You might not agree, but at least you an understand an opposing position. It is far better to engage in the conversation than it is to never examine an opponent’s position. Not doing that is kinda like only watching Fox News.

  133. 134 nedsmithy

    Express and be Damned! Your idea of “conversation” is to get your views imposed on me. Not interested! As to your “opponent’s position”, you are correct in that statement. You are my opponent, in the sense that you advocate altering or repelling some of my rights. Are we all biased? Absolutely! Just read your bias on the Fox News subject. It’s boring to read the posts by some of the “Mighty Joe Young’s” posting here.

  134. 135 jezebel282

    Ned,

    I’m sorry I missed that sign that said it was your highway.

  135. 136 cpcalta

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! I’m guessing given some of the other statements ned has made we’re talking about the 1949 original? And I assume he is referring to those of us who disagree with him as the gorilla, although that doesn’t make a lot of sense, since Joe is the one imprisoned and the poacher with the gun killed Joe’s mother and tried to kill him. Oops, sorry, that was the 1998 re-make, not sure if that was in the original.

    If it is so boring reading these posts, then why come here, read the posts, and continue to make comments?

    Anyway, congratulations Jezebel, looks like it took you only a couple sentences to piss off those stalwart defenders of the second amendment (sarcasm).

  136. 137 jezebel282

    CP,

    I can turn very quickly.

    It is not about “sides”. No right is absolute and no solution is perfect. It saddens me that reasonable people cannot even begin to discuss reasonable solutions.

  137. 138 cpcalta

    Another “reasonable” advocate arguing the second amendment is sacrosanct. And don’t forget to watch the part where he blames medication for creating killers.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/the-deport-piers-morgan-creator-blows-up-on-cnn-153577.html

  138. 139 cpcalta

    General McChystal, not exactly a bleeding heart liberal, on the issue of gun control:

    “The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations, and I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty country,” he said. “We need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”

    http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/08/former-gen-mcchrystal-assault-rifles-are-for-battlefields-not-schools/

    I assume we’ll be told this is just another “unreasonable” opponent of the second amendment.

  139. or this

  140. or this

  141. or this

  142. 143 jezebel282

    Would anyone care to post an actual idea about how to reduce the number of Americans killed or wounded every year by firearms?

    Or would you all just rather keep posting that all guns are evil or that the solution is more guns?

  143. or this

  144. 145 jezebel282

    Really? Now guns are a Jewish “thing”? And here I thought Jews moved to Florida for the warmth and the ability to drive at 10 miles per hour. Who knew it was because of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law?

  145. 146 jezebel282

    That’s right! We need more guns in school!

    Student shot at Calif. high school by classmate; suspect talked into surrendering by staff

    Updated at 4:14 p.m. ET

    TAFT, Calif. A 16-year-old student armed with a shotgun walked into class in a rural California high school on Thursday and shot one student, fired at another but missed, and then was talked into surrendering by a teacher and another staff member, officials said.

    The teen victim was in critical but stable condition, Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood told a press conference. The sheriff said the teacher suffered a minor pellet wound to the head but declined treatment.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57563309/student-shot-at-calif-high-school-by-classmate-suspect-talked-into-surrendering-by-staff/

    Oh wait! Talked into surrendering? That can’t be right. Shot by the principal is the only way to protect students, right?

  146. 147 stfdprofessor1

    Ummmm you neglected to mention that “Officials said there’s usually an armed officer on campus but the person wasn’t there because he was snowed in.”
    And wasn’t it a “gun free school zone”? That seems to work well.

    By the grace of God he was talked into surrendering, but he what if he wasn’t??? We have substitute teachers but not substitute police officers?

    Hey I’ll fix it, lets ban shotguns now too! How about banning the mode of transportation he took to the school as well. Makes about as much sense as everything else thats been said lately.

    Now on a serious note, let’s start with locking up whoever left the guns unsecured! Then lets make sure the shooter gets the MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT, no plea bargains, no counseling, NO MORE NONSENSE!

  147. 148 jezebel282

    Prof,

    Gee, I was just listening to the NRA president and he said the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun was with a good guy with a gun. He can’t be wrong can he?

  148. 149 jezebel282

    Just as a reminder to all, we are discussing solutions to gun violence. We are not talking about auto safety, cancer, AIDS, war or anything else. The problem is the wounding and killing of 100,000 Americans per year…with guns.

    Guns have to be part of the answer.You can’t just say it is my God Given Holy Right to have a gun and therefore stop the discussion

  149. 150 stfdprofessor1

    “I was just listening to the NRA president and he said the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun was with a good guy with a gun. He can’t be wrong can he?”

    Of course he can br wrong, I frankly think the guy is kinda creepy HOWEVER he is right with that statement.

    How do you propose to stop a bad guy with a gun? Ask him for a time out and have a debate? Or maybe you can entertain him for the six to seven minutes before the police arrive. But lets see how our glorious elected state officials are handling it today on the opening day of the legislature shall we:

    Opening Day 1/9/13 Proposed Bills:

    Proposed H.B. No. 5096 AN ACT AUTHORIZING BONDS OF THE STATE FOR METAL DETECTORS AT THE STATE CAPITOL http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5096&which_year=2013&SUBMIT1.x=19&SUBMIT1.y=13

    Proposed H.B. No. 5112 AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PERSONS HOLDING HANDGUN PERMITS. http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5112&which_year=2013&SUBMIT1.x=7&SUBMIT1.y=17

    Proposed S.B. No. 1 AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS FROM VIOLENCE. http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=1&which_year=2013&SUBMIT1.x=12&SUBMIT1.y=9

    Proposed S.B. No. 42 AN ACT CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION. http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=42&which_year=2013&SUBMIT1.x=8&SUBMIT1.y=9

    Go figure, the FIRST BILL ON THEIR AGENDA is to use OUR tax dollars to put in metal detectors for THEIR PROTECTION. I guess having armed State Police Officers for THEIR protection just isn’t enough.

    SECOND BILL ON THEIR AGENDA disclosing names and addresses of persons with pistol permits…yeah that ought to be helpful preventing another mass murder.

    THIRD BILL shows nothing, we can only hope it comes out of committee with some thought and some teeth.

    and then my personal favorite the FOURTH BILL outlawing criminals from having ammunition for the outlawed gun they are outlawed from having BRILLIANT! That one was sponsered by Sen. Martin (you cant make this up) LOONEY (yes Looney is his last name)…JUST BRILLIANT!

  150. or this

  151. 152 jezebel282

    Prof,

    “By the grace of God he was talked into surrendering, but he what if he wasn’t???”
    But he was.

    The first question I had was how does a student get into school with a shotgun?

    Once again, the issue we are discussing is violence with guns. Let’s leave accidental shootings aside for now. We have taken steps and passed legislation dealing with drunken driving, using cell phones while driving and texting while driving. Why? Because it is dangerous to do those things and as a result people die. If the NRA were paid by cellular phone companies they would be arguing that people who text and drive are exercising their First Amendment right of Free Speech and would claim that any law regulating the ability to talk or text will allow the government to seize all existing telephones. There is not even a law banning the use of firearms while in a drunken stupor.

    It is more than obvious that with 100,000 shootings of people per year we are completely ignoring the issue. We are pretending that there is no problem at all. It is simply a price we pay for the divine right to tote guns around.

    There has to be some reasonable discussion possible. Noting your examples above, we certainly cannot rely on politicians who will pander to just about anyone about anything. I am afraid that it is up to us, the ordinary citizens, to find real solutions. Opposition to any effort that has the word “gun” in it is just as unreasonable as those who would ban the manufacture and possession of any gun.

  152. 153 nedsmithy

    For your viewing enjoyment.

  153. 154 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    You ask for constructive ideas. You want to take away the 30 rd firepower that is available.

    Let me enlighten you and most of the readers here to some facts about the “Colt” AR-15 “Style” firearm. Since maybe the early 1990’s Colt has cast a piece of metal into the receiver area (that needs to be machined out) to prevent the gun from being made full auto, even by someone with my skill set. It is so designed that even a solid carbide tool bit will not cut through this block. IF you try hard enough all you will do is make the receiver total scrap metal.

    The infamous “auto sear” needs to go in the area to function so they accomplished 2 controls with one item. You cannot make the gun full auto with an Auto Sear and you cannot fit AR-16 parts in the same area to make it full auto with factory parts.

    Now we get to my proposal. Ban all further productions of any magazine that has a capacity of more then 10 rounds.
    All further productions of the Governments so called Assault Rifles, will have a unique latching and feed rail made a permanent part of the receiver, same way the AR-15 style is now. The gun then will not have the firepower that is the subject at hand. If someone tries to modify it, then it will self destruct in the exact same way as it does now.

    The “Assault Weapons” people are talking about are simply, “Semi-Automatic Rifles” as defined by the ATF. Once they have had their “Teeth Pulled” (so to say) and there will be no magazines manufactured that will hold more then 10 rounds. Then all assault weapons would have no more firepower then lets say a Remington Model 742 rifle. Happens to be a current semi-automatic rifle in favor with many hunters.

    Just as a passing note, there are high capacity magazines available for the Remington Model 742. Maybe we should also put it on the “list” or maybe ban the magazine?

    You asked for suggestions?

  154. 156 nedsmithy

    More Entertainment!

  155. 157 nedsmithy

    Rather than wait and see what the Obama Administration and a complacent Congress choose to foist on American gun owners, Wyoming legislators are proposing a Firearms Protection Act.

    The proposed legislation would protect gun owners from any federal bans on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines by making federal laws against semiautomatic rifles and clips unenforceable within the state.

    The proposed legislation would go as far as making any federal agent who tried to enforce a federal anti-gun law within the state subject to a felony. It would also allow the Wyoming Attorney General’s office to defend state residents.

    One of the legislation’s sponsors said the law is a message to the Obama Administration. “It says that your one size fits all solution doesn’t comport to what a vast majority of the state believes,” state Sen. Larry Hicks said.

    Hicks said his constituents have been worried about an impending federal gun grab but that he’s received even more calls since Vice President Joe Biden admitted the Administration was considering using executive orders to limit gun rights.

    What we need is more state leaders willing to stand up to the feds on this issue. The federal government can legally override state laws when they conflict with federal law, even though the federal government lets some cases slide, such as with states that have legalized marijuana.

    But if states would band together, they could force the feds to back down.

    There is no justification for the current pressure to ban guns and related accessories. Gun and ammo bans wouldn’t have stopped Adam Lanza from shooting up Sandy Hook school, and they wouldn’t have stopped any of the mass shootings in recent memory.

    But liberals see the murders of children as a political opening for passing their longtime totalitarian dream of getting rid of guns.

    All Americans should oppose the despicable exploitation of dead children as cover to steal our freedoms.

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8923/wyoming-lawmakers-try-to-head-off-federal-gun-grab/#ixzz2HiatDvdf

  156. 158 nedsmithy

    In a prior post:

    Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who led the war in Afghanistan, endorsed strong gun control laws Tuesday on Morning Joe.

    “I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”

    Maybe then if it was chambered in 7×57, 8×57, 35 Whelan, 257 Roberts or 220 Swift, it would be more acceptable, being held to lets say 2800 fps. Saying that ” the effects are devastating’ is rather interesting that a White Tail Deer hit at 50 yds. with any of the rounds listed, the results will be the same. Most military small arms firepower is designed to remove the most combatants from the field of fire as possible. If a combatant is killed then 1 is removed. If the combatant is wounded then he will be removed along with his support team. To those who say the .223 round tumbles through the air and causes damage like a Dum Dum bullet! The only thing that is Dumb there is the statement! There is no chance in Hell of maintaining a 1 or 2 MOA with a round tumbling after leaving the muzzle.

  157. 160 cpcalta

    How about these policy recommendations from Parents Against Gun Violence (http://www.parentsagainstgunviolence.com/pagv-presents-policy-recommendations-platform-for-reduce-gun-violence/):

    Policy Plank

    1.) Empower law enforcement

    a.) Approve Andrew Traver, President Obama’s nominee for Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. Without a leader, the Bureau is hampered in its ability to enforce its congressionally mandated responsibilities, such as investigating and prosecuting straw purchasers who buy guns for criminals.

    b.) Pass new legislation reversing the Tiarht Amendments. These amendments make it more difficult for police officers to effectively fight gun trafficking. Among other obstacles, the Tiarht Amendments block the Justice Department from requiring that gun dealers conduct annual inventory checks.

    2.) Empower researchers

    Remove current restrictions that prohibit the use of federal funds for research on gun injuries, regardless of how the findings of that research could be interpreted or used. Unimpeded, rigorous research can help policymakers target legislation much more precisely, focusing on the particular strategies likely to make the biggest dent in gun violence.

    3.) Issue new regulations on the sale and manufacture of firearms

    a.) Require that all gun sales be processed by a federally-licensed firearms dealer. Private citizens wishing to transfer a firearm to a new owner must complete the sale through the intermediation of a licensed dealer, including a permit application and background check at the time of sale. This will eliminate the so-called “gun show loophole” that enables firearms sellers and purchasers to avoid background checks.

    b.) As PAGV analysis shows, there is a very strong correlation between firearm magazine capacity and total casualties in mass shooting incidents. Addressing magazine capacity is far more effective than an approach that focuses on banning one type of firearm or another. Approve the high-capacity magazine ban proposed by Congresswoman Diana DeGette. In addition to prohibiting the sale of new high capacity magazines, include a ban on the after-market transfer of existing magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds.

    c.) Appropriate funds for a nationwide buyback program for high capacity magazines and unwanted guns. People who currently own high-capacity magazines will have one opportunity for remuneration, which will otherwise be lost when private transfers are banned. A nationwide magazine buyback will reduce the overall number of high-capacity magazines in the country. Compensation for voluntarily surrendered firearms and magazines should come in the form of a pre-paid debit card with an expiration date in the near future, ensuring that the money will be spent and will have a stimulative effect on the economy.

    d.) Require that all owners of high capacity magazines who choose to keep them must register them by taking them to a law enforcement agency where they will be engraved with a serial number corresponding to a record of ownership in a national database. A registration fee will be collected for each magazine, to offset the costs to law-enforcement agencies.
    e.) Require that any store that sells firearms must also sell gun safes.
    f.) Add a line to the existing application to purchase a firearm, in which the buyer must affirm that he or she already owns a gun safe, or is buying one with the new gun.

    g.) Require that, by 2020, all popular calibers of handgun ammunition be manufactured with frangible bullets designed to disintegrate when they hit a wall or other hard surface. This will apply to .25 ACP, .32 ACP, .380 ACP, .38 Special, .38 Super, 9mm, .40 Smith and Wesson, 10mm, .45 ACP, .45 GAP, .357 Sig., and other calibers as appropriate, but not to .357 Remington Magnum, .44 Remington Magnum, and larger calibers (which may be manufactured with a soft-tipped lead or polymer bullet appropriate for hunting). The use of frangible bullets will help to reduce the incidence of people accidentally killed by stray bullets.

    4.) Empower mental health care providers

    Improve the ability of the mental health system to treat severely mentally ill people outside the constraints of the hospital system by creating and fully funding an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program in every major metropolitan area.

    5.) Protect schools

    a.) Create a grant program through which schools may apply for funds to hire guards, offer professional development related to crisis management, or install equipment to secure schools and classrooms.

    b.) Require all public schools to update their evacuation procedures and to plan new safety drills that prepare students and teachers for a response to an armed attack.

    c.) Allow and instruct school counselors to coordinate with Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) programs in their region, informing mental health professionals of students believed to be a potential risk to themselves or others who should receive ongoing treatment.

    d.) Endow these federal school safety initiatives through revenue collected from a new federal excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition.

  158. 161 cpcalta

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/11/texas-lt-gov-calls-for-state-funded-weapons-training-for-school-teachers/

    Neither interesting nor thoughtful. So the Lt. Gov. proposed allowing a willing teacher to carry a loaded weapon in a classroom. Let’s say it’s an elementary school. The teacher carrying the weapon leads a second grade class. An attacker breaks into the school, but not the classroom of the teacher with the weapon. Under this scenario, instead of the teacher protecting his or her students and moving them to safety (remember it was not his/her class attacked), the proposal is what exactly? Leave 7 year old kids alone in a room while the teacher goes off in search of the assailant? Wait for the assailant to get to his or her classroom and confront him or her there? Take the students along to confront the assailant? Which option would you choose?

  159. 162 ronmoreau

    d- None of the above.

    The coward shooter would never have gone to a school because it is not a
    “gun free zone”.

  160. I WILL RESPOND IN ALL CAPS TO AVOID CONFUSION, PLEASE DON”T THINK I’M YELLING, IMAGINE IT THE SOOTHING VOICE OF RABBI DAVID BENDORY.

    “By the grace of G-d he was talked into surrendering, but he what if he wasn’t???”
    But he was”

    YES HE WAS…AND THAT WAS A STROKE OF LUCK, NOTHING MORE.
    I CERTAINLY WOULDN’T WANT MY CHILDREN PROTECTED BY LUCK, WOULD YOU?

    “The first question I had was how does a student get into school with a shotgun?”

    LACK OF SECURITY, BARNEY FIFE APPARENTLY GETS SNOW DAYS.

    “Once again, the issue we are discussing is violence with guns. Let’s leave accidental shootings aside for now. We have taken steps and passed legislation dealing with drunken driving, using cell phones while driving and texting while driving. Why? Because it is dangerous to do those things and as a result people die.”

    AND CONTINUE TO DIE, LET’S TAKE DRUNKEN DRIVING- AFTER THE LAWS THAT WERE PASSED, STILL OVER 12,000 DEATHS IN 2011 ALONE (vs. 323 deaths in 2011 by semi auto rifles), BUT WE HAVEN’T HAD LEGISLATION PRESENTED TO BAN ALCOHOL AGAIN (that worked out well when tried in the past), OR TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL YOU CAN BUY AT ONE TIME, OR THE BOTTLE CAPACITY, OR EVEN A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR ALCOHOL PURCHASE TO CHECK IF YOU WERE A PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED DRUNK DRIVER.

    “If the NRA were paid by cellular phone companies they would be arguing that people who text and drive are exercising their First Amendment right of Free Speech and would claim that any law regulating the ability to talk or text will allow the government to seize all existing telephones.”

    OY THE GREAT LIBERAL BATTLE CRY- ITS ALL THE NRA’s FAULT. IF I HAD TO GUESS WHY MRS. LANZA RAN OUT AND BOUGHT AN AR15 TYPE RIFLE I WOULD SAY IT HAD MORE TO DUE WITH THE BRADY CAMPAIGN’S RANTING THAN THE NRA’S RANTING. “THE IRONY OF GUN CONTROL IS THAT IT MAKES PEOPLE WHO NEVER PLANNED TO OWN ARMS GET THEM JUST IN CASE OF A BAN”, DON’T BELIEVE THAT, DRIVE BY ANY GUN STORE RIGHT NOW AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.

    “There is not even a law banning the use of firearms while in a drunken stupor”

    REALLY, THEY REPEALED WRECKLESS ENDANGERMENT?

    “It is more than obvious that with 100,000 shootings of people per year we are completely ignoring the issue. We are pretending that there is no problem at all. It is simply a price we pay for the divine right to tote guns around.”

    “100,000 shootings of people per year” REALLY? WHERE DID THAT FIGURE COME FROM? THAT WOULD BE AN AVERAGE OF 2,000 SHOOTINGS PER STATE PER YEAR? WHERE IS THE NEWS MEDIA ON THESE STORIES? I GUESS WITH URBAN LEGENDS LIKE THAT FLOATING AROUND IT’S NO WONDER HONEST AMERICANS FEEL THE NEED TO AQUIRE FIREARMS FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION.

  161. “There has to be some reasonable discussion possible…Opposition to any effort that has the word “gun” in it is just as unreasonable as those who would ban the manufacture and possession of any gun.”

    SOLUTIONS? HOW ABOUT THESE

    LET’S START WITH 100% ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS CURRENTLY IN PLACE WITH NO PLEA BARGAIN, NO SENTENCE REDUCTION AND NO TIME OFF FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR FOR OFFENDERS.

    PUT ARMED SECURITY AT EVERY SCHOOL IN THE NATION (it works quite well in Israel and after 9/11 don’t say there isn’t terrorism in the USA. It could easily be said Adam Lanza was the biggest terrorist this country has seen since 9/11).

    ABOLISH “GUN FREE ZONES” SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON’T WORK AND AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN THEY HAVE BECOME “PREDATOR MASS MURDER ZONES”. SIMPLY PUT IF A PREDATOR THINKS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ARMED RESISTANCE PRESENT HE MAY THINK TWICE. IT APPEARS MOST OF THESE PREDATORS ARE COWARDS WHO ATTACK THE DEFENSELESS THEN TAKE THEIR OWN LIVES AS A WAY OF ESCAPE. REMEMBER THOSE FAMOUS WORDS “it would be worth it if we could just save one life”.

    MOST GUN OWNERS SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL FIREARMS TRANSFERS, HOWEVER THEY DEPLORE REGISTRATION (all one needs to do is look at how State Representative Dargan wants to release all the names of pistol permit holders through FOI to figure that one out. It is none of anyones business WHAT anyone else owns as long as it’s legal.

    SO WHY WON’T POLITICIANS SIMPLY AND SWIFTLY MOVE FORWARD WITH UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, ENFORCE EXISTING LAW AND INCREASE SCHOOL SECURITY?

    WOULDN’T THESE REASONABLE PROPOSALS BE A SWIFT AND MEASURED RESPONSE TO THIS ISSUE?

    YES, BUT TO MOST ANTI-GUNNERS AND BUREAUCRATS THE REAL DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT KEEPING CHILDREN SAFE, IT’S AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUSH FORWARD WITH THEIR ANTI-GUN AGENDA AND EXPLOIT AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE. THAT IS WHAT DISGUSTS ME THE MOST!

    MAKES ONE WONDER IF VP JOE BIDEN FINISHED HIS REPORT 2 WEEKS EARLY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN COMPLETED A LONG TIME AGO AND SAT IN A FILE CABINET WAITING FOR AN OPPORTUNE TIME.

    Shalom

  162. 166 stfdprofessor1

    “Endow these federal school safety initiatives through revenue collected from a new federal excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition.”

    This makes about as much sense as funding AIDS research from a new federal excise tax on gay marriage licenses Chrissy.

  163. 167 stfdprofessor1

    btw Disgusted dont feel the need to fight my battles with Jezzy, I was letting her have her beauty sleep for the weekend (she needs it) now that you stole my thunder I just have Chrissy to antagonize. Thats not nearly as fun, he’s clueless and witless.

  164. 168 nedsmithy

    For those of you that took the time to watch the Piers Morgan – Larry Pratt video, you, as I, may have wondered about Mr. Pratt quoted figures on crime in the UK.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

    Seems like Mr Pratt was up on his facts & figures.

  165. 169 nedsmithy

    Even more feared, given our current government!!!

    “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”

  166. 170 cpcalta

    Something to consider regarding the deterrence argument:

    “One problem with deterrence theory is that it assumes that human beings are rational actors who consider the consequences of their behavior before deciding to commit a crime; however, this is often not the case. For example, half of all state prisoners were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their offense. Therefore, it is unlikely that such persons are deterred by either the certainty or severity of punishment because of their temporarily impaired capacity to consider the pros and
    cons of their actions.”

    (http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/deterrence%20briefing%20.pdf)

  167. 171 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    “IT’S AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUSH FORWARD WITH THEIR ANTI-GUN AGENDA AND EXPLOIT AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE. THAT IS WHAT DISGUSTS ME THE MOST!”

    Let’s be clear. the 100,000 shootings (that would be the FBI’s number of people wounded or killed) are a result of being shot by GUNS. If you don’t want to count the wounded we can stick with just those killed. But to not talk about the GUNS is somewhat missing the point, don’t you think?

    If you want to be disgusted about that, I suggest that your issue is not with the people who have an “anti-gun” agenda, but with the people that pick up a gun and shoot someone with it.

    And while I’m at it, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” is ridiculous. People kill people with guns.

    As long as we are talking nonsense, we might as well bring up the whacko theory that the rifle or handgun in the closet will somehow protect you from a government. I’m sorry, but that is just crazy. Especially from anyone who ever served in the U.S. military. The government has pretty much unlimited weaponry. Tanks, jets, bombers, submarines, missiles, satellites, rockets and any sort of firearm you’d care to describe. Your Bushmaster is not going to help you.

  168. 172 cpcalta

    “Professor” you give yourself far too much credit. You have added nothing of substance to this discussion and it appears your only goal is to demean and insult others. If this is all you have to contribute your comments say much more about you than they do me.

  169. “And while I’m at it, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” is ridiculous. People kill people with guns.”

    and people kill people with hammers, 496 in 2011 vs. 323 with semi auto rifles. That means you are more likely to be killed with an Estwing or Craftsman hammer than a Bushmaster or Colt rifle, in all fairness where is your outcry to license and register hammers?

    Also with no mention once again of the 12,000 deaths at the hands of drunk drivers and the ineffectiveness of “gun free zones”.

  170. BTW Jez, you asked for solutions which I presented then you only reply to one statement in an effort to steer the discussion away from the solutions that you asked for?

    “If you want to be disgusted about that, I suggest that your issue is not with the people who have an “anti-gun” agenda, but with the people that pick up a gun and shoot someone with it.”

    I’m disgusted by both! Let me make myself perfectly clear that I was, am and will always be horrified, sickened and disgusted by the actions of sociopaths and madmen who harm the innocent firFIRST AND FOREMOST.

    But I am also disgusted by those who would use the emotion created these horrific acts to further their own personal agendas. Using an absolute human tragedy in this way shows a deep disrespect for the victims, you are free to agree or disagree but I am entitled to my feelings on the subject.

    Either way millions of law abiding gun owners are now being wrongfully associated with the actions of a criminal, madman and yes, a terrorist. They are also being asked to pay in some way for his actions and that’s just plain wrong!

  171. 175 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    “and people kill people with hammers”
    Seriously? That’s what you’re going with?

    “They are also being asked to pay in some way for his actions and that’s just plain wrong!”

    Not by me. What I am striving for are reasonable solutions to the extraordinary damage caused by illegal and misused firearms. Surely there are effective measures we can all agree upon to at least reduce the carnage.

    But if we keep going in this circle of some sort of holy rite to permit the unrestricted access to firearms to well, just about anyone from anywhere what can we possibly accomplish? Do we just shake our heads inn dismay at the next mass shooting, drive-by, liquor store hold-up or gang turf war and say “Oh well, as long as I have the right to bears arms then it’s worth it”?

  172. Total avoidance and redirect once again, James Carville would be proud.

  173. 177 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    “Total avoidance and redirect once again”

    LOL! Err…I didn’t bring up hammers.

  174. Lets try this one last time.

    SOLUTIONS? HOW ABOUT THESE

    LET’S START WITH 100% ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS CURRENTLY IN PLACE WITH NO PLEA BARGAIN, NO SENTENCE REDUCTION AND NO TIME OFF FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR FOR OFFENDERS.

    PUT ARMED SECURITY AT EVERY SCHOOL IN THE NATION (it works quite well in Israel and after 9/11 don’t say there isn’t terrorism in the USA. It could easily be said Adam Lanza was the biggest terrorist this country has seen since 9/11).

    ABOLISH “GUN FREE ZONES” SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON’T WORK AND AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN THEY HAVE BECOME “PREDATOR MASS MURDER ZONES”. SIMPLY PUT IF A PREDATOR THINKS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ARMED RESISTANCE PRESENT HE MAY THINK TWICE. IT APPEARS MOST OF THESE PREDATORS ARE COWARDS WHO ATTACK THE DEFENSELESS THEN TAKE THEIR OWN LIVES AS A WAY OF ESCAPE. REMEMBER THOSE FAMOUS WORDS “it would be worth it if we could just save one life”.

    MOST GUN OWNERS SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL FIREARMS TRANSFERS, HOWEVER THEY DEPLORE REGISTRATION (all one needs to do is look at how State Representative Dargan wants to release all the names of pistol permit holders through FOI to figure that one out. It is none of anyones business WHAT anyone else owns as long as it’s legal.

    SO WHY WON’T POLITICIANS SIMPLY AND SWIFTLY MOVE FORWARD WITH UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, ENFORCE EXISTING LAW AND INCREASE SCHOOL SECURITY?

    WOULDN’T THESE REASONABLE PROPOSALS BE A SWIFT AND MEASURED RESPONSE TO THIS ISSUE?

  175. 179 cpcalta

    Why is registration of guns anathema to gun owners? We are required to register our cars, have them inspected, maintain insurance on them, and obtain a license to drive which must be renewed on a regular schedule (subject to state laws). Not to mention there are many sensible restrictions on what we can and cannot do in and with an automobile. Why should there be any less regulation governing ownership of guns?

  176. Point 1- All one needs to do is look at how State Representative Dargan wants to release all the names of pistol permit holders through FOI to figure that one out. It is none of anyones business WHAT anyone else owns as long as it’s legal.

    Point 2- With firearms unlike automobiles registration almost comes before confiscation.

    I will state again, it is none of anyones business WHAT anyone else owns as long as it’s legal.

  177. correction…almost ALWAYS comes before confiscation.

  178. 182 jezebel282

    “almost ALWAYS comes before confiscation”

    And off we go to Never Never Land.

  179. “And off we go to Never Never Land”

    Total avoidance and redirect once again.

    “It can’t happen here”, echos from history. The naive always think nothing will ever happen, mashugana I say.

  180. 184 cpcalta

    So much for a reasonable discussion. At the heart of much of the opposition to sensible legislation is the irrational fear of government tyranny. Despite the fact that even during our most contentious policy debates, our country has flourished and our government has functioned largely as the framers intended.

  181. 185 ronmoreau

    Jez,

    “What I am striving for are reasonable solutions to the extraordinary damage caused by illegal and misused firearms.”

    Illegal firearms? Arent they already illegal?

    “But if we keep going in this circle of some sort of holy rite to permit the unrestricted access to firearms to well, just about anyone from anywhere what can we possibly accomplish?”

    Unrestricted access? That’s not the case now. Have you ever tried to even buy a firearm? You will not leave the gun store with the gun(for 2 weeks) if you are not licensed to carry and until the required paperwork and back ground checks are completed.

    A responsible gunowner will not sell a gun to anyone without the proper paperwork. As the last registered owner you would be held libel if that gun was used illegally.

    Bad people do not follow the laws. What makes you think these bad people will follow new restrictions and laws?

  182. 186 cpcalta

    Ron, your example only applies if someone purchases a weapon from a gun store. And with very little ability to track purchases going from owner to owner when individual transactions are conducted, and no gun registry to track those sales, how exactly do you expect law enforcement to hold the last registered owner liable? CT has universal background checks for handguns only, and only five states have laws requiring universal background checks. If this is supposed to be a deterrent for either sellers or buyers (good or bad), the impact is likely negligible if it is not a federal statute.

  183. 187 nedsmithy

    Let’s put a pin in CP’s balloon.

    “We are required to register our cars, have them inspected, maintain insurance on them, and obtain a license to drive which must be renewed on a regular schedule (subject to state laws).”

    Not! You are not required to register the car with the state. You are only required to register it IF you want to use public highways. “Fleet Purchases” are made all the time. So let us let this “Straw Man” die an honorable death?

    Yes you have to have a drivers license to drive on “public highways”, not on private property. You also do not have the “Right” to drive.

  184. 188 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    I fail to see your reply to my post #154?

  185. 189 stfdprofessor1

    “irrational fear of government tyranny” spoken like a true Generation X MTV kid who went to school after the history curriculum was dumbed down by the political correctness.

  186. 190 nedsmithy

    CP writes:

    ” And with very little ability to track purchases going from owner to owner when individual transactions are conducted, and no gun registry to track those sales, how exactly do you expect law enforcement to hold the last registered owner liable?”

    Maybe in the state where you live, but here in Ct. the law is clear on it’s face , in that it makes no reference to the law applying ONLY to retail gun dealers. It applies to all sales and or transfers!

    The other interesting point of your posting is “owner liable”. It appears that to many people are looking for a scape goat to hang the “Liability” on and then that gives them a feel good!!

    The person that you would hold “Liable” in the Newtown shootings had a small problem with the fact that she was the first victim of the thief that stole the firearms. But I guess you (CP) just might call that “Poetic Justice”!

  187. 191 nedsmithy

    CP
    “So much for a reasonable discussion”

    OK lets cut right to chase on this subject:

    To both Jez & CP
    Your idea of a reasonable discussion or solution is for everyone to accept your ideas. NOT going to happen! Some of us here have posted solutions but they do not meet with your approval, so they are deemed unreasonable?

    The real reason that both of you are hitting this stone wall is that most if not all pro firearm ownership people realize that “the other sides main goal” is not get reasonable regulations & controls but to ban the ownership of firearms. I know what is meant when a politician says “This is a good law etc. BUT is a good step ion the right direction. One of the first things taught to you in any PAC seminar is to “Never admit victory and always say that it was a good first step”.

    Bottom line is that you are coming after some of my Rights and I’m not compromising an inch!

  188. 192 cpcalta

    And you “Professor” appear to be a relic of the fear-based 1950’s where people believed “commies” were lurking around every corner. I’ll be happy to discuss my knowledge of U.S. history with you to see who understands what. Physical age has nothing to do with knowledge of this or any other subject. In fact one can argue that in some cases it can be argued that people become so rigid and inflexible in their beliefs as they age that they can’t imagine the possibility that society has advanced and solutions to problems change over time.

  189. 193 cpcalta

    First, nedsmity, these are not all “my” ideas. As I have repeated constantly, I am not in favor of a complete and total ban on the ownership of firearms. How much more clear can that statement be? But the idea that there are reasonable limits on the types of weapons available to the general public is not the same as someone banning all ownership of firearms. The only person suggesting an “all or nothing” proposition is you.

    What is readily apparent is that for all the blame the gun lobby wants to place on every other aspect of society, the media (whatever that constitutes), video games, Hollywood, etc., the fact remains that gun deaths (not deaths by any other type of instrument) are significantly higher in the United States than most other industrialized nations, And here’s the thing about those other scapegoats, most of those industrialized nations have the same games, movies and access to “media” and yet far fewer gun deaths and reported incidents of gun-related violence. Do they have better law enforcement? Perhaps. Higher rates of incarceration? Not likely.

    By the way,regarding all this talk about a national registry of the mental ill, don’t you find it just the least bit illogical that the same people advocating for putting people on a “registry” are against a registry related to inanimate objects? I’ll ask again (as I inquired earlier), what is the criteria governing who is placed on this list? What diagnosis lands people on this list, and are medications also included? If so, what medications?

    You can continue to falsely claim that people like me “want to take your guns,” but it simply isn’t true. What I would like is some common sense when it comes to the types of weapons (and yes ammunition enhancements) available for sale to the general public. I would like to see us deal constructively with mental health, law enforcement, security issues and a society that has become increasingly desensitized to violence and encourages a morbid reverence for weapons.

  190. 194 cpcalta

    By the way, unlike some, I take no solace nor do if find “poetic justice” in the death of any individual. My comments on liability were in response to Ron’s statement on the subject. To interpret anything more from my comment or to even suggest that I would think it okay that anyone lose their life in such a violent manner is reprehensible.

  191. 195 ronmoreau

    cp,
    You are so concerned for our children.How about this one posted by MAXX HAWKE on the Stratford patch.

    “For those who are concerned about protecting children and human rights
    …On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood released its abortion numbers for 2011. The sickening total? The nation’s largest abortion provider murdered 333,964 unborn children under the guise of “women’s health care,” all while receiving $524.4 million from the U.S. government i.e. you and me, unwilling participants in the slaughter of innocents. Whose “rights” are being infringed?”

    So much for the governments concern for our children.

  192. 196 nedsmithy

    Ron,

    You just know that the left will avoid that conversation at all costs! As Biden would say “But if it saves just one young child’s life it will be worth it” . If they were truly worried about making life safer and not fostering their political will while standing on the bodies of the latest victims, they might be heard.

    But we will be told we are not on subject. I believe it was “Rights”??????

  193. 197 nedsmithy

    cp:

    ” To interpret anything more from my comment or to even suggest that I would think it okay that anyone lose their life in such a violent manner is reprehensible.”

    TOUGH, deal with it! You drew first blood on this one pal!

  194. 198 nedsmithy

    Cp:
    :Why is registration of guns anathema to gun owners? We are required to register our cars, have them inspected, maintain insurance on them, and obtain a license to drive which must be renewed on a regular schedule (subject to state laws).”

    STOP THE PRESSES!!!!! NEDSMITHY AGREES WITH CP!!!!!!

    You got yourself a deal on this one CP! I agree to abide by all the registration laws as applied to motor vehicle, in the ownership of firearms.

    Hows about that!!!!

  195. 199 stfdprofessor1

    “In fact one can argue that in some cases it can be argued that people become so rigid and inflexible in their beliefs as they age that they can’t imagine the possibility that society has advanced and solutions to problems change over time.”

    HAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAhaaaahaaaaahahaha society has advanced and solutions to problems change over time, what a crock of PC garbage that is. HAAAAAAAAHAhaha!

    Take a look around you sonny boy MORAL DECAY is rampant in this society. Society has not advanced, it has regressed and is regressing at an alarming rate and people like you are following it right off the cliff without even knowing it.

    I can tell you are an educated person by your verbiage but you certainly arent that smart. Common sense my boy, common sense, some people have it some dont. You would be in the latter category as far as I’m concerned.

    As for the 50’s being fear based, we had a lot less worries back then and America was a much better place. I guess you read about the “fear based” part in your revisionist history lessons. As far as “commies” lurking around every corner, I don’t recall much of that besides that repugnant McCarthy grandstanding for the camera every chance he got. Kind of like Dick Blumenthal does today.

    HOWEVER I do believe there are “socialists” lurking around every corner today. They want government to solve all of their problems, wipe their noses and tuck them into bed every night. Funny thing is they are so stupid they don’t even seem to know that the last great socialist experiment didn’t work out so well.

    “society has advanced” HAAAAAAAHAAAAAhaaaaahahaha and I thought George wore a tin foil hat!

  196. 200 nedsmithy

    Damn!!!! Prof, you absolutely nailed that one dead on! Good for you!!! Wish I had said it first!!!

  197. 201 nedsmithy

    Prof said:
    “Take a look around you sonny boy MORAL DECAY is rampant in this society”

    Nothing but nothing could be closer to the truth. I also can remember those “duck & cover” days, but I do not remember it ever having any consequences on our daily life. We still got up at 5:00AM , milked the cows, feed the chickens, pigs & goats. Came in, washed up, had breakfast & of to school. Mom & Dad would get home from work at about 5:00PM and we would do it all over again. A time when a mans handshake or word was more valuable then anything you could put on paper!!!

    “MORAL DECAY” and I would add one other. ETHICS, something I also do not see anymore. Hanks Williams Jr. has a song with aline in it from his Attorney “Your living in the you crazy old fool”!!!

    I’m proud to say that I will try my best, to my dieing day to be “that crazy old fool”!! It’s a hell of a thing to say but these are times that make me wonder if it was such a good idea to bring my daughter into the world. I love her with all my being but if I knew in 1968 what I know know, I would give serious consideration to having my wife stay on birth control. She’s had to bury her Mother, because some piece of human excrement decides to break into the house and try robbing the house and shoots her to death. Now she gets to be a young Lady growing up in these times of moral & social disaster!!!

  198. 202 nedsmithy

    The line in the song was “Your living in the past you crazy old fool”

  199. 204 nedsmithy

    Thanks for the video.
    I guess at my age, my memory is being influenced by my heart .
    “Your living in the past you Romantic fool”!!!!
    WOW my friends will be glad to know I’m a Romantic!!!!!!

  200. Not a problem, not many songs about a guy with the first name of Abraham

  201. 206 nedsmithy

    What this Country “NEEDS” is more states like Wyoming!!

    Rather than wait and see what the Obama Administration and a complacent Congress choose to foist on American gun owners, Wyoming legislators are proposing a Firearms Protection Act.

    The proposed legislation would protect gun owners from any federal bans on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines by making federal laws against semiautomatic rifles and clips unenforceable within the state.

    The proposed legislation would go as far as making any federal agent who tried to enforce a federal anti-gun law within the state subject to a felony. It would also allow the Wyoming Attorney General’s office to defend state residents.

    One of the legislation’s sponsors said the law is a message to the Obama Administration. “It says that your one size fits all solution doesn’t comport to what a vast majority of the state believes,” state Sen. Larry Hicks said.

    Hicks said his constituents have been worried about an impending federal gun grab but that he’s received even more calls since Vice President Joe Biden admitted the Administration was considering using executive orders to limit gun rights.

    What we need is more state leaders willing to stand up to the feds on this issue. The federal government can legally override state laws when they conflict with federal law, even though the federal government lets some cases slide, such as with states that have legalized marijuana.

    But if states would band together, they could force the feds to back down.

    There is no justification for the current pressure to ban guns and related accessories. Gun and ammo bans wouldn’t have stopped Adam Lanza from shooting up Sandy Hook school, and they wouldn’t have stopped any of the mass shootings in recent memory.

    But liberals see the murders of children as a political opening for passing their longtime totalitarian dream of getting rid of guns.

    All Americans should oppose the despicable exploitation of dead children as cover to steal our freedoms.

  202. 207 cpcalta

    Thankfully many people in our country are more considerate, thoughtful, introspective and tolerant than the narrow-minded few who basically exposed their own hatred, intolerance and ignorance above.

    “Professor” – “As for the 50′s being fear based, we had a lot less worries back then and America was a much better place.” – those are some rose-colored glasses you’re wearing. That whole Civil Right Act must have been a real shocker. I have a feeling there are a lot of people who might view the 50’s a little differently.

  203. 208 stfdprofessor1

    “Thankfully many people in our country are more considerate, thoughtful, introspective and tolerant”

    Nice buzz words however you certainly don’t seem more tolerant, you seem rather like a self anointed moral elitist.

    “That whole Civil Right Act must have been a real shocker”

    Yes it was for me AND Charleton Heston (remember him, former president of the NRA); at times we were philosophically within arms reach during the civil rights movement.

    Thank you for proving my point that you are an ignorant little brat.

  204. 209 nedsmithy

    Hey CP!!!

    Whatcha say? Duz wez gotta deal? Yuz da one dat brought it up.

    “STOP THE PRESSES!!!!! NEDSMITHY AGREES WITH CP!!!!!!

    You got yourself a deal on this one CP! I agree to abide by all the registration laws as applied to motor vehicle, in the ownership of firearms.”

  205. 210 nedsmithy

    Hey Jez!!

    While I’m here I was wondering why you have made no reply to my solutions to the high capacity magazine solution for “Assault” firearms? Maybe you have better modifications then mine? Or maybe your modification would be the outright banning of manufacturing as a good first step modification? Maybe you would start with the Remington 742?

  206. 211 stfdprofessor1

    “more considerate, thoughtful, introspective”

    If a moral elitist sees a homeless man panhandling outside of a grocery store they generally give him a few dollars then tell all of their friends how terrible the mans plight was, what they did to help and how the government needs to do something about it.

    A moral person takes the homeless man home for dinner with his family, gives him a coat and blanket, helps him find a job and tells NONE of his friends.

    On more than one occasion I’ve done the latter, ask yourself which have you done?

    Before you throw around phrases like introspection you may want to do some more yourself.

  207. “Heston used the influence he had developed as a well known actor to help others and champion causes for American liberty. He was President of the Screen Actors’ Guild from 1966 to 1971 and the president of the National Rifle Association from 1998 to 2001 as well as being an early supporter of the civil rights movement where he walked with Martin Luther King. He even once picketed outside a movie theater in 1961 that was showing a film of his that had just come out, but would not allow blacks into the theater. Heston did not like the form that ongoing affirmative action took in later years believing that removed the equality that was being sought. Political pundits bring up the idea that Heston changed his political views, but Heston himself spoke admiringly about his early civil rights support throughout his life and even after his political positions were categorized by others as turning conservative. The difficulty was in the pundits who could not grasp that having a deep desire to see black people treated as equals wasn’t the same as believing in the ongoing entitlement programs in affirmative action.

    Making a moving public speech to America in 2002 that he had been diagnosed with symptoms related to Alzheimer’s disease, he was seldom seen in public after that. When George Clooney heard of it, he took the opportunity to make a public joke at Heston’s expense. When called to task for his statement, Clooney defended it because he said Charlton Heston deserved it. Heston, ever the gentlemen, did not respond in kind, but simply said that George should be careful since he had just as much chance to come down with the disease as anyone else.”

  208. 213 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “I fail to see your reply to my post #154?”

    I apologize for not posting a comment soon enough. I had a bit of connectile dysfunction over the weekend.

    It was a good proposal, albeit a bit technical for me to appreciate fully. Nonetheless, it showed a willingness to do something effective. And to be honest, that is the type of solution required.

  209. 214 jezebel282

    Prof,

    “HOWEVER I do believe there are “socialists” lurking around every corner today.”
    Given that whole First Amendment “thing” why do you think they have to “lurk”?

    “Take a look around you sonny boy MORAL DECAY is rampant in this society.”
    It is hard to recall a time when it wasn’t “decaying”, or at least complaints about decay being spouted. I remember when Elvis Presley was thought to have epitomized the decay of society, or Lenny Bruce or Dalton Trumbo or even Martin Luther King. Thanks anyway, but I have already done the 50’s and I’d rather not go back. If anything I believe society is much more conservative now than at anytime since the 50’s.

    Ned,

    “But if states would band together, they could force the feds to back down.”
    Didn’t we try that already?

    “But liberals see the murders of children as a political opening for passing their longtime totalitarian dream of getting rid of guns.”
    And this is where the discussion goes off the rails. It is neither patriotic nor unpatriotic, left nor right, conservative nor liberal, Democratic nor Republican or right nor wrong to have a meaningful discussion about gun violence in this country.

    I do not believe that this warrants the amount of rhetoric or heat that this topic is generating. Americans should be able to devise a solution that at least reduces the gun violence in this country. We have more important things to accomplish than this. We have to get 16 million Americans back to work, we have to educate our children more effectively and somehow we have to get a minimally effective functional government to do the work we pay them to do.

  210. moral decay- oy vey, now I am in agreement with those mashuganas Bill O’Reilly and the professor.

  211. 216 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    You don’t really have to try so hard to be a tipesh sheygits do you?

  212. Better than being a khokhem, no?

  213. 218 jezebel282

    I was being kind. A small mitzvah. After all, you are already burdened with a goyishe kup.

  214. Vos a nar ken kalye makhn, kenen tsen khakhomim nit farrikhtn.

  215. 220 jezebel282

    LOL!

    No arguing with that.

  216. 221 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    Thanks for the reply:

    “It was a good proposal, albeit a bit technical for me to appreciate fully. Nonetheless, it showed a willingness to do something effective. And to be honest, that is the type of solution required.”

    Then can we agree that the problem as you see it is the amount of firepower & not the source of same? If the firepower ability can be eliminated, then the delivery system is now toothless and mute?

  217. 222 nedsmithy

    Jez,
    ““But if states would band together, they could force the feds to back down.”
    Didn’t we try that already?”

    So that would mean that one should never try again? Please!

  218. 223 nedsmithy

    CP,

    I’m waiting.

  219. 224 cpcalta

    Waiting for what exactly? Are you referring to my response to this:

    “What this Country “NEEDS” is more states like Wyoming!” “It says that your one size fits all solution doesn’t comport to what a vast majority of the state believes,” state Sen. Larry Hicks said.

    Hmmm, when have we heard that before? The 1850’s perhaps? Maybe the 1960’s too? Yeah, that approach is constructive.

    Or maybe you’re referring to this digusting garbage:

    “TOUGH, deal with it! You drew first blood on this one pal!”

    Really? I have never referred to any death as “poetic justice” or implied someone deserved to die. So your obnoxious suggestion is not only false, it’s downright pathetic.

    Maybe this:

    “Damn!!!! Prof, you absolutely nailed that one dead on! Good for you!!! Wish I had said it first!!!”

    So you believe there are socialists lurking around every corner and “moral decay” is rampant, as if we haven’t heard that argument every decade for, oh I don’t know, the last 600 or 700 years. But it’s okay to accuse me of wearing “a tin foil hat.”

    Please show me in any posts on this blog where I have insulted you by insinuating you were crazy or shown the level of disrespect you have shown me. Refer me to that post.

    Is that what you were waiting for?

  220. 225 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “So that would mean that one should never try again?”
    Perhaps I’m not as old as you, but I heard it was pretty bad. One civil war is plenty. Thanks anyway.

  221. 226 nedsmithy

    CP:
    “Is that what you were waiting for?”

    No.
    You brought up the registering of automobiles!

    Message #198

    Cp:
    :Why is registration of guns anathema to gun owners? We are required to register our cars, have them inspected, maintain insurance on them, and obtain a license to drive which must be renewed on a regular schedule (subject to state laws).”

    STOP THE PRESSES!!!!! NEDSMITHY AGREES WITH CP!!!!!!

    You got yourself a deal on this one CP! I agree to abide by all the registration laws as applied to motor vehicle, in the ownership of firearms.

    Hows about that!!!!

  222. 227 cpcalta

    Hang on, I thought violent media and video games were the culprits of this rise in violence:

    “The National Rifle Association released a new app on Sunday that includes a gun range equipped with coffin-shaped targets, and the option for players to simulate using a military-grade sniper rifle.

    According to Think Progress, “NRA: Practice Range” is billed as a “network of news, laws, facts, knowledge, safety tips, educational materials and online resource” for the organization.

    The app includes what it calls “9 true to life firearms,” and allows players to download an MK-11 sniper rifle setting for 99 cents. The rifle can shoot 750 rounds per minute.

    “Practice Range” was released almost a month after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, which gun advocates have insisted should be blamed on violent video games; Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said in a CNN interview she was “astounded” by scenes from the “Call of Duty” game series.

    However, as Think Progress also reported, some gun manufacturers have partnered with video game creators, granting them permission to use real gun models as a mean to market their firearms.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/14/new-nra-knowledge-app-includes-coffin-shaped-targets/

  223. 228 cpcalta

    I won’t play a back and forth game with you on this ned, because I give you more credit to realize that the discussion was about the fact that registration is one aspect of car ownership, and we place other restrictions, limitations and rules on the ownership, maintenance and use of an automobile. The laws regarding automobile ownership have changed as society and technology have advanced, just as there can be changes to the rules regarding gun ownership that do not run afoul of the second amendment.

    So if you want to continue to play silly games like this go right ahead, but you and I both know that was not the point of the dicusscion.

  224. 229 nedsmithy

    Wait a minute here ole pal, your the one that brought it up!! Don’t start whining when you have to eat your own words!!!

  225. 230 nedsmithy

    CP:

    “that was not the point of the dicusscion”

    Then why did you see fit to interject it?

    Part of the whole “You will not even put the same controls on your guns as you do your dogs and automobiles” argument that is soooooooo lame! But it hurts when someone turns it on you.

  226. 231 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said in a CNN interview she was “astounded” by scenes from the “Call of Duty” game series.”

    Is that the same whackadoo that just said it would be good if the U.S. defaults on its debt?

  227. 232 nedsmithy

    Jez:

    Ned,

    “So that would mean that one should never try again?”
    Perhaps I’m not as old as you, but I heard it was pretty bad. One civil war is plenty. Thanks anyway.

    Do not be lulled into the believe that there is no more then just a hand full of people out here that wouldn’t want another bite at that apple! They will take a fair amount of “push back” but you can bet the family farm there can be times that will make “Wounded Knee, Kent State & Randy Weaver” look like a Sunday walk in the park. UNLIKE MLK this one will not be a peaceful protest.

    NOT saying these are my views, just giving you a timely, informed heads up! I’m telling you up front what lots of people wont, but it is their true feelings!

  228. 233 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “Do not be lulled into the believe that there is no more then just a hand full of people out here that wouldn’t want another bite at that apple!”

    This is one of those fleeting times that I regret that we closed most of our psychiatric hospitals.

  229. 234 cpcalta

    We’re just talking past one another now ned. You didn’t “turn” it on me. I’ll say it one more time, the laws regarding automobile ownership have changed as society and technology have advanced, just as there can be changes to the rules regarding gun ownership that do not run afoul of the second amendment. It isn’t about the “same” controls. As I said, situations change over time. Can we discuss how registration of firearms would “infringe” on the right to keep and bear arms? Even Justice Scalia stated that there was no right to privacy in the Constitution. (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/blog/2012/07/29/scalia-weighs-health-care-decision-gun-rights) Last time I checked no one accused Justice Scalia of being a bleeding heart liberal.

    There’s also this from the same article:

    “In 2008, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in DC v. Heller that said the handgun ban in the nation’s capitol was unconstitutional.

    However, as the majority said in Heller, Scalia believes the second amendment is not an unlimited right. Just what the court would find unconstitutional, as it pertains to types of weapons especially, Scalia issued a “we will have to wait and see” answer.”

  230. 235 nedsmithy

    Seems you left out the part about it being an individual right?

    “second amendment is not an unlimited right”

    There are no absolutes. Same goes for every other amendment from the 1st on down.
    In our law system you will be held accountable for your actions. Big difference from accountability to restrictions!

    I do not doubt for a second that there are going to be more feel good restrictions on firearms in Connecticut. The politicians and anti gun agenda crowd will make hay while the wounds are still fresh! I, by that time will watch the carnage from a new home in a much friendlier gun state. What is accomplished here on the state level will not fly at the federal level. Listen to your own people at the federal level and they are getting you ready for the golden parachute.

  231. 236 cpcalta

    Ned,

    I didn’t leave anything out, I simply copied the quote exactly as it appeared in the article.

    Here is the text taken directly from the Heller ruling:

    “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” pg.2

    (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

    It stands to reason that the SCOTUS would leave vague the definition of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” This is at least a part of the discussion here is it not?

    “There are no absolutes. Same goes for every other amendment from the 1st on down.” – On this we agree, I have never stated otherwise.

    “In our law system you will be held accountable for your actions. Big difference from accountability to restrictions!” – But ned, aren’t laws just that, restrictions? Laws are rules (restrictions) that regulate behavior. You break the law (do something you’re restricted from doing) and get held accountable. I’m not trying to be sarcastic or confrontational here, I’m trying to understand your point. You can’t hold someone accountable for their actions without some restrictions on what is allowable and what is not, correct?

  232. 237 nedsmithy

    CP

    Let’s try this one last time. Good shuck and jive BUT this is a major point of the ruling:

    :Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    CLEARLY states that one does not have to be part of the Militia for it to apply.

    Also
    ” laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”

    Please note the use of “commercial sale” with the absence of private sales,
    Please note also “in common use at the time”. So much for the founding fathers not knowing there would be the type of firearms “in common use at the time (2013)”

    Cp:
    ” I’m not trying to be sarcastic or confrontational here”

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

  233. 238 nedsmithy

    Jez:
    “This is one of those fleeting times that I regret that we closed most of our psychiatric hospitals.”

    CAREFUL there Jez, one may never know who is the keeper of the gate? When you say “we”, do not assume that it includes all here.

  234. 239 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “When you say “we”, do not assume that it includes all here.”

    Unfortunately, “we” as a society thought it was more cost efficient to close psychiatric hospitals and rely solely upon chemically treating the patients.

  235. 240 stfdprofessor1

    “Unfortunately, “we” as a society thought it was more cost efficient to close psychiatric hospitals and rely solely upon chemically treating the patients.”

    I don’t remember being asked, I suggest you schange “we as a society” to “uneducated, uninformed bureaucrats and politicians” 🙂

    “Unfortunately, uneducated, uninformed bureaucrats and politicians thought it was more cost efficient to close psychiatric hospitals and rely solely upon chemically treating the patients.” …On this I can agree.

  236. 241 stfdprofessor1

    Ever notice how our elected and appointed ninnies rarely get anything even close to right? Our forefathers must be spinning in their graves! 😦

  237. 242 cpcalta

    Yes Ned, let’s try this one last time:

    NO ONE has said there is not an individual right to own a gun. That has NEVER been an issue.

    One of the major issues, albeit just one, is what type of weapon could be construed as “dangerous and unusual.” Related to that is the issue of what weapons could be considered “in common use at that time.” Could you for just one second consider that there is a reason there is such outrage over weapons like Bushmaster AR-15s and other military-style assault rifles being used in these types of attacks? Could it possibily be because many in our society don’t view these types of weapons as “in common use”? Can you at least understand that there is room for a reasonable discussion on these issues and that those who see this issue differently ARE NOT trying to take away ALL your guns? Believe it or not, many want a safer, kinder society for ourselves and our children, but they don’t believe it comes about by stockpiling an arsenal of weapons and ammunition.

    Copying and pasting a snide Shakespeare quote in order to insult me just shows you can be a jerk, it doesn’t advance the discussion. But given some of your other comments here (along with the childish comments of some others), it has become increasingly clear you and those of your ilk aren’t interested in participating in a thoughtful, meaningful discussion. You and others want to demean and dismiss legitimate concerns and questions, insulting anyone that doesn’t adhere to your “anything goes” view of weapons.

    There are several “major points” to the ruling. You choose to focus on the one point that no one is disputing. But the other points are just as important, and make clear that there is still a lot of gray areas with respect to which weapons could be deemed “dangerous and unusual” or “in common use at that time.” That is a pretty damn important point, which the justices saw fit to include in the ruling, meaning the decision was not a carte blanche for anyone to own whatever they want.

  238. “Could it possibily be because many in our society don’t view these types of weapons as “in common use”?”

    “Overstreet suggested that you could use trends in NICS background checks to project future sales of AR-15-style rifles. As of Nov. 30, 2012, the total number of NICS background checks increased by 50.4 percent since the end of 2007. If the number of AR-15 rifles increased similarly, then that means there are at least 2,446,294 AR-15 rifles currently available in the United States.

    That “at least” is an important caveat. These data only include firearms manufactured in the United States. In his declaration, Overstreet notes that, since 1986, “U.S.-made firearms have accounted for roughly three-fourths of all new firearms available on the commercial market in the United States.” So if you increase the above number to account for foreign-made, AR-15-style rifles, you get 3,261,725 total rifles.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

    I could be wrong but 3,261,725 total rifles sounds like common use to me.

    Mit a meisseh un mit a ligen ken men nor kinder farvigen.

  239. 244 cpcalta

    Disgusted, out of more than 300 million guns? So that would be about 1% of all the guns estimated in the US. Again, do you want to have a conversation about what constitutes “in common use”? It all depends on the measure. And we’re not talking about purchases, the phrase says “common use.” Purchasing and use are not the same thing.

    And you can throw around all the yiddish you want, but these are neither lies nor fairy tales, and I doubt anyone will be lulled to sleep over this issue.

  240. 245 nedsmithy

    Jez:
    “Unfortunately, “we” as a society thought it was more cost efficient to close psychiatric hospitals and rely solely upon chemically treating the patients.”

    Which appears to be not working for either side of the political isle!

  241. 246 nedsmithy

    Wrong. The individual right has always been a talking point by your side. For years it has been said that the second was a collective right and NOT an individual right. This ruling struck that theory down.

    Second major decision was that you do not have to be part of the Militia for the second to apply. This argument has been run up the flag pole several times just in this thread!

    You say you want meaningful discussion. I have certain rights, as of now, that you want to repeal or alter and you want me to just hand them over to you? You have no skin in the game. You have a desire for something & want to take things away, what do you propose to give me in exchange? You have no skin in the game, you have nothing to bring to the table other then your liberal club.

    There will be laws passed here in Connecticut that will be passed solely on the pain and bodies of some poor souls. There are many people that their lives will never be the same. There are also way to many people that simply see this as a golden opportunity to host their agenda and take advantage of the pain and hurt of some families in Newtown.

  242. 247 nedsmithy

    my prior post was in reply to:

    CP
    NO ONE has said there is not an individual right to own a gun. That has NEVER been an issue.

  243. 248 cpcalta

    And as Jezebel points out this is where the discussion goes off the rails. You refer to it as “your side,” as if there is some monolithic group in which everyone marches in lockstep. It is clear from the discsussion above that is not the case, as I have made clear countless times when I have stated that I’m NOT suggesting or advocating for the confiscation of every privately owned weapon. There is no post in any of the the nearly 250 above that implies or suggests this type of action.

    You appear to only want to address the individual ownership part of this discussion and refuse to engage or consider that the Heller ruling clearly indicated that despite there being an individual right to gun ownership, it is not an unlimited right. The SCOTUS left vague, deliberately one might argue, many aspects of the restriction and limitation issue.

    And regarding the BS about “taking advantage” and “standing on graves,” this is a typical stall and obfuscate tactic of desperate individuals who would rather cast aspersions on others than acknowledge that regardless of rhetoric, the weapon itself does play a part in the destruction of human life. It is not a person’s thoughts that end a life, it is not a video game or a movie, it is the instrument, in the hands of the individual, that cause the destruction. And yet despite that awareness, many still believe that it is not appropriate to repeal the entire second amendment or take away all guns. What many seek are sensible, rational, thoughtful discussions and actions, on numerous fronts, to combat a culture increasingly fueled by paranoia and fear. The paranoia is on display among those who wrongly claim, as you do, that “my side” (whatever that refers to) wants to take all your guns. The fear exists in those who think twice about going to a movie or the mall, or taking their children to school, because the threat of violence has become all too commonplace in our society. For many, “more guns” is not the answer.

  244. 249 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “Which appears to be not working for either side of the political isle!”

    Since when did any politician care about the people their legislation effects?

  245. 250 nedsmithy

    Jez:
    “Since when did any politician care about the people their legislation effects?”

    So true! The ONLY time that we as voters can have any hope of influence with them is 6 months prior to their election!

  246. 251 nedsmithy

    Sorry to say, I did not pay attention to my own words!!! Jez, in some small way I think we could have a meeting of the minds on some issues. CP, You and I will never in 2 life times be able to have any common ground! We are like Israel & al qaeda, NEVER going to happen. Find someone else to play in your kitty litter!

    Prior posting:

    Could it maybe be that in any bargaining – compromise – negotiations there is a give and take? One side of this deal has nothing but demands and the other side has rights. The proponents of more restrictive gun laws have no skin in the game. It’s similar to when our representatives propose a tax increase of lets say 12%, but then reduce that demand to 6% and tell us how good they were to save us a 6% tax increase! Even more graphic would be that someone is trying to cut your arm of but instead bargains with you to only cut your fingers of!

    Here’s the deal as I see it with everyone on this blog. NOBODY, NOBODY is going to change or influence any other persons’ view. So what is happening is the Union workers and the scabs are pointing fingers at each other across the picket line.

    Contact your representatives and have the dialog with them! They are the ones you have to influence, not anyone here!

    See Ya in the voting booth.

  247. 252 cpcalta

    At least I haven’t resorted to this:

    “Find someone else to play in your kitty litter!”

    or this:

    “You have no skin in the game, you have nothing to bring to the table other then your liberal club.”

    or this:

    “Whatcha say? Duz wez gotta deal? Yuz da one dat brought it up.”

    or this:

    “Do not be lulled into the believe that there is no more then just a hand full of people out here that wouldn’t want another bite at that apple! They will take a fair amount of “push back” but you can bet the family farm there can be times that will make “Wounded Knee, Kent State & Randy Weaver” look like a Sunday walk in the park. UNLIKE MLK this one will not be a peaceful protest.”

  248. “these are neither lies nor fairy tales”

    How about fabrications and distortions then Mr. Fancypants.

    “out of more than 300 million guns? So that would be about 1% of all the guns estimated in the US.”

    I see you like using figures, then using Jezebels figure of 100,000 shootings per year and the FBI’s 2011 statistics show 348 shootings using semi auto rifles (I refuse to call them A****** rifles because they are not) that equates to 0.348%.

    Statistically using your figures, Jezebels figures and the FBI figures they are the least likely firearms to be used in a crime. But that is the first firearm they choose to ban? Could it be because this debate is driven by emotion rather than logic? Let’s face it; the looks of them scare the pants off of neophytes on the subject of firearms. Have you carried one in defense of your country? Have you ever carried one in defense of someone who was defenseless? Have you ever even fired one? I would dare say most of the people who are appalled by these types of firearms haven’t. People are scared of the unknown, but some try to hide it by acting like they are the only ones with all of the answers.

    Want more statistics? In 2011 over 2000 people were killed by texting while driving, this does not include the greater amount who were seriously injured as a result. Almost half of them were not the driver. That means someone is SIX TIMES MORE LIKELY TO GET KILLED BY A CELL PHONE than by a semi auto rifle with a high capacity magazine, yet no cries to ban cell phones? I didn’t get these statistics from the NRA, or the JPFO for that matter. I got them from this blog and a quick two minute search on google. EMOTION OVER LOGIC my friend, not to mention a great deal of political ambition sprinkled into this debate (as one example, you will see Andrew Cuomo make a run for the White House in 2016, mark my words).

    I’m glad you like Yiddish, I will leave you with this and then waste my time on you no more.

    Di greste narishkayt fun a nar iz az er meynt az er iz klug.

    As for me, I don’t think I’m smart, just a great deal worldlier. Go get some real life experience young man, and then you can come back and preach to us.

  249. 254 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    I have to agree that an assault weapons ban, or whatever anyone wants to call it, is the lowest of the low hanging fruit. Politicians rarely reach any higher than the lowest. Although on occasion they surprise us and manage to reach lower than the lowest (Republicans voting against Sandy Relief for example.)

  250. 255 cpcalta

    Not to nitpick Jezebel, but low hanging fruit usually refers to the most easily attainable goals, and that is the last thing you can call any aspect of the debate over guns and violence. Even proposals for universal background checks are met with attacks and misinformation.

    Those issues that should be low hanging fruit, like aid for Hurricane Sandy victims or 9/11 first responders, stir division and accusations.

  251. 256 jezebel282

    Maybe I should rephrase that. The low hanging fruit should be easily attainable. Even by politicians.

    Political maneuvering and pandering has made even the low hanging fruit difficult to obtain. Waiting 78 days to provide assistance to millions of American citizens is, frankly, astoundingly shameful. Perhaps (I am always hopeful) the tide may be receding. After all, a handful of Republicans did vote for the aid.

    As far as gun violence, I certainly wouldn’t want a whackado organization like the NRA speaking for me. I would go so far as to say that even the pro-gun posters here do not believe the NRA is speaking for them.

  252. 257 stfdprofessor1

    I became a registered independent because I didnt want whackado organizations like the Democratic or Republican parties speaking for me. But I do have to say disgusteds video above is very telling. Hey Chrissy did you get your sign???

  253. 258 cpcalta

    Disgusted,

    So we’re back to insults it appears? English or Yiddish, it still says more about you than it does me.

    Congratulations for thinking so highly of yourself that you are “worldlier,” whatever that means. Since you know nothing about my “real life experiences,” I’ll say although I’m not old enough to collect social security, I have plenty of life experience. Here’s the thing though, you and others accuse me of “preaching” or “having all the answers.” I have NEVER stated that I have either. Like you, I have opinions, and knowledge, and experiences, and beliefs about the society we live in. I don’t waste my time with paranoid conspiracy theories about our government or socialist “moles.”

    It is very likely that I’m more positive with respect to our government than anyone posting here, not because I’m naive, but because despite the fact that some politicians can’t seem to stumble out of their own way, many are good people, just like us (and I’m including everyone posting here, despite the insults), who for the most part are trying to follow their conscience. Are there some that have gone”round the bend”? Most certainly. But I would rather believe that our society can change for the better than be led down the rabbit hole of fear, darkness and despair. I certainly don’t want that for my children, and I suspect there are many who prefer to look toward the good and positive rather than sit and lament “moral decay” while complaining the world is going to hell and there’s nothing we can do.

    I really don’t care whether you “waste” any more of your time responding to my posts. Like you, I have confidence in my beliefs and my knowledge, and I certainly don’t need any validation from you or anyone here. That is not why I choose to engage in these conversations. Whether you believe it or not, I do feel I learn something from these exchanges, none the least of which is we can all strive to do better and be better.

    So call me anything you like, hurl the insults and silly names, make demeaining comments if that makes you feel better about yourself. Maybe we won’t change each other’s minds, but there is definitely a lot to be learned on all fronts.

  254. 259 stfdprofessor1

    “not because I’m naive, but because despite the fact that some politicians can’t seem to stumble out of their own way, many are good people, just like us”

    HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAhaahahaha!!!!! my sides hurt!

    Not to mention they’re not too smart, in NY they forgot to exempt police from their well thought out 7 round magazine ban, now that makes me feel safer!

  255. 260 stfdprofessor1

    “Wait a minute you gang of criminals, I have to reload”

    “many are good people, just like us”

    HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAhaahahaha!!!!! my sides still hurt!

  256. 261 ronmoreau

    Jez et al,

    Had to laugh at this one. A perfect example of the histeria being generated in our ‘gun free zones’ in the wake of the Newtown tragedy.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/23/philadelphia-girl-scolded-searched-after-pulling-out-paper-gun-at-school/

  257. 262 jezebel282

    Ron,

    Somehow we gotta get you to watch something else besides Fox News.

  258. 263 cpcalta

    Let’s try this one:

    Gun found again at South Philly High, but brave school cop ‘prevented a tragedy’

    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/school_files/Another-gun-found-at-S-Philly-High.html

    “School police officers are not armed, but Sgt. Wright-Godwin was single-minded, Dorsey said. She moved in.

    “She knew she had to get that gun,” said Dorsey.

    A struggle ensued — Wright-Godwin trying to grab the bag, the unknown young man trying to grab it back.

    Ultimately, the young man fled and two other school officers joined Wright-Godwin, taking the young woman into custody.”

  259. 264 jezebel282

    Actually, this says all that needs to be said:

    1221+ people have been killed by guns since Newtown.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

  260. 265 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    “1221+ people have been killed by guns since Newtown”

    That is an impressive number for a 6 week period.

    CDC year 2009 Stats. fo the past 7 days!
    Alcohol related deaths 1442+
    Illegal use of Prescription Drugs 730+
    Of the 3 subjects at hand , which would save more lives?

  261. 266 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “Alcohol related deaths 1442+
    Illegal use of Prescription Drugs 730+”

    Gee, I wonder how many of the above killed someone with a gun?

  262. 267 nedsmithy

    And my question was???????

  263. 268 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “Of the 3 subjects at hand , which would save more lives?”

    Confiscating everyone’s gun, of course!

    ROTFLMAO!

  264. 269 nedsmithy

    I take it then that you are a result of our current advanced education system & majored in math? That can be your only excuse?

  265. 270 cpcalta

    How about this:

    How many of the alcohol-related deaths were self-inflicted? How many of the deaths from illegal use of prescription drugs were self-inflicted?

    Now, how many of those gun-related deaths were self-inflicted?

  266. 271 ronmoreau

    From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).

  267. 272 ronmoreau

    That’s 50 million children down the toilet.

  268. 273 ronmoreau

    I guess the Government has to find something for all those doctors graduating from med. school to do. 50 million less kids to educate and on welfare.”If just one child is save from gun legislation,it;s worth it.” Bull Crap!

  269. 274 ronmoreau

    What a bunch of hypocrits.

  270. 275 nedsmithy

    It’s plain & simple! It’s not about saving any one or hundreds of lives! It’s about Firearms. IF peolpe were truly interested in saving lives, we would repeal Roe vs Wade. Put smoke products in the same catergory as Percocet. Ban alcohol (we’ve never tried that before). While we are banning things, how about banning Cocaine, Herion, Crack etc.. Maybe that will cure the drug problem and at the same time save just one poor young child?

  271. or this

  272. 278 cpcalta

    Ron, do you support the death penalty?

  273. 279 nedsmithy

    CP:
    “How many of the alcohol-related deaths were self-inflicted? How many of the deaths from illegal use of prescription drugs were self-inflicted?

    Now, how many of those gun-related deaths were self-inflicted?

    Let’s take this one step at a time.
    Alcohol = 100% self-inflicted (Unless they were forced to drink??)
    Drugs = 100% self-inflicted (They to were forced?)
    Guns = 100% self-inflicted (Rate of 6.3 per 100,000)

    Abortion = 00.0% self-inflicted
    Again that is 00.0%

    Do you really want to prevent just one childs needless murder?

  274. 280 cpcalta

    Ned, are you serious?

    You provided no context to “alcohol related deaths,” so I’m assuming that could be referring to deaths caused by someone driving while intoxicated who killed someone else. Now if all of those deaths were from alcohol intake only, and the people literally drank themselves to death, that would be self- inflicted. Deaths from illegal use of prescription drugs would be presumed to be self-inflicted, unless someone was forced against their will to ingest them.

    As for gun deaths, suggesting they are 100% self-inflicted is just ridiculous. There were more than 11,000 “Assault[s] (homicide) by discharge of firearms” in 2010.

    Abortion is an entirely separate issue, driven more by religious belief than science. I’m assuming you and Ron believe life begins at conception, which is how you both justify referring to abortion as murder. It is interesting how you and Ron don’t recognize the hypocrisy in your argument regarding abortion. You don’t want anyone infringing on your right to own whatever weapon you want, but you appear comfortable dictating what a woman should and should not be able to do with her body. Evidently you and Ron think it acceptable to force a woman to adhere to your beliefs, despite the fact that the Constitution makes absolutely no mention of abortion.

    Of course, the attempt by you and Ron to turn attention away from the issue of this particular thread is consistent with the actions of the gun lobby. Change the subject, blame everything and everyone else, but god forbid anyone admit that weapons are part of the problem.

  275. 281 nedsmithy

    “I’m assuming that could be referring to deaths caused by someone driving while intoxicated who killed someone else”
    Banning automobiles will solve that one.

    “Deaths from illegal use of prescription drugs would be presumed to be self-inflicted”
    We agree!!!

    “As for gun deaths, suggesting they are 100% self-inflicted is just ridiculous”
    Ahhhhhhhhh the rate of 6.3 per 100,000 is the suicide rate. I would bet that it was self inflicted?
    Your 11,000 number comes out to 211 per week. Of this number how many were criminal vs criminal? How many were criminal vs law abiding citizen? How many were law abiding citizen vs law abiding citizen?

    “It is interesting how you and Ron don’t recognize the hypocrisy in your argument regarding abortion.”
    NOW, who’s being ridiculous???

    “You don’t want anyone infringing on your right to own whatever weapon you want”
    Glad to see that you agree that it is my (individual) right to own whatever weapon I want, thank you. I like your assumption of my right.

  276. 282 jezebel282

    And off we all go into whatever else pops into anyone’s head. Except, of course, the topic itself. (Abortion? Drug addiction? Suicide? Cigarette smoking?)

    For some reason, the second amendment seems to hold a holy position above and beyond any other amendment. Mere discussion of it seems to provoke irrational anger.

  277. 283 cpcalta

    Ned,

    More obfuscation and deliberate misdirection. It is apparent you don’t want to participate in a thoughtful discussion on this topic.

    How about you respond to the actual point I was making instead of trying to twist it to fit your inflexible position? I’ll post it again: Both you and Ron want the right to own whatever weapon you want (regardless of what is written in the Constitution or what the Supreme Court has ruled), but you want to dictate what a woman should and should not be able to do with her body.

    You want to try and create some type of moral equivalence between gun violence and abortion, or gun violence and alcohol-related deaths, or gun violence and drug abuse. We have more rules and regulations regarding alcohol, drugs and women’s reproductive rights than we do weapons.

    By the way, the number of homicides reported by the CDC for 2010 were only those identified as assaults, which means it was one person taking the life of another. You want to draw a distinction between the assaults, as if there is some justification for certain assaults. Those 11,000 deaths were murder, plain and simple. They were the result of the instrument used in the commission of the assault.

    This thread is about guns, gun violence, and rules and regulations related to these issues. All your efforts to distract from these issues just reinforces the weaknesses and inconsistencies in your argument.

  278. 284 nedsmithy

    Jez:
    “And off we all go into whatever else pops into anyone’s head. Except, of course, the topic itself. (Abortion? Drug addiction? Suicide? Cigarette smoking?)”

    Did you not say:
    “Actually, this says all that needs to be said:
    1221+ people have been killed by guns since Newtown.

    You started the numbers game. Now when someone else plays numbers it’s unfair?

  279. 285 nedsmithy

    CP
    “This thread is about guns, gun violence, and rules and regulations related to these issues”

    Well at least you’ve now stated for the record that it isn’t about saving lives but that it is about gun control.

    No, I’ll not discuss giving up any of my rights.

    I’m puching away at this because my main objective is to show that to many people are using the grief of a few families to push the gun control agenda. They really don’t give to craps about the families as long as they can use the bodies to push their own political agenda. Shameless political trolls.

  280. 286 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “You started the numbers game.”

    I do believe that my number related to gun related deaths. We can start other topics like cardiac related deaths, cancer related deaths, auto related deaths, even shark related deaths if you wish.

    I certainly hope you did not intend to say that society should give up trying to alleviate or minimize the causes of pain, suffering and death.

  281. 287 nedsmithy

    CP
    “This thread is about guns, gun violence, and rules and regulations related to these issues”

    Well at least you’ve now stated for the record that it isn’t about saving lives but that it is about gun control.

    What you try to push as “rules & regulations” is more simply called gun control.

    No, I’ll not discuss giving up any of my rights.

    I’m puching away at this because my main objective is to show that to many people are using the grief of a few families to push the gun control agenda. They really don’t give to craps about the families as long as they can use the bodies to push their own political agenda. Shameless political trolls.

  282. 288 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “are using the grief of a few families to push the gun control agenda”

    I think we’ve already established that it is more than “a few”. And I am still not clear what you think the end-goal is of people who are pushing their own “political agenda” in an effort to reduce gun violence. After all, if you are going to spend time, money and effort shouldn’t there be some goal in mind? What might that goal be? Or at least, what do you think it might be?

  283. 289 nedsmithy

    I’ve already stated that I believe it’s about gun control and not saving anyones life!

    I also gave you a discription of how to eliminate the “firepower” of the dreaded “Assault Weapon” but it appears no one here has the expertise to understand the proposal, so the naswer is to ban them? Get educated to what you are talking about. What in my proposal would not work?

  284. 290 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “I believe it’s about gun control”

    I’m still not clear here. If it is about gun control…so what? I honestly don’t understand why placing restrictions or requirements on guns is a huge problem. What is the problem with requiring the registration of all guns? Is that somehow more dangerous than, say, fingerprinting? Or asking for a social security number? Is it more intrusive than perhaps the Selective Service where you can get killed just because the government insists upon it?

    “What in my proposal would not work?”

    Nothing. That’s why I agreed with you.

  285. 291 cpcalta

    “I’ve already stated that I believe it’s about gun control and not saving anyones life!”

    Let’s see if you can comprehend this:

    I won’t speak for anyone else, but I believe reasonable restrictions and requirements on guns will save lives. Plain and simple. Many who are trying to create safer communities for their families and friends believe that reasonable restrictions and regulations would save lives, while not infringing on the desire to own a weapon that would be more than adequate for hunting or self-defense. It is also about understanding how guns move from “law-abiding citizens” into the hands of those who would use those weapons for illegal activity. It is nothing more than paranoia to think that those advocating for adequate regulation and registration procedures are trying to “take all your guns.” It is simply not true, no matter how many times you or anyone else says or types it.

    To suggest that I don’t care about my friend’s family, or the other families that are permanently scarred by gun violence, is not only wrong, it is insulting to all those who have lost loved ones and choose to advocate for a more sensible and rational approach to curbing gun violence in our society. Would you make the same statement to those families who lost a loved one and now advocate for the same restrictions or requirements? Would you say this to the families of those in Newtown, or Aurora, or Columbine?

  286. 292 nedsmithy

    CP

    “Let’s see if you can comprehend this:”

    Surely you jest!

    (“take all your guns.” It is simply not true, no matter how many times you or anyone else says or types it.)
    Not all right now, but some now & more in the future!

    While we are on the subject of “comprehension” , here is what I wrote:

    “that to many people are using the grief of a few families to push the gun control agenda. They really don’t give to craps about the families as long as they can use the bodies to push their own political agenda. Shameless political trolls.”

    I made no mention of the families personal grief. I simply made the point that there are people & Politicians that will use the grief of these families for their own political gain! IF you are one of those people then let the cards fall where they may! Yes I would make the same statement to these Families, as they all well know, there are people that will use their grief for their own gains!!

    As to Insulting, what is insulting to me is that you really think you can foster your views on me.

    I’m still waiting for your input on the modifications to “Assault Weapons” to eliminate the fire power? Maybe you have modifications that are better suited?

  287. 293 nedsmithy

    From the good ole boys of Gilberton, PA:

    You just gotta love it!!!

  288. 294 ronmoreau

    Interesting analysis published in the Ct post.

    http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Analysis-Assault-weapons-ban-might-not-hit-4227278.php

    cp,
    To answer your last question directed to me. The answer is no.

  289. 295 stfdprofessor1

    maybe the connecticut police chiefs association will support the constitution they have sworn to protect as well: http://www.cpcanet.org/index.html

    oops…I guess not! “Constitution State”…HAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAhahahaha!!!

  290. 296 jezebel282

    So if we require universal background checks, national registration of all firearms, requiring sellers/resellers to maintain an inventory and Ned’s suggestion (Ban all further productions of any magazine that has a capacity of more then 10 rounds. All further productions of the Governments so called Assault Rifles, will have a unique latching and feed rail made a permanent part of the receiver, same way the AR-15 style is now. The gun then will not have the firepower that is the subject at hand. If someone tries to modify it, then it will self destruct in the exact same way as it does now.) it does not on its face violate the 2nd amendment to “keep and bear arms” and may go very far indeed towards reducing the illegal guns that are out there.

  291. “and may go very far indeed towards reducing the illegal guns that are out there.”

    That part is doubtful…but if it makes you feel better to think so. I’m sure that criminal entities will not fill the void because there are more new laws on the books. Hey, it works so well with cocaine, heroin, meth and marijuana. I’m sure that Chinese cargo ship that was caught smuggling AK47’s from China to Los Angeles was just making an honest mistake.

    “Ban all further productions of any magazine that has a capacity of more then 10 rounds”

    I would assume that ban is for everybody? Since the magic number for self defense is now 10 according to all of our liberal firearms experts out there, then I assume that the police will be limited to 10 rounds as well. You do know that the primary reason police officers are issued and carry firearms is for THEIR protection not yours? Case law shows the police have no duty to protect, just enforce to laws. Now if you think the police should get more than 10 rounds because they may need them just in case of …but not civilians isn’t that rather hypocritical?

    Even on this thread there is not much talk about fixing the broken mental health system in this State (that may cost money and some rational thought). Nope we’ll go after firearms even though it won’t fix the problem, but hey it will look like we care.

    This thread should be renamed “right to be ridiculous”.

  292. 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.

    “Where are the “well regulated militias” that need these weapons?”

    Militias are a moot point here in Connecticut; we have the following inconvenient right in our State Constitution:

    “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

    Where are the “citizens” that need these weapons? Obviously they are everywhere because you can’t find one of these types of firearms at any gunshop in the state, they’re all SOLD OUT! The genie is out of the bottle boys and girls and there is no new law made by any politician or regulation made by any bureaucrat on the Local, State or Federal level that is going to put that genie back in. Thank the headline grabbing politicians, the sensationalized media and the well intentioned and misinformed anti’s for putting more guns on the streets. Instead of wasting resources on a misaimed loosing battle would it not have been more prudent to bolster enforcement efforts for the laws currently on the books? Sorry to use logic on such an emotional issue, but logic generally trumps emotion.

    Congratulations to all of the above, they have made the situation worse instead of better!

  293. 299 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    So all of law enforcement is simply a waste of time? Obviously if we look at the spectrum of unlawful activity from speeding to murder, the fact that people continue to break laws makes all laws irrelevant?

  294. “So all of law enforcement is simply a waste of time?”

    I didn’t say that honey, I said just the opposite- “would it not have been more prudent to bolster enforcement efforts for the laws currently on the books?”

    Does every liberal have to try to be James Carville?

  295. 301 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    My mistake. I was going by the words you wrote.

    “I’m sure that criminal entities will not fill the void because there are more new laws on the books. Hey, it works so well with cocaine, heroin, meth and marijuana.”

  296. 302 stfdprofessor1

    “Does every liberal have to try to be James Carville?”

    HAAAAAAAAAhaaaaahahaha……..YES!

  297. 303 cpcalta

    Better James Carville than Karl Rove.

    “Instead of wasting resources on a misaimed loosing battle would it not have been more prudent to bolster enforcement efforts for the laws currently on the books? ”

    Industry pressure hides gun traces, protects dealers from public scrutiny
    (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102302996.html)

    “Under the law, investigators cannot reveal federal firearms tracing information that shows how often a dealer sells guns that end up seized in crimes. The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny. It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms…

    …inspections detected serious problems. Nearly half of the dealers could not account for all of their guns, for a total of 13,271 missing firearms. More than half were out of compliance with record-keeping. And they had made nearly 700 sales to potential traffickers or prohibited people. More than 450 dealers were sanctioned, and 20 were referred for license revocation.

    The ATF proposed tougher rules, such as requiring dealers to conduct regular inventories to detect lost or stolen guns. The gun industry opposed the rule, calling it a step toward a national registry of gun ownership.

    Lawmakers and groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence used the tracing data to identify the top 10 “bad apple” gun dealers. That angered gun store owners and manufacturers, who argued that selling traced guns does not prove wrongdoing.”

    Then came the Tiahrt Amendment in 2003. It is difficult to bolster enforcement when the NRA and its proxies in Congress tie the hands of the agencies that are responsible for that enforcement. It is extremely difficult to track how gun purchases go from being a legal purchase to an illegal transaction if investigating the underlying aspects is either restricted or curtailed due to lack of resources or legislation. And this is just one element of the misleading rhetoric about “enforcing existing laws.”

  298. 304 stfdprofessor1

    More propaganda from Chrissy!

    HAAAAAAAHAAAAhaaahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I just love it when liberals parrot misinformation like it’s gospel.

    HAAAAAAhaaaahaaaahaaaahaa!!!

  299. 305 stfdprofessor1

    Chrissy I came into this topic as a gun agnostic but you have singlehandedly turned me pro-gun

    HAAAAAAAhaaahaahahaaaaaa

  300. 306 stfdprofessor1

    “curtailed due to lack of resources”

    It certainly didn’t take our wonders up at the state capitol to find the resources to put in metal detectors for THEIR protection, they’re up and running TODAY!

    Chrissy you’re precious!!! HAAAAAHAAAHAAAAhaahaaaaaaa

  301. 307 cpcalta

    And you continue to act like a 6 year old “Professor.” Please show us the “misinformation.” You’re apparently so learned and knowledgeable, tell us what is incorrect in the information cited. Unless all you can do is resort to name-calling, which apparently is what you’re best at.

    By the way, you might want to watch how you make certain statements, otherwise they might be interpreted as a threat.

    Maybe you can actually read some factual information instead of failing miserably at insults. Are you at all curious why some of these laws exist?

    Gun Control: Statutory Disclosure Limitations on ATF Firearms Trace Data and Multiple Handgun Sales Reports

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

    “The FY2008 Tiahrt language, however, continues to prohibit the release of firearm trace data for the purposes of suing gun manufacturers and dealers. Moreover, the limitation includes the phrase, “in fiscal year 2008 and hereafter,” which make the limitation permanent law according to the Government Accountability Office.5 For FY2009, similar language was lncluded in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8).”

    It is next to impossible to get trace data for tracking weapons used in the commission of a crime, meaning holding accountable those gun dealers who put the weapons in the hands of an individual who commits a crime is next to impossible. And before you use the excuse that the individual is to blame and not the dealer, remember that a bartender or establishment that serves an intoxicated individual can be held liable if that person then causes harm to another individual, but a gun dealer who supplies a weapon to someone who then uses it to commit a crime is shielded from liability.

    It is right there in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act signed in 2005 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s397enr/pdf/BILLS-109s397enr.pdf):

    “Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are
    not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.”

  302. 308 nedsmithy

    Jez:
    “So if we require universal background checks, national registration of all firearms, requiring sellers/resellers to maintain an inventory ”

    I would support Universal Background checks for all firearms sold at retail.

    National registration is a mute point, as all firearms sold at reail since 1968 are as you would say “registered”.

    As to your point of “sellers/resellers”, I will only support that at the retail level. As to the added point of maintaining an inventory. I can tell that you know no one that has an FFL and has been subject to the “compliance audits” of the past 10 years or so. It makes a full audit by the IRS look like a Sunday walk in the park. Yes, I’ve been subject to both. I’ll take the IRS full audit Hands Down!!!!

  303. 309 jezebel282

    Ned,

    Just as a point of information, does the ATF, FBI or anyone have access to all gun registration records?

  304. 310 cpcalta

    Ned, may I also ask a question regarding sellers/resellers? Is there a minimum number of sales (either per year or some other interval) at which an individual selling guns must register as a retail seller/reseller? Can an individual buy and sell any number of guns without applying for an FFL?

  305. 311 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    The ATF has sole jurisdiction of all FFL holders firearms records. Any “Agency” can have access to these records by going through the ATF. The FFL hoder is required to keep a “Bound Book” record of all firearms that come into their premise. There can be a computer records book, BUT it must be fully approved by the ATF. The FFL holder also must keep the form 4473 that is made out by purchaser “forever”! IF the FFL holder goes out of business or closes the FFL they are required to turn over to the ATF the Hard Bound Book and at the ATF discretion the 4473’s also. What the ATF has been doing in the past, maybe, 5 or 6 years, is bringing their own scanner & laptop and scanning in the 4473’s. This makes it quicker for them to track a firearm, rather then contacting the dealer and having them search out the 4473 and fax it to them.

    I must take this oppertunity to explain to people what some of these “Dreaded Violations” are that dealers are making. NOT ALL but most of the violations are simple paperwork errors. As an example, a buyer might put Ffld. as the county. The violation there is that they want Fairfield instead. Maybe Nov. instead of November. One has to really be informed as to what these “Violations” really are.

  306. 312 nedsmithy

    CP,

    In years past the ATF had taken the position that you were in the “business” of selling guns for profit, that they, in their sole descretion” would determine how many you could sell before coming to you and “Gently?” ask you to apply for an FFL. The ATF, through “their own council” have determined that it was a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause and have backed of that idea. I “think” that this was all part of the lawsuit that was brought against Florida & others that were charging an “Impact Fee” if you moved to their state and brought your vechile with you.

  307. 313 jezebel282

    Ned,

    So..if I walk into a gun/bait shop in, say Wytheville, VA, and plunk down $200 for a used handgun (or a dozen of them), throw them in my trunk and on my way back stop off in the Bronx and sell them for a thousand a piece, that dealer back in Wytheville is going to get in big trouble when the NYPD trace one of the guns back, right?

  308. 314 nedsmithy

    CP,
    No. I “Think” to purchase them from an FFL holder you must be a resident. BUT lets go with your idea (more then likely impossible). When NYPD has reason the run a NICS E-Check on any of them, they will come up with your name, as the FFL holder had you fill out the Form 4473 and all your information will be given to the ATF and you will be the one on the “Hot Seat”. I do believe you’ll be looking at several felony charges.

    To take it to maybe the next step:
    If you bring them back to Ct. and sell them privately you are subject to all the same regs. & rules as an FFL holder & you must get a unique authorization number & fill out a state form SP-3 & SP-67 & mail copies to all Agencies concerned.

  309. 315 nedsmithy

    Sorry CP, my old age is catching up with me and I replied to you & it was to be Jez!!!!!!

  310. 316 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “my old age is catching up with me”

    Been there, done that, read the book, saw the movie, got the t-shirt.

    LOL!

  311. 317 nedsmithy

    BUT JEZ!!!!!!
    I just took one of those Test Your Brains Age things on the internet and it tells me my brain is 26 years younger then what my birthday is!!!! Me thinks they are being nice?????

  312. 318 jezebel282

    Ned,

    Relax, many people say I think like a 15 year old. If only I could get the rest of my body….oh never mind.

    But back to the subject. What happens to the bait/gun shop owner in Wytheville VA? Nothing? Or the guy at the gun show in Aiken, SC who sold me another 20 of them?

  313. 319 nedsmithy

    Why should anything happen to the FFL holder in VA, when in point of fact he complied with all ATF rules, did a Nics check & you filled out the Form 4473?

    As to the “guy at the gun show”. IF he was an FFL holder the same would apply to the sale.

    If he was a private citizen & we will go with the assumption that the laws of SC are the same as Florida, it is considered a private sale and Florida’s position is that it is protected by the Interstate Commerce Clause. The “suggested” process for sales in Florida is to ask the person if they are prohibited for any reason to purchase & highly recommended to get a copy of their Drivers License & Concealed Carry Permit to keep on file for the ATF if they come asking. Not all, but most of the people I know in Florida abide by those suggestions.

  314. 321 nedsmithy

    Gee, you think?

  315. 322 stfdprofessor1

    “By the way, you might want to watch how you make certain statements, otherwise they might be interpreted as a threat.”

    What’s that another liberal trick to try to silence your opposition Mr. Spindoctor??? Just for the record I never attempted to threaten anybody about anything at any time! Are you going threaten to sue me for hurting your feelings next? Sorry I cant seem to take you seriously about anything you post but I dont think anyone else does either.

    “before you use the excuse that the individual is to blame and not the dealer”

    HAAAAAAHaaaahaaahaha…in “Chrissy’s liberal fantasy world” no one is responsible for their own actions, what’s next suing the car dealers for fatal traffic accidents. HAAAAAAAhaaahahahaha!!!! But seriously, do you really believe half of the garbage you write? Come back to earth Christopher, all that stuff you hear on NPR is about as accurate as Fox News is at the other extreme. Lawsuits and threats HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAhahahaha!!!!! I think Disgusted has the right idea, from now on your on “IGNORE”.

  316. 323 jezebel282

    Ned,

    So pretty much anyone can walk into any gun shop in South Carolina and buy as many guns and as much ammo as they want without any sort of permit or registration requirement. At least according to the NRA.

    http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/south-carolina.aspx

  317. 324 cpcalta

    “Professor,” it would be great if you would stop responding with nonsense. Feel free to ignore me, for the last time I DON’T CARE what you think of me, my opinions, or the useless and boring drivel you post. You post anonymously, so while I’m certainly familiar with your type, your pathetic insults mean absolutely nothing. And did I say anything about a lawsuit? Of course not. I wouldn’t waste my time, nor do I feel threatened by some self-important anonymous instigator. As I keep saying, your posts say more about you than they do me.

    You haven’t responded with any substantive comment for some time. Had you actually been following the posts on this thread, you would see that there is substantive conversation going on about access to records, the buying, selling and reselling of weapons, and the issues and limitations surrounding current gun laws.

  318. I guess a slow learner is better than a no learner Professor

    I traveled to the Capitol yesterday to witness the hearings on this subject. It was interesting and troubling both the same. Besides the troubling part of hearing the families testify, I was genuinely surprised at the amount of people from Newtown present who testified that they were not on the side of increased gun control. A majority of the community I personally witnessed on both sides of the issue are genuinely upset at the way this tragedy has been politicized. My thoughts, hopes and prayers are with them all regardless of which side of the issue they are on.

    Metal detectors were installed at the entrance for the protection of our important Politicians; as usual they wasted no time looking out for themselves (which was pointed out to them in testimony by a parent of the Sandy Hook Elementary School; to their very visible embarrassment). Inside everyone was well dressed and articulate for the most part. There were a couple of speakers on both side of the issue who were out of touch with reality, but that is to be expected in a free society.

    While being up front about my personal views that I am in favor of 100% enforcement on current laws and restraint on passing further restrictions until the full official report is released on this tragedy; I offer you what will never be told in the mainstream press on these hearings:

    -While the CT Police Chiefs Association was for further bans- MANY, many more politically disconnected “rank and file” Police Officers said they would be totally ineffective and were against them. I did not see or hear ONE “rank and file” Street Cop testify in support of further bans.

    -A forensic expert for Bridgeport PD and the State Medical Examiners Office named Marshall Robinson ( http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Ballistics-expert-on-the-case-for-Bridgeport-3816629.php ) testified that he was opposed to further bans as ineffective and unnecessary, saying these types of firearms are used in an infinitesimally small amount of shootings and current propositions would have had no effect on the incident in question. He further testified that magazine capacity holds no bearing on the outcome of these incidents.

    -I was surprised to hear that the murderer (I will not use his name) in this horrific incident broke 22 laws BEFORE showing up at the school.

    -I was surprised to hear that the murderer changed his magazines numerous times during this tragic incident.

    -I was surprised to hear someone testify that it took approximately 20 minutes from the initial 911 call from the Sandy Hook Elementary School for first responders to arrive. After hearing that fact it certainly makes the Sheriff David Clarke video timely for me personally.

    -I was horrified, shocked and angered to hear that the State of Connecticut only prosecutes 20-25% of gun crimes in this state. 75-80% of the charges are plea bargained away including the most serious of offenses like carrying a pistol without a permit and firearms being possessed by criminals during the commission of a crime.

    -The witness ratio was 85-90% against further restrictions to 10-15% supporting further bans and controls.

    -The vast majority of witness’ on both sides of the issue were well dressed and articulate, with only a few extremists testifying on either side (sorry Jez, no camouflage OR tie dye). The extremists on both sides appeared totally disconnected with logic or reason and seemed fueled by pure emotion. They were quietly shunned with lots of “eye rolls” from both sides of the aisle.

    -Both sides showed a great deal of mutual respect for each other and their opposing positions, which made the whole spectacle of metal detectors and “pat downs”, seem all the more ridiculous.

    Time will tell if the Legislature makes a reasoned response, however politicians being politicians, I don’t expect they will choose the “will of the people” or “reason” over “self served ness”. I just thought some reading may like to hear what actually happened from a witness with only a slight bias.

  319. 326 cpcalta

    If ATF statistics are reliable, less than 10% of all firearms dealers are inspected on a yearly basis. In fact, between 2000 and 2005, less than 5% of all dealers were inspected. If you look at the trends, inspections during the Reagan, Bush, and G.W. Bush administrations were at historical lows between 1969 and 2011, although after 1978 the percentage of inspections never rose above 10%.

    (http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf).

    And then there is a 2004 Justice Department report that identifies significant problems with ATF evaluation and inspection procedures.

    “Because the ATF does not conduct regular inspections of FFLs and lacks adequate resources to meet agency goals, it cannot effectively monitor the overall level of FFL compliance with federal firearms laws. In December 2003, the ATF initiated a program to conduct special Random Sample Compliance Inspections to develop a risk model for the FFL inspection program. Using data from those inspections, the ATF planned to “be able to project the overall level of compliance by” gun dealers, pawnbrokers, and collectors.75 While the project to estimate the overall level of compliance with laws is needed to estimate the challenges facing the ATF, it does not take the place of regular compliance inspections for deterring and identifying noncompliance with gun laws.”

    http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0405/results.htm

    The conclusions clearly state that ATF lacks adequate resources, but I’m guessing there aren’t many Republicans in Congress willing to provide those adequate resources, especially when they won’t even confirm an ATF director.

  320. “I’m guessing there aren’t many Republicans in Congress willing to provide those adequate resources…”

    I’m not guessing on this subject, but I am wondering when the Democrats controlled Congress not so long ago; why did they not provide the ATF with adequate resources?

    How about this:

    “I was horrified, shocked and angered to hear that the State of Connecticut only prosecutes 20-25% of gun crimes in this state. 75-80% of the charges are plea bargained away including the most serious of offenses like carrying a pistol without a permit and firearms being possessed by criminals during the commission of a crime.”

    Perhaps this will also be blamed on a lack or resources by evil obstructionist Republicans as well, but that will likely be difficult in a Democratic controlled State.

    If we do not have adequate financial resources to enforce current laws and regulations (which I do not believe), it seems like pure folly to pass new restrictions that only the law abiding will comply with. But what do I know, I’m just an old man using logic and deductive reasoning vs. guessing.

  321. 328 nedsmithy

    Jez:

    “So pretty much anyone can walk into any gun shop in South Carolina and buy as many guns and as much ammo as they want without any sort of permit or registration requirement. At least according to the NRA.”

    Lets go to the last statement first. NOT that you have any prejudice against the NRA, but they are simply posting the laws of each state. You don’t like the message, so lets kill the messenger?

    {just as a side note, I was unable to see the full testimony of Mark Mattioli, anywhere except Fox News. Again one of your favorites BUT they simply recorded the testimony and aired it. Again do you want to kill the messenger?}

    Now to the “meat” of your question. NO to your proposed gun purchase. 1st- you must be a resident of the state.
    2nd- you must fill out a Form 4473
    3rd- you must have a Nics e-check
    4th- you can purchase 1 gun in a 10 day period
    5th- IF you purchase more then 1 gun within a 10 day period, the ATF & local agencies must be notified
    6th- IF you think that by going to another dealer to make more then 1 purchase in a 10 day period can be by passed, the Nics e-check will not allow it.

  322. 329 nedsmithy

    Here’s something for you guys to look up. When was the 1 year “mandatory” sentencing for carrying a firearm without a permit put into law & since that date how many crimes have been committed with a firearm & of those numbers, how many have been sentenced to the 1 year mandatory?

    These numbers are going to scare the crap out of you!

  323. Here is a video of Mr. Mattioli’s testimony

    a strong statement indeed.

  324. 331 cpcalta

    Well, here’s more facts about the ATF nominee under George W. Bush. Michael Sullivan, President Bush’s nominee, had his nomination held up by Republicans, not Democrats. Senator Larry Craig, (R-ID), put a hold on Sullivan’s nomination. It didn’t matter that Democrats had a majority through a coalition, starting in 2007, in the Senate. Two independents caucused with 49 Democrats. As we all know by now, holds by Senators can derail a nomination, regardless of who has the majority. By the way, this is the same Larry Craig arrested for lewd conduct in an airport bathroom.

    (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/declassified/2010/04/16/atf-has-no-head-15-months-into-obama-presidency.html)

    Senate confirmation of the ATF director is a recent development. Deep in the bowels of the Patriot Act reauthorization of 2006 (when Republicans has a majority in the House and Senate), House Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., (R-Wis) inserted a provision that required Senate confirmation of the ATF director. Since that time, there has been no confirmation of an ATF director.

  325. 332 stfdprofessor1

    You are UNBELIVABLE Chrissy, now its all that diddler Larry Craig’s fault? Maybe he should marry another man and turn democrat, would that make you happy Mr. Spinmeister Subjectchanger? I’d guess in your view is it’s “lewd conduct” because he’s a Republicrackpot…BUT he would he be the victim of a hate crime against homosexuals if he’s a Demacrackpot? I wish I could, but you are really hard to ignore. I can’t wait until you beam your next thought from planet LIBERALTOPIA.

  326. 333 nedsmithy

    Well Prof. I REALLY cannot top that one!!! Your impressive!!!

  327. 334 nedsmithy

    CP:
    “If ATF statistics are reliable, less than 10% of all firearms dealers are inspected on a yearly basis. In fact, between 2000 and 2005, less than 5% of all dealers were inspected.”

    Well according to Forbes the audit rate for the IRS is less then 2%. Seems like the ATF is doing a great job with lots less personnel!!!

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2011/03/17/whats-your-irs-audit-risk/

  328. 335 cpcalta

    “I think Disgusted has the right idea, from now on your on “IGNORE”.”

    Apparently you just can’t seem to help yourself “Professor.” You’re simply pathetic. These are the facts that are a matter of public record. And where Senator Craig is concerned, he pleaded guilty yet remained in the Senate to finish out his term. But that doesn’t matter to you does it? As for the hold on the ATF nominee, here’s a Fox News link just for you:

    http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2007Dec12/0,4675,ATFNominee,00.html

    “Republican Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo placed separate holds on the nomination of federal prosecutor Michael Sullivan, the acting ATF director for more than a year.”

    So here’s one issue regarding the discussion taking place here: Many gun advocates say we should just enforce the laws that are already on the books. How does that happen with inadequate resources and consistent and coordinated obstruction?

    Are you actually interested in debating these issues or just insulting people?

    And Ned, auditing tax returns is not even in the same ballpark as ATF inspections. Considering gun dealers are buying and selling weapons, and you yourself argued that universal background checks should be done on the retail side, it is obvious that inspection and enforcement is a critical part of making sure those actions are taken on a consistent basis. Unless you’re just blowing smoke about actually enforcing current laws and supporting universal background checks.

  329. 336 stfdprofessor1

    “Unless you’re just blowing smoke about actually enforcing current laws and supporting universal background checks.”

    Uhhhhh-OH straight from from planet LIBERALTOPIA…I just think he woke a sleeping GIANT!

    This is going to be good!!!!!

  330. 337 cpcalta

    So “Professor,” I assume you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion?

    Any comment on the fact that there has not been a permanent ATF director in more than 6 years?

    Any comment on the fact that ATF inspects less than 10% of all firearms dealers a year?

    Any comment on the 2005 Dept. of Justice report that found “the ATF does not conduct regular inspections of FFLs and lacks adequate resources to meet agency goals”?

    Anything at all?

  331. 338 nedsmithy

    CP:
    “And Ned, auditing tax returns is not even in the same ballpark as ATF inspections. ”

    You’re the one that brought up the numbers game on percent of audits! What is being audited, has nothing to do with the percentage of them being done. It IS the ATF? Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. Given that they audited 10% of the Firearms dealers, I think that is a rather high number, considering there are 2 other classes of retailers to also audit?

    ” you yourself argued that universal background checks should be done on the retail side, it is obvious that inspection and enforcement is a critical part of making sure those actions are taken on a consistent basis. Unless you’re just blowing smoke about actually enforcing current laws and supporting universal background checks.”

    As learned as you appear to be, sometimes your an easy mark. Universal background checks have been enforced at the retail sale point for I would say maybe the past 25 or 30 years. They now are called the Nics e-check system. Don’t make foolish statements about enforcing current gun laws, as you well know that for all intent and purposes, 100% of gunowners support enforcing current gun laws. I could not have said it any better then Mark Mattioli said it!

    As to the “blowing smoke”, I will leave that to you. An expert on the subject. If on occasion I indulge. It’s just that I’m taking your lead. On second thought, I think I’ll try my best to take the high road, that is less traveled.

    Have you taken the time to research my question about the mandatory 1 year sentence?

    I’ve yet to see your input on the modifications to Assault Weapons to eliminate the firepower of the standard issue magazines?

  332. 339 stfdprofessor1

    Sure I have a comment, it seems like since you got your azz kicked all over this thread on gun control issues you’re changing the subject again. The only thing I know about the ATF is they werent too steller at Waco and “fast and furious”.

    “Any comment on the fact that there has not been a permanent ATF director in more than 6 years?”

    Sure, we’ve gone twice as long without a director with this president as the last one.

    “Any comment on the fact that ATF inspects less than 10% of all firearms dealers a year?”

    Sure, why aren’t the State Police doing any inspections?

    “Any comment on the 2005 Dept. of Justice report that found “the ATF does not conduct regular inspections of FFLs and lacks adequate resources to meet agency goals”?

    Sure, sounds like someone is asleep at the switch. One would assume they had an acting director for the past six years. Probably someone who came up through the ranks and knows what’s going on I’d assume. Sorry they haven’t appointed some bureaucratic figurhead for you, but are you saying that without a figurehead they just sit in their offices?

    “Anything at all?”

    Yeah, whats the weather like on LIBERALTOPIA and is there any intelligent life there?

  333. 340 stfdprofessor1

    Hey sugarbritches I just did a quick google search, maybe this is why they arent funding them:
    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=batf+blunders&oq=batf+blunders&gs_l=hp.3..0i22.1812.8609.0.9609.13.13.0.0.0.0.344.2515.0j8j4j1.13.0.les%3B..0.0…1c.1.GZKxamQi-qg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41642243,d.dmQ&fp=b20401a641aa2e02&biw=1024&bih=674

  334. 341 nedsmithy

    Hey Prof,

    Maybe they could find a clone of Eric Holder to head up the ATF? He has such an outstanding record when it comes to guns!

    They REALLY do not need to be without a figurehead to sit and collect checks! They do this quite well, with or without a figurehead.

    Government Agencies are a joke! They couldn’t even make money running “The Mustang Ranch”. They went bankrupt!

  335. 342 stfdprofessor1

    President Obama discussing the actions of the guys Chrissy wants to give more of our tax dollars to:

  336. 343 stfdprofessor1

  337. 344 jezebel282

    Ned,

    Aside from your proposal on modifying the manufacture of semi-automatic weapons, I have heard nothing approaching a reasonable discussion concerning the daily drumbeat of shootings and killings (yes, with guns) of American citizens every single day.

    We can’t even seem to agree that the problem is people with guns who shouldn’t have them. It seems to me that there is either a problem or there is not a problem.

    If there is no problem at all then clearly we need to do absolutely nothing.

    If there is a problem shouldn’t we be doing something effective to reduce the woundings and killings?

    Maybe we should start from a more basic premise. What are the legitimate purposes of firearms? Should we be making access to firearms easier (I honestly have no idea how much easier we could make it) or more difficult?

    And can we possibly avoid criticizing each other’s position and intelligence? (I’m not singling you out at all.)

  338. 345 nedsmithy

    Jez:
    “Aside from your proposal on modifying the manufacture of semi-automatic weapons”

    Like that’s not a major effort? That would totally eliminate your concerns about the amount of firepower! That seemed to be the major concern in the beginning of this thread? Now you want to switch and come up with laws that will make things all nicey?

    ” It seems to me that there is either a problem or there is not a problem”
    Oh indeed there is a problem but it’s not the tool that the problem is using. Because society cannot get around the HIPPA law they want to try and pick the low hanging fruit of law abiding people?

    “What are the legitimate purposes of firearms?”
    Well 1st of there is no mention in the 2nd Amend. about hunting & sport shooting! You roll out “legitimate”, do you want to use that same word in reference to speech and press? Now define legitimate in the case of speech & press? Before anyone goes there! You absolutely can scream FIRE in a crowded movie theater! You just will be held accountable for your actions. IF there was no fire and you are sentenced to jail time, when you get out of jail you have the right to go to the first movie theater you find and do it all over again. But again you will be held accountable! ACCOUNTABLE!!! Nice word!

    ” Should we be making access to firearms easier (I honestly have no idea how much easier we could make it) or more difficult?”
    Again, surely you jest. Take some time and go to any retail gun store and ask to purchase a Colt 1911 45acp, then come back and tell me just how easy it was. By the way,the same laws that they have to go by are the same laws that any private individual has to also abide by.

    “And can we possibly avoid criticizing each other’s position and intelligence? (I’m not singling you out at all.)”
    We have already had this conversation in PM. I now know what the rules are here. I will respond with absolute disregard when I feel someone has tried to poke their finger in my eye. Do not be pounding on the keyboard with a Martini by your side!!!

  339. 346 nedsmithy

    Jez:

    Not to beat a dead horse, BUT to beat a dead horse.
    Legitimate? Do you consider Fox News legitimate? Do you consider the NRA a legitimate origination representing their members? Do you consider PETA legitimate ? I could list forever but I believe you get my point.

  340. 347 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “Take some time and go to any retail gun store and ask to purchase a Colt 1911 45acp,”
    That model seems a bit pricey, but not at all difficult to obtain.
    http://www.gunsinternational.com/Colt-1911-Pistols.cfm?cat_id=34&start_row=101

    Now while the AR-15 seemed to be the weapon of choice with mass murderers, after listening to you and some others here and doing a bit of research it seems that by far and away the weapons of choice for most shootings of people are handguns. Animals, targets and lots of innocent adults & children at once seem to be the victims of rifles.

    “low hanging fruit of law abiding people?”
    I must point out that gun owners are not the only “law abiding people”. I would go so far as to say most of us are law abiding people. Even you, Ned*. Any time you make any law restricting an action, you are also effecting “law abiding people”. For example, assuming you and I are law abiding people, when we come to a stop sign our reaction is to, you know, stop. Whether it was the law or not, we probably would stop anyway because it is a reasonable thing to do. BUT it is the law with penalties for not stopping. The freedom of law abiding people to zip through the intersection has been limited. Criminals will careen through it anyway. We only hope that one of Stratford’s finest may have seen it and apprehend the lawbreaker. But we made it a law to stop anyway in hopes that most people will stop. Who knows? Maybe it makes it easier for SPD to catch the ones that don’t. Although I doubt that.

    Nonetheless, it seems we cannot even agree that there is a problem with people being shot &/or killed.

    After 346 comments, my only conclusion is that there are Americans who want to live in a country where there are so many guns that any amount of killing and wounding is an acceptable price to pay. And those Americans will do anything that even theoretically may impinge upon their ability to obtain yet more guns.

    * I was kidding. You know that, right? Don’t shoot me.

  341. 348 nedsmithy

    Jez:

    “That model seems a bit pricey, but not at all difficult to obtain.”

    I’m certain you will change your view, when you find out that the transaction must go through an FFL holder. Federal law! This approach will not meet you needs!

    ” doing a bit of research it seems that by far and away the weapons of choice for most shootings of people are handguns.”

    Could not have said it better myself!!!

    “I must point out that gun owners are not the only “law abiding people”

    Wasn’t talking about gun owners, was talking about HIPPA.

    “The freedom of law abiding people to zip through the intersection has been limited. Criminals will careen through it anyway.”

    So to get to the criminals we ban automobiles for the law abiding & the criminals will still go the stop sign with their illegal automobiles???? Makes sense to someone!

    “Nonetheless, it seems we cannot even agree that there is a problem with people being shot &/or killed”

    Ah yes we can. Depends if you are the shooter or the victim. Again the problem as I see it is not the toll but the criminal.

    “After 346 comments, my only conclusion is that there are Americans who want to live in a country where there are so many guns …..”

    We can live in a free society or we can live in a safe society, your choice. Way to many people in this country would love a Benevolent Dictator!!! It’s clear that when a society becomes free, there are terrible growing pains. All we need do is look at the middle eastern countries that have become “free” in just recent history.

    By the way, has anyone found out the stats for 1 year mandatory sentences for the commission of a crime with a firearm. Seems like people here like to cut & paste stats here, how about this one. Looking for number of crimes w/firearms vs number of 1 year mandatory sentencing. That would not even address the number of arrests for simply possession of pistol without permit. Of those arrests how many convictions where there with someone going to jail for a year.

    Point being, here is a law that is on the books that is crying to be enforced!
    But no, lets come up with more laws. Really!

  342. 349 nedsmithy

    Ah yes we can. Depends if you are the shooter or the victim. Again the problem as I see it is not the toll but the criminal.

    Meant to type tool and not toll. Freudian slip?

  343. 350 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “So to get to the criminals we ban automobiles for the law abiding & the criminals will still go the stop sign with their illegal automobiles???? Makes sense to someone!”

    Now, now….let’s not react by being silly. We put up thousands & thousands of stop signs, license drivers, register cars, etch them all over the place with VIN numbers, pay police officers to sit, drink coffee and chat on cell phones hoping someone will blow the sign. Nobody, except you, has thought of banning automobiles.

    “Again the problem as I see it is not the tool but the criminal.”
    That tool makes the criminal’s job a whole lot easier, doesn’t it? Oh wait, I know, if only the victim had a gun and was able to use it better than the criminal (who, by the way, uses his gun as a tool of his trade).

    “All we need do is look at the middle eastern countries that have become “free” in just recent history.”
    Huh? Should we start planting IED’s in our driveways and yards? I missed that one.

    What I tried to say before it is that is apparent Americans cannot even agree that people in large numbers being wounded and killed by guns is even a problem.

  344. 351 nedsmithy

    “Now, now….let’s not react by being silly.”
    Now now, let’s practice what we preach!!!!

    The point I was making with other countries getting their freedom, is that it can be a painful process after you are “free”. To many really didn’t want freedom, just a benevolent dictator.

    “Oh wait, I know, if only the victim had a gun and was able to use it better than the criminal”

    If you choose to have a firearm for protection, you owe it to yourself and fellow gun owners to be competent!!!! I do like the idea that you may be getting the message?

    “What I tried to say before it is that is apparent Americans cannot even agree that people in large numbers being wounded and killed by guns is even a problem”

    Oh, but yes we can! It’s just that I do not want to isolate only assaults with firearms, but all assaults. As Mark Mattioli said, we need more civility in our society. Nothing I know of will immediately raise the level of civility, then an armed populace. Oh there may be a culling of the heard, but after that life will be vastly more civil! (Welcome to my world!)

  345. 352 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “Oh there may be a culling of the heard, but after that life will be vastly more civil!”

    NED!

  346. 353 nedsmithy

    Do you think that maybe people on the streets of Israel have a tendency to be civil with that person that happens to have a Uzi Machine Gun slung over their back with a 40 or 50 round magazine and it is “Cocked & Locked”?? You think?

  347. 354 nedsmithy

    So any of you that think the Police are there for your protection when you dial 911??

    Read it an weep!

    http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf

  348. 355 nedsmithy

    Just in case you think the last post was right leaning because it was GunrightsAlert.com?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

  349. 356 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “people on the streets of Israel have a tendency to be civil ”

    You don’t know that many Israelis or Jews do you? ROTFLMAO!

  350. 357 nedsmithy

    TOTALLY UNRELATED SUBJECT!!!!!

    For the record, I state that I’m a WASP, BUT if I was forced to make a choice of religion & citizenship, I would choose Reformed Judaism & a citizen of Israel.

    Now back to GUNS!!!!!! (smile)

  351. 358 nedsmithy

    Just GOT TO get this one last thought in!

    I LOVE Israel’s view of an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth.

    You chip their tooth and they shoot you in the eye!!!

  352. 359 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “I was forced to make a choice of religion & citizenship,”

    I know a guy with a very, very sharp knife…..

  353. 360 nedsmithy

    To late!!!! Done 70+ years ago!!!! By guy I assume you mean Rabbi?

  354. 361 nedsmithy

    In the spirit of accuracy I need to clear up a point I made earlier. I made reference to HIPPA when in point of fact it is HIPAA. Many of you have more then likely already run into the restrictions it applies!

    What Is HIPAA?
    HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) is a federal law that protects personal medical information. The law allows only certain people to see this information. This means that employers or groups who want this information for their own use cannot have it.

  355. Ned ya need a little off the top? Call my cousin Barry: http://www.moyelmd.com/

    Tell him his cousin David from the JPFO sent you

  356. 363 jezebel282

    Sigh….

    I honestly can’t tell who is worse. The ones who won’t be happy until every school child is armed with a gun or the ones who want to make all guns illegal.

    The refusal to even discuss solutions will make this issue unsolvable.

  357. 364 nedsmithy

    I will refuse to discuss the repeal, amending or restriction on “any” of my rights. NOT limited to the 2nd amendment!! I’ve proposed solutions but it doesn’t play well with those of us that really have “gun confiscation” as their “final solution”. Oh they will cry no no no, but in reality that IS the ultimate goal. No matter the perceived gains made by the anti gun people they will say those magic words that are taught to everyone that has ever gone to a PAC class. “We are pleased with the passage of (insert anything) and it is a good step in the right direction.” Never admit victory and always push for an open ended statement! Listen to your politicians (from both sides of the isle) and you will here that phrase or a variant of it all the time. They know their talking points!
    I’ve been in this gun rights fight since 1967, so I’ve seen a thing or two.

  358. 365 nedsmithy

    Hey Disgusted91

    To late!!!! Done 70+ years ago!!!!

  359. 366 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “but in reality that IS the ultimate goal.”

    No offense, but you wouldn’t be my go-to guy to determine what the ultimate goal might be.

  360. 367 cpcalta

    “I honestly can’t tell who is worse. The ones who won’t be happy until every school child is armed with a gun or the ones who want to make all guns illegal.”

    Well Jezebel, the gun lobby is certainly putting forward their effort to make the former come true.

    Mo. bill would require NRA gun safety class in 1st grade

    “I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate,” Brown said. (Sen. Dan Brown, R-Rolla)

    http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/Mo-bill-would-require-NRA-gun-safety-class-in-1st-grade/-/11664182/18328854/-/15or4oqz/-/index.html#ixzz2Ja0a0v7d

  361. 368 nedsmithy

    Jez:
    “No offense, but you wouldn’t be my go-to guy”

    None taken. What I have managed to do over the past 45 years is to be able to get under the skin of several “anti gunners” and managed to piss them of enough that the real truth comes out. Just going from past history. Very similar to the old saw “The wine goes & the truth comes out”. If you can manage to really rip someone, most of the time the truth comes out!

  362. 369 nedsmithy

    CP

    “Well Jezebel, the gun lobby is certainly putting forward their effort to make the former come true.
    Mo. bill would require NRA gun safety class in 1st grade”

    Have you taken the time to set through an Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program?

    Is it any different then teaching the children about touch & no touch?

    Is it any different then teaching children about matches, fire, hot stoves etc.

    It’s about safety! Pure and simply safety! Not any amount different then what the Boy Scouts teach in their classes. Maybe the Boy Scouts are NRA agents???

    How can you not want to mandate safety for the children?

    You are so blinded by anything that has to do with firearms that it is shameful.

  363. 370 cpcalta

    Nedsmithy,

    You know what is shameful? This:

    “Do not be lulled into the believe that there is no more then just a hand full of people out here that wouldn’t want another bite at that apple! They will take a fair amount of “push back” but you can bet the family farm there can be times that will make “Wounded Knee, Kent State & Randy Weaver” look like a Sunday walk in the park. UNLIKE MLK this one will not be a peaceful protest.”

    And this:

    “Oh there may be a culling of the heard, but after that life will be vastly more civil!”

    Not to mention this:

    “And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

    Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years.” – Wayne LaPierre

    Then a month later his organization releases a phone app (i.e. a video game) called “NRA: Practice range” in which children as young as four can practice shooting at coffins.

    You know what else I find shameful? Being a shill for the gun lobby by passing legislation that impedes the agencies you accuse of being incompetent and not doing their jobs. Or proposing legislation that is nothing more than gun industry advertising to 1st graders.

    You want to talk about things that are shameful, bring it on.

  364. 371 nedsmithy

    Cp,

    You are close to being a master when it comes to building “Straw Men”.

    For maybe the 3rd or 4th time:
    What is your constructive input to the modifications of “Assault Weapons” that was presented here?

    I’m sure you must have a working knowledge of how firearms function, so it surely wasn’t to technical for you.
    _________________________________________________________
    You failed to address my questions:

    Have you taken the time to set through an Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program?

    Is it any different then teaching the children about touch & no touch?

    Is it any different then teaching children about matches, fire, hot stoves etc.

    How can you not want to mandate safety for the children?

    __________________________________________________________

    Which functions of your assault weapons is it that you have problems with?

    Magazine capacity?
    Then is an accessory.

    Is it maybe the semi auto firing?
    This same functioning as the “Sporting & Hunting” rifles?

    Is it the black plastic stock?
    We can change that to French Walnut or Birdseye Maple.

    Is it just the color black.
    Pick a color of your choice.

    Is it the profile.
    That’s easy to change

    Is it the number of deaths & injuries attributed to it?
    Seems like Jez already blew that one out of the water!

    Just EXACTLY which feature or function of these firearms do you see as the problem.

    There is a fair amount of gun manufacturing expertise on this thread so I’m sure if I cannot figure a fix, someone smarter then I, will step up.

    Or maybe your interested in having a reasonable discussion as to how to modify the firearms to meet you desires and instead only want to ban them?

    I will say again for the record:
    “You are so blinded by anything that has to do with firearms that it is shameful.”

    Just a little insight to the shooter at Newtown. Some of the magazines that were found on scene still had rounds in them. Does this tell you anything? To my knowledge he had no formal training in combat style shooting. IF he had you can bet the first, last, and every dollar in between that you’ve made that one of the news medias would have been all over that!

    The method of shooting that is taught in combat classes is that you never allow the firearm to shoot empty and latch the bolt to the rear! If you do this in competition you are automatically considered dead and your time on coarse ends. You also are taught that when you change targets or position there is to be an automatic change of magazines (no matter how many rounds were fired) so that during transition or engaging the next target you will always have a full magazine.

    Now where do you think he could have got this kind of training and be able to practice it so it becomes second nature & you don’t have to think, as it is an auto response? In most if not all of the most popular video war games that are available to the public, they give you bonus points for doing just that style of shooting. Take some time & spent an afternoon with some of the youngsters of today and have them walk you thru a couple of the games out there.

  365. 372 nedsmithy

    CP

    Now to address your shameful straw man:

    Of the statements that you’ve attributed to me, which one was not the truth? Oh surely you may not agree with them or even not like them, but where did I lie?

  366. 373 stfdprofessor1

    “Bring it on” he says, Mr. Sugarbritches is all of a sudden an internet tough guy. Hey Mr. Toughguy I just looked at the NRA App and those arent coffins…spin-spin-spin little Chrissy!!!

  367. 374 nedsmithy

    CP

    ” you accuse of being incompetent and not doing their jobs”

    Surely you jest. I was the one that said the 10% was a good number. I seem to recall, you were the one that said they were not doing enough!!!

  368. 375 stfdprofessor1

    You know Chrissy you ask many questions but never answer any, Im still wondering whats the weather like on LIBERALTOPIA and is there any intelligent life there? 🙂

  369. 376 nedsmithy

    CP

    Here was my thought on the ATF:
    “Given that they audited 10% of the Firearms dealers, I think that is a rather high number, considering there are 2 other classes of retailers to also audit?”

    While I have your attention:
    “Have you taken the time to research my question about the mandatory 1 year sentence?”

    Have a sparkling evening
    Ned

  370. 377 stfdprofessor1

    Because every self important internet toughguy superhero from another planet needs a theme song 🙂

  371. 378 nedsmithy

    Prof,

    Really enjoyed the run by the base player. They usually don’t get that long a run but with a 4+ minute song it gives them a little room.

    Thanks
    Ned

  372. 379 nedsmithy

    CP;

    Take a look. What is there about this gun that offends you?

    http://www.huntingheritagetrust.org/treasures/upcomingauctionite/newturnbulltar1030/

    Oh by the way you could have gotten it for a mere $136,000+ !

  373. 381 nedsmithy

    Prof,

    Outstanding!!!! I think I need to change professions? $40 with 30+ bidders! I wonder were I apply for my Federal Rock License????
    Bada Bing Bada Boom!!!!!

  374. 382 nedsmithy

    You just cannot make this stuff up!!! Precious

  375. 383 jezebel282

    Geeze,

    I hope you guys are not stroking the same gun.

  376. 384 nedsmithy

    A little insight to the British System?

  377. 385 nedsmithy

    For those of you that want to be REALLY SAFE? Here’s a tried and proven way!

  378. 386 cpcalta

    Jezebel,

    In case you haven’t read this article, it provides a thorough explanation of the gun trace issue from the Associated Press.

    After gun crime, weapon history takes time to find
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ix5tf1_qgE4EUVycjBAjTFR1kaXg?docId=26ac0233aa434253ad72a76c0ebc03da

    “As it stands now, local law enforcement doesn’t have access to regional data about gun traces. So if the police commissioner in New York City is trying to figure out where the guns are coming into the city from — whether they’re going to New Jersey first or upstate New York, for example — that data is not available because of an amendment introduced by Tiahrt, said Mike Bouchard, a former ATF assistant director for Field Operations. ATF can tell police where most crime guns are traced from, by state. But it does not release information on gun shops or purchasers.”

    It is a very enlightening read.

  379. 387 stfdprofessor1

    I have an idea, why dont we divert all the public money we WASTE ON THE ARTS to the ATF so they can straighten out their records and hire more “tracers”!

  380. 388 stfdprofessor1

    Well sugarbritches is at it again, I guess on the planet of “Liberaltopia” they only comprehend what they find convenient for their one sided argument. What Chrissy failed to mention was-

    “Last year the center traced about 344,000 guns for 6,000 different law enforcement agencies. Houser has a success rate of about 90 percent, so long as enough information is provided. And he boasts that every successful trace provides at least one lead in a criminal case.”

    “In more urgent situations, including the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting in Connecticut last year, ATF agents run a trace within about 24 hours. Oftentimes, that involves sending agents to the gun dealer that first sold the weapon to quickly find the paperwork listing its original buyer.”

    “ATF agents who trace the history of a gun can’t share that information with anyone but the police agency that asked for it.” Sorry Chrissy, if you or Sarah Brady want it you have to go to the police academy!

    Here on planet Earth we like to comprehend the entire article…HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAHAAAAhaaaaaaahaha, another pathetic attempt at subterfuge by Chrissy exposed to my fellow earthlings!

  381. 389 stfdprofessor1

    gun free zone video…a video is worth A MILLION words!

  382. 390 cpcalta

    “Professor,”

    Now you’re simply boring. I posted the link to the entire article, so there was no intent to deceive or mislead. Did you actually read what YOU posted from the article?

    “Houser has a success rate of about 90 percent, so long as enough information is provided.” Wait, what? So how many inquiries don’t provide enough information? That would be 90% of what exactly?

    And of course there’s this:

    “. . .he [Houser] boasts that every successful trace provides at least one lead in a criminal case.” Let’s be clear about that, he said a lead, not an arrest, not a conviction, a lead. So we don’t know what the “success” rate is because there are a few missing pieces related to the supposed “success” the ATF is having with gun traces.

    And that still doesn’t change the other facts provided in the article which you chose to overlook. How about this:

    “In about 30 percent of cases, one or all of those folks have gone out of business and ATF tracers are left to sort through potentially thousands of out-of-business records forwarded to the ATF and stored at the office building that more closely resembles a remote call center than a law enforcement operation.

    The records are stored as digital pictures that can only be searched one image at a time. Two shifts of contractors spend their days taking staples out of papers, sorting through thousands of pages and scanning or taking pictures of the records.

    “Those records come in all different shapes and forms. We have to digitally image them, we literally take a picture of it,” Houser said. “We have had rolls of toilet paper or paper towels … because they (dealers) did not like the requirement to keep records.”

    Imagine that? The out-of-business dealers didn’t like to keep records, even if they were required to do so. Now what about the dealers still in business? Regular inspections, standardization and computerization might help correct the situation but. . . .wait for it. . . .”in the intervening decades, the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups lobbied Congress to limit the government’s ability to do much with what little information is collected, including keeping track on computers.”

    Perhaps if you have been paying closer attention to the conversation that was going on above and the questions Jezebel asked about this information you might have had a clue as to why I posted what I did. And again, I provided the link to the entire article for all to read, so it was hardly subterfuge or anything else.

    The rest of your posts are just pathetic and aren’t worthy of a response.

  383. 391 nedsmithy

    Failed to see this on the big 3 news networks. Wonder why?
    Maybe because it was a “Gun Free Zone”????

    Detroit high school coach shoots suspected attackers outside school

    Published February 03, 2013

    DETROIT – A young man is dead and another is seriously injured after a shooting during an attempted robbery of a basketball coach near a Detroit high school.

    A 70-year-old coach for the girl’s basketball team at Martin Luther King Junior High School was walking two students to their cars at the school when the shooting occurred.

    Detroit Public Schools spokesman says the male coach, who has not been identified, was targeted by two teenagers who allegedly tried to rob him.

    When one of the suspected robbers reportedly pulled a gun, the coach allegedly fired back, fatally shooting 16-year-old Michael Scott and injuring the other person.

    Priscilla Scott, Michael’s mother, said that her son didn’t own a gun.

    The coach is reportedly a police reserve officer and has a permit to carry a gun.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

  384. 392 jezebel282

    Ned,

    Maybe because those killed with guns FAR outnumber the types of stories you like. You know, the kind where everyone on the street has a gun?

  385. 393 nedsmithy

    Riggggggggggggght!

  386. 394 nedsmithy

    Jez;

    Just another example of why I would be much happier with the “Societal Model” of Israel, but here in the USA!!!!

  387. 395 jezebel282

    Ned,

    Maybe you should try convincing more Canadians to not recognize the United States and call for throwing U.S. citizens into the sea. While you’re at it, maybe you should thrown in Mexico, South America and most European countries. Then you may approach the scale of Israel and it’s surrounding hostile population. You will forgive me if I do not partake in your particular brand of paranoia.

    The simple matter is that we are losing an enormous amount of Americans to other Americans with guns. The solution is not going to be more guns for everyone. Nothing prevents anyone from obtaining a gun. Nothing. And yet, even with the freedom of Americans to buy whatever gun they want and as many as they want, you don’t feel that is enough. It has to be available everywhere and to everyone. You don’t want sales restrictions of any kind. You don’t want to require any background checks to be done, you don’t even wanted to be bothered by keeping records of gun sales. You would like them sold as fast as manufacturers can put them on the market. The bigger caliber the better.

    My point being here, in case you missed it, we have had 224 years of almost unlimited gun manufacturing and sales. After 224 years are you saying that more guns is still the only solution?

  388. 396 nedsmithy

    On more then one occasion I’ve told you to go out and make these purchases that you so wrongly say can be done. Your an intelligent young lady, you’ve read all my prior posts about ATF and state laws. Prove me wrong! Practice what your preaching & make all those purchases!

    ” You will forgive me if I do not partake in your particular brand of paranoia.”

    I forgive you.

    “Paranoia”, really, is that the best you can come up with? I’m not the one looking thru rose colored glasses.

    Without question you will be pleased with the laws that will be coming down from Hartford. Also, without question I and my family will be watching from afar and not be under their “Jack Boot” conditions.

    As I said in my very first post here!

    “I don’t believe that you and I will see eye to eye on this one.”

    Things have not, and will change on this subject!

  389. 397 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “Practice what your preaching & make all those purchases!”

    LOL!

    Listen, Ned. If my brother-in-law can buy guns (and he did) then ANYONE can get a gun. Just sayin…

    “I’m not the one looking thru rose colored glasses.”
    Everyone on the M4 Midtown bus carrying an Uzi? I would say your glasses are definitely not rose colored.

    “pleased with the laws that will be coming down from Hartford.”
    No I would not. I would not be pleased with any state law doing anything. It is almost ridiculous to spend any effort in each state. 50 sets of laws are meaningless.

    “not be under their “Jack Boot” conditions. ”
    Oy vey…

    It is not likely that we will agree as long as you remain absolute in your position of more guns for all.

  390. “Everyone on the M4 Midtown bus carrying an Uzi?”

    Actually the Israelis don’t carry the UZI that commonly any longer; they carry the M16 or Galil. The M16…you know the full auto version of the rifle you have pictured at the top of this thread my dear. In Israel they carry real full auto rifles and the M16 is seen as a protector of freedom. Also in Israel their leaders are not so offended by the sight of these actual “Assault Rifles” in the hands of their citizens. Hmmmm could that be because they cherish freedom in Israel? They also have a much lower murder rate because they punish their criminals in Israel; as opposed to only enforcing 20% of their laws like we do in Connecticut. I guess in Israel they probably feel passing new laws without trying to enforce the old laws that were “going to solve the problem” is..um…stupid!

    “maybe you should thrown in Mexico, South America”

    I’ll bet the people in the southern Border States feel a certain kinship with the Israeli’s considering all of the narco-terrorists from Mexico and South America engaged in the illegal drug trade and human trafficking crossing our southern border while armed. Oh, I forgot, the ATF helped arm them so it must be OK. I guess those Border State residents should start practicing more at the target range just in case Andrew Cuomo gets elected in 2016. Seven bullets to defend ones self and ones family might just not get the job done. At least the current President who just recently became a firearms aficionado (even though his P.R. photo clearly shows he doesn’t even know how to hold a shotgun properly) will allow them to have a whole ten bullets in the time being (if he gets his way).

    Do any of you gun control experts know just how many bullets it takes to defend one’s self against multiple assailants or is that just an arbitrary figure that someone pulled out of the air that the rest of you parrot? It does highlight though how foolish peoples opinions can be when they form them from feelings rather than experience.

  391. 399 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    Thank you for ignoring all my points and deflecting the discussion into oblivion.

    “Do any of you gun control experts know just how many bullets it takes”

    Is that a trick question like how many grooves are in a 45 rpm record?

    As long as no one will admit there is any problem at all, nothing will change. But I hear a bunker just became available in Alabama.

  392. 400 ronmoreau

    Jez,

    “As long as no one will admit there is any problem at all, nothing will change.”

    There is a huge problem the feds should address. If one has a conceal carry permit in any state the feds should pass a law that it be honored in every state.

  393. 401 jezebel282

    Ron,

    Thanks for sharing.

  394. 403 ronmoreau

    Special recognition goes to Woodbridge ct. that “Bans Firearms on All City Property.”

  395. 404 ronmoreau

    Here is the link to check out other states.

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/

  396. 405 nedsmithy

    Jez:
    “Thank you for ignoring all my points and deflecting the discussion into oblivion.”

    May I ?
    “Listen, Ned. If my brother-in-law can buy guns (and he did) then ANYONE can get a gun. Just sayin…”

    Appears the point here is your unqualified love for your Brother-In-Law and his ability to qualify for a legal purchase of a firearm? He has a Pistol Permit?
    ———————–
    “Everyone on the M4 Midtown bus carrying an Uzi? I would say your glasses are definitely not rose colored.”

    Well “Thank You Kindly” for the compliment.

    ————————

    ““pleased with the laws that will be coming down from Hartford.”
    No I would not. I would not be pleased with any state law doing anything. It is almost ridiculous to spend any effort in each state. 50 sets of laws are meaningless.”

    Ahhhhhhh I see! You would much prefer that the laws coming down here in CT & NY be extended to the Federal level? Me thinks that is not going to happen!

    ————————–

    “It is not likely that we will agree as long as you remain absolute in your position of more guns for all.”

    Nice try Jez, but I have never made that statement. Those rose colored glasses need cleaning. I’m absolute in the right to have the choice to own or not own firearms. The same right I believe you have. In your case you may choose to not own them, I absolutely support you in that decision.

  397. “As long as no one will admit there is any problem at all, nothing will change.”

    as opposed to only enforcing 20% of their laws like we do in Connecticut…I admit this is a serious problem! Do you?

    passing new laws without trying to enforce the old laws that were “going to solve the problem”…I admit this is a serious problem! Do you?

    “nothing will change”

    Unless both sides force our gutless politicians to FIRST address those two issues, you are probably correct. I for one am not about to happily give up some of OUR rights because others aren’t doing their jobs.

    I don’t buy that phoney “resources” argument either. Not when I see law enforcement officers hiding behind buildings chatting on cell phones or surfing the web on laptops. Or when court rooms don’t convene until 10AM and are empty by 3PM. And if someone wants to pull the old “there is no room in the prisons” rabbit out of the “resources” hat, I’m sure there are quite a few out of work Americans who would love a job building bigger prisons which would also help to stimulate the local economy.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    Q- “Do any of you gun control experts know just how many bullets it takes”

    A- “Is that a trick question like how many grooves are in a 45 rpm record?”

    No it’s not a trick question, there is no answer, each situation is different so can we at least PLEASE agree that someone could need more than 10 rounds to protect themselves or their family in certain situations? Experience trumps emotion every time!

    —————————————————————————————————-

    “But I hear a bunker just became available in Alabama.”

    I am just grateful that poor boy is finally safe.

    However if you are interested in a bunker for yourself may I remind you “Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man”- George S. Patton

  398. 407 stfdprofessor1

    “Professor, Now you’re simply boring” WOW CHRISSY if that’s not the pot calling the kettle black. You put alot of faith in the AP and I notice you read alot between the lines too. I’ve never heard of a reporter slant an article either so I can see why you take it all like it came down from high on a stone tablet. Like I said, we should divert all the public money we WASTE ON THE ARTS to the ATF so they can straighten out their records and hire more “tracers”! I mean really whats more important men in tight pants and tutu’s prancing around on stage or saving just one more life?

  399. 408 nedsmithy

    Prof,

    You got my vote! For what it’s worth in this blog, which would be somewhere between slim to nothing!!!

  400. 409 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “slim to nothing!!!”
    This is America, you get what you pay for.

  401. 410 nedsmithy

    Paying for a vote!!!!! Where do you think we are? Chicago???????

  402. 411 nedsmithy

    Interesting read. Some here may agree & others will not. So be it!

    http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gov-right-gov-wrong.htm

  403. 412 nedsmithy

    If you disagree with the English Professor I would suggest you contact the author of the article and not I.

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

  404. 413 jezebel282

    ROTFLMAO!

    The NRA Enemies List is here!

    http://nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

    AARP? Really the AARP? And the PTA, of course. Oh..and almost every news organization….except Fox News.

    I couldn’t find a link for the application to join the list though.

  405. 414 nedsmithy

    But Jez, the reason you cannot find a link to join the list is maybe because you are not at the top of the list BUT “You are the list”? The AARP has been Anti Firearms for maybe the past 10 years or so. Main reason I sent back my membership and told them to “Stick It”.

    Joined a much better organization:
    http://amac.us/

  406. 415 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “Main reason I sent back my membership and told them to “Stick It”. ”
    Yeah! Those old Commies!

    But Ned, did you see the list? Are you going to give up Sara-Lee cakes and Slurpees too? And what to do about those Marxist neurosurgeons (American Association of Neurological Surgeons)?

    Honest to goodness, Ned, the NRA thinks almost every medical association is out to get them. Why is that, Ned?

  407. 416 nedsmithy

    If you are REALLY that interested, I would suggest that you email the NRA.

    While I have your attention. How did you make out buying all those firearms?

  408. 417 nedsmithy

    Jez
    You really need to get up from the floor. By now you surely cannot have much ass left.

  409. 418 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “How did you make out buying all those firearms?”
    I didn’t. I couldn’t find anything valuable enough in my house that was worth taking someone’s life. But I did check and my brother-in-law now has four handguns. I suppose in case three of them are at the gun repair shop at the same time.

    “By now you surely cannot have much ass left.”
    I’m not sure I understood that one.

    But seriously, do you really think the National Association of Police Organizations is one of those liberal left-wing anti-constitution conspirators? Or maybe Hallmark cards? You have already implied that the AARP was too liberal for you.

    And before Disgusted gets into it, the NRA also lists as “anti-gun”: The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith, Hadassah, the Jewish Labor Committee, the National Council of Jewish Women and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.

    And to be perfectly honest, the NRA list looks more like an honor roll than anything else.

  410. 419 cpcalta

    The NRA might have to put Chris Wallace and Fox News on that list considering the adversarial interview that took place this past weekend:

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/videos#p/86913/v/2139988963001

    Here’s the transcript:

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2013/02/03/capt-mark-kelly-wayne-lapierre-chances-compromise-gun-control-debate#p//v/2139988959001

  411. 420 ronmoreau

    Jez,
    ” I couldn’t find anything valuable enough in my house that was worth taking someone’s life.”

    It’s sad that you place so little value on your own life.

  412. 421 jezebel282

    Ron,

    “It’s sad that you place so little value on your own life.”

    Considering I’m 22 times more likely to get shot with a gun in my house than not it is a pretty cautious move on my part.

    On another note, we’ve blogged with each other for years now and that is the dumbest line you’ve ever written. I am infinitely safer sitting in my gunless home than driving to work, crossing the street, going into a convenience store or even lighting a propane grill. What in the world makes you think I would be any safer if I had a gun in my closet? I am in far more danger on a golf course than if I were clutching my gun waiting for a boogeyman to break into my home with the intent of killing me.

    Or are you one of the ones that think the government will show up and…what? They can’t confiscate the gun I don’t have.

  413. 422 ronmoreau

    Jez,
    ” I am infinitely safer sitting in my gunless home…”

    I guess that depends on where you home is,doesn’t it? Not everyone lives in a safe sheltered area.

  414. 423 jezebel282

    Ron,

    The fact remains that you are 22 times more likely to be shot if there is a gun in your home.

    But let’s go with your faulty logic. I could live in a much safer neighborhood. I could live in Newtown for example.

  415. 424 ronmoreau

    Jez,
    “But let’s go with your faulty logic.”
    I rest my case. How did that “gun free zone” work out?

  416. 425 jezebel282

    Ron,

    This is why I like arguing with you. You always manage to bring in a few irrelevant items to a discussion.

    Perhaps if Mrs. Lanza didn’t have those guns in her home to “protect” herself in that unsafe, unsheltered neighborhood of Newton we wouldn’t be having this ridiculous discussion.

    By the way, putting up a sign (was there even a sign?) that says “Gun Free Zone” is about as effective as painting “Handicapped Permit Only” in a parking lot.

  417. 426 ronmoreau

    Jez,
    “This is why I like arguing with you. You always manage to bring in a few irrelevant items to a discussion.”

    All relevent to me. Because I look at an issue from many angles not just one.

  418. 427 ronmoreau

    I enjoy playing the devils advocate.

  419. 428 jezebel282

    Ron,

    “I enjoy playing the devils advocate.”

    Miss George do you?

  420. 429 ronmoreau

    Yes I do.

  421. 430 nedsmithy

    Jez;

    ” But I did check and my brother-in-law now has four handguns. I suppose in case three of them are at the gun repair shop at the same time.”

    I like his forethought to have a few “spares”!!!!!!!

    (““By now you surely cannot have much ass left.”)
    I’m not sure I understood that one.

    It appears one of your favorites is ROTFLMAO?

    ” You have already implied that the AARP was too liberal for you.”
    Why do you feel that one has to be a liberal to be anti firearms? Are we biased!

    “And to be perfectly honest, the NRA list looks more like an honor roll than anything else.”
    I would expect no less of a point of view from you & I will support you in that right. My view is not the same but expect the same support in return.

  422. “The fact remains that you are 22 times more likely to be shot if there is a gun in your home.”

    And who concocted that urban legend? And where is the hard data to support that claim? The same soothsayer that said 40% of guns are transferred without a background check?

    —————————————————————————————————-

    “And before Disgusted gets into it, the NRA also lists as “anti-gun”: The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith, Hadassah, the Jewish Labor Committee, the National Council of Jewish Women and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.”

    But not the JPFO (or JDL for that matter). A true story, when I was in Tel Aviv years ago I befriended a veteran of the Yom Kippur War. He told me that “the State of Israel is more at risk from the emigration of liberal Jews from America than from Hamas or Hezbollah combined”. A thing like this I would not make up. After your quote above it does make one wonder.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    “Perhaps if Mrs. Lanza didn’t have those guns in her home to “protect” herself in that unsafe, unsheltered neighborhood of Newton we wouldn’t be having this ridiculous discussion.”

    Who said Mrs. Lanza had those guns in her house to protect herself? It’s more likely that if the politicians, the media and the “anti-gun” zealots didn’t whip up these “gun ban” frenzy’s on a regular basis she and hundreds OF THOUSANDS of others wouldn’t have bought them in the first place. If you want to put blood on the hands of anyone besides the sick perpetrator of that horrific act, that would be a better place to start.

    Perhaps if Connecticut didn’t prosecute ONLY 20% of the people arrested for gun crimes in this State, we wouldn’t be having this ridiculous discussion either, but nobody wants to address that inconvenient little truth. Are there not multiple reports that that sick perpetrator made several attempts to buy firearms and was found to be ineligible. In Connecticut THAT IS ALSO A GUN CRIME.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    “waiting for a boogeyman to break into my home with the intent of killing me.”

    Perhaps if Mr. or Mrs. Petit DID have those guns in their home to “protect” themselves in that unsafe, unsheltered neighborhood of Cheshire we wouldn’t be having this ridiculous discussion either.

    No, it’s much nobler to die or watch a loved one die while clutching the phone waiting 4-7 minutes for SOMEONE ELSE to defend your family. I’m sure William Petit would now disagree.

  423. 432 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    “He told me that “the State of Israel is more at risk from the emigration of liberal Jews from America than from Hamas or Hezbollah combined”.”

    Well, there you go. One Israeli said it so it must be true.

    “No, it’s much nobler to die or watch a loved one die while clutching the phone waiting 4-7 minutes for SOMEONE ELSE to defend your family.”

    Noble? Really? Of all the things a person could do that would be noble, the only one you select is the ability to kill someone who in the nearly statistical improbabilty might break into your home?

    “And who concocted that urban legend? And where is the hard data to support that claim?”
    I will ask you the same thing. Who concocted the urban (or rural) legend that you are likely to have to use a gun to protect your life in your own home. Where are your statistics showing that that is so prevalent that 300 million guns are necessary for the defense of your life? Where is your hard data showing that having a gun in your house actually does something other than give you some sense of (what?) security?

  424. 433 cpcalta

    Jezebel: “The fact remains that you are 22 times more likely to be shot if there is a gun in your home.”

    Disgusted: “And who concocted that urban legend? And where is the hard data to support that claim? The same soothsayer that said 40% of guns are transferred without a background check?”

    This is not “urban legend.” You want the “hard data”? Why not start here:

    Harvard Injury Control Research Center
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/overall/

    Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LIFESTYLE MEDICINE November/December 2011 vol. 5 no. 6 502-511

    “There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent
    effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or
    severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.”

    Or here:

    Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research
    http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/index.html

    Intimate Partner Violence and Firearms
    http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf

    “A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners revealed a 5-fold increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a firearm. In fact, homicide risks were found to be 50% higher for female handgun purchasers in California compared with licensed drivers matched by sex, race, and age group. Among the women handgun purchasers who were murdered, 45% were killed by an intimate partner using a gun. In contrast, 20% of all women murdered in California during the study period were killed with a gun by an intimate partner.”

  425. 434 cpcalta

    Virginia woman admits buying 31 handguns in two weeks

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/08/16895120-virginia-woman-admits-buying-31-handguns-in-two-weeks?lite

    “Federal law does not require a person to register as a firearms dealer for occasional private gun sales, but it does require a dealer’s license if a person devotes significant time and energy to the sale of firearms with a primary goal of making a profit.”

    Whatever that means. Who makes the determination of what is “occasional”? What is considered “significant time and energy” and how is it determined that the “primary goal” is making a profit? Is there a threshold determining how much profit is acceptable?

  426. 435 stfdprofessor1

    HAAAAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaaa Chrissy you are precious!!! I’m sure those studies werent done with a predetermined outcomes given the political leanings of the organizations performing the research
    HAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAhahahahaaaa who are you going to quote next, the ACLU?????

    “20% of all women murdered in California during the study period were killed with a gun by an intimate partner.” So on LIBERALTOPIA the other 80% wouldnt be able to take steps to defend themselves!!!

    “On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or
    severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.” Ummmm it says there are fewer studies, maybe thats because it is common sense. There are also fewer studies that the world is round so with that logic we can assume it is flat??? Maybe you can peer through your telescope from LIBERALTOPIA take a look and let us know for sure.

  427. 436 cpcalta

    Yawn. . . .You want to refute Harvard and Johns Hopkins, go right ahead.

  428. 437 stfdprofessor1

    “Is there a threshold determining how much profit is acceptable?” Dunno, but it should be 1 cent, if people are violating the current law the should be held accountable.

    “Kimberly Dinkins, 41, pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court in Alexandria to dealing firearms without a license. She faces up to five years in prison.” I hope she does the WHOLE five years, but why do I have the sneaking suspicion she won’t.

  429. 438 stfdprofessor1

    Geee, I just did a Google search on Kimberly Yvette Dinkins and not ONE photo of her to be found in any media article, HMMmmmmmm, I bet if she was a fat white redneck with a camo hunting jacket and hat the photo would be all over the internet. SPIN SPIN spin

  430. 439 stfdprofessor1

    Maybe Harvard and Johns Hopkins should do a study on media bias and the medias agenda to steer public opinion for political outcome.

  431. 440 stfdprofessor1

    …and to think I came into this topic being on neither side of the issue, BOY this has been a real eye opener. Chrissy, you have single handedly pushed me into the other camp. If I ever join the NRA I should put you down as my referral!

  432. 441 cpcalta

    Directly from the ATF:

    Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces

    http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf

    “Whether an individual seeking to sell a firearm will be regulated as an FFL or
    nonlicensee depends on whether that individual is “engaged in the business” of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms. When Congress enacted the GCA in 1968, it did not provide a definition of the term “engaged in the business.” Courts interpreting the term supplied various definitions, and upheld convictions for engaging in the business without a license under a variety of factual circumstances . . . .

    In 1986, the law was amended to provide the following definition:

    (21) The term “engaged in the business” means–

    * * *
    (C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, . . . a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade
    or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through
    the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not
    include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of
    firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or
    who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms. . . .

    The 1986 amendments to the GCA also defined the term “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to read as follows:

    (22) The term “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” means
    that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection; Provided, That proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism. . . .

    Unfortunately, the effect of the 1986 amendments has often been to frustrate the prosecution of unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons.”

  433. 442 nedsmithy

    Mr CP.

    I see you’ve been busy researching & cutting & pasting. How are you making out with researching how many convictions there have been of the mandatory 1 year law, since it’s passage, vs how many crimes were committed with a handgun and the assailant did not have a CT Pistol/Revolver Permit ? Inquiring minds want to know.

  434. 443 nedsmithy

    Jez:
    ” Where is your hard data showing that having a gun in your house actually does something other than give you some sense of (what?) security?”

    Slowly but surely you seem to be getting the message! Security is a good starting point, as not having one is a testament to the Petit families outcome.

  435. 444 cpcalta

    You want the number so bad, find it yourself.

  436. 445 nedsmithy

    Mr CP,

    My my my! Did we run out of Fluoxetine today?
    Oh I think everyone here knows the answer, BUT it’s not going to fall in line with your “Spin” but will greatly support Disgusted’s thread. Your sword has 2 edges!

    Oh by the way, your reply also seems to indicate that you are either unable to find the numbers OR maybe you’ve found them and really didn’t like what you found? Given your expertise at researching, cutting & pasting, I’m guessing the later is the real answer.

    You have a great day now, and stay away from that yellow snow!

  437. 446 cpcalta

    The “later”? You mean the latter? No, I didn’t bother to look. As I said, you want the number so bad, find it yourself. I’m guessing you dont want to find it. I’m not here to do your research for you.

    But feel free to provide actual data or evidence to refute anything I have posted regarding the ATF or the statistics on gun violence. You and your little buddy don’t like the data provided so your only recourse is to insult and demean me. Good luck with that as far as it takes you. I’m sure it makes you feel better about yourself, but the truth is that you have yet to present any credible research that refutes anything provided by either the ATF or the educational institutions that present peer-reviewed and statistically reliable data.

    If you think I care about all the other garbage you throw out there you are seriously deluded. I’ll stick to the issues, you and your little buddy can continue to act like children with the 3rd grade insults.

  438. 447 cpcalta

    But here is another eye-opener from the GAO:

    GUN CONTROL
    States’ Laws and Requirements for Concealed Carry Permits Vary across
    the Nation

    http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf

    “To assess the reliability of the data and information, we asked the states about the systems they use to track the data, any steps taken to verify accuracy, and any limitations to the data. Our analysis was largely dependent on the availability of state data on the number of concealed carry permits. In some cases, statewide data were not available, and in other cases only data from certain time periods were available. As a result of these limitations, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable solely to illustrate a minimum number of total active permits and approximate number of state-specific permits.”

  439. 448 nedsmithy

    Mr CP:
    “The “later”? You mean the latter?”

    Sorry, but I had to choose between spelling classes or “Trigger Control & Target Acquisition”, so needless to say my spelling suffers.

    ” I’m guessing you dont want to find it. I’m not here to do your research for you.”
    You mean don’t? Seems like I wasn’t the only one that missed a few pointers in English 101.
    OK lets go this route! I say that there has been less then 3 convictions on the 1 Year Mandatory Law since the day it was enacted! Prove me wrong!

    “you and your little buddy”
    Bring me up to speed on this one! Just who is my little buddy. This will probably be news to both of us!

    I do have one question. What state do you vote in?

  440. 449 nedsmithy

    Hey CP:

    In just the last year there were (57.62 per 100,000 population of CT) criminal acts with a firearm. Noodle that one out and tells us why there has been less then 3 convictions?

  441. 450 cpcalta

    How about this:

    Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.)

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

  442. 451 ronmoreau

    cp..,
    67.7% Bla,bla,bla….
    41.3% Bla,bla bla
    21.2% bla,bla,bla.

    What was your take on the video provided by Ned as follows.

  443. 452 stfdprofessor1

    Dont you mean “Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape” unless it is the forcible rape of the Second Amendment.

  444. 453 nedsmithy

    CP

    Then I take it that my statement of less then 3 convictions since the 1 Year Mandatory Law was passed, is accepted as fact, per your lack of cut & paste rebuttal?

  445. 454 nedsmithy

    Ron,
    “What was your take on the video provided by Ned as follows.”
    You must have noticed he picks his replies, to wit. the spin works.
    My question on the 1 year mandatory law is exhibit “A”.

    Let’s try again and see what happens Ron?

    Hey CP,
    In just the last year there were (57.62 per 100,000 population of CT) criminal acts with a firearm. Noodle that one out and tells us why there has been less then 3 convictions?

    You THINK maybe lack of enforcement “might” come to mind?
    Also, I’m still waiting for your reply as to what state you vote in?

    JUST curious.

  446. 455 stfdprofessor1

    Ron and Ned facts, history and experience are irrelevent on the planet of LIBERALTOPIA, everything there is based on flawed statistics, feelings and emotion. Dont hold your breath for an answer. This thread started over a flawed militia argument and military looking rifles and now its about pistols and the atf…but hey the libs just want reasonable laws on “assault weapons and magazines”…yeah right!!! 🙂

  447. 456 stfdprofessor1

    After watching that video it seems Piers Morgan would be tarred and feathered if he went back to England.

  448. 457 stfdprofessor1

    And on the success of gun control in Australia:

  449. Via cut and paste here are a few more inconvenient little truths the anti-gun lobby will choose to dismiss or ignore:

    “A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right.”
    Murdock vs.Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)
    For those who rely on law and common sense, the possession of firearms is clearly “a constitutionally protected right”. Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a “fee” (registration or background check “fee”) in order to obtain a “license” (concealed carry “license”) before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state “tax” (firearms and ammunitions sales “tax” or machine gun “tax” collected by the BATF) is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.

    Criminals can not be compelled to register guns. The U. S. Supreme Court determined,
    “…that a felon who has a gun cannot be compelled to complete such forms, because it violates the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. That’s right, registration — not in your case of course but in the case of a criminal — is a self-indictment of a crime, and is therefore prohibited.”
    Haynes vs United States (1968).

    In 1856, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled,
    “Local law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals but only a general duty to enforce the laws.”
    South vs. Maryland, 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L. Ed. 433 (1856).

    A U. S. Federal Appeals Court declared in 1982,
    “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”
    Bowers vs. devot, U. S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 686 F. 2d 616 (1982).

    The U.S. Supreme Court declared,
    “The Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect citizens from criminal harm.”
    DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989)

    “The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia.”
    U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir.1992)

    ———————————————————————————————–

    If someone chooses not to be armed or to own any firearms I respect that choice. What I do expect and demand in return is for others to respect my choice to exercise my right to the contrary. It is none of anyone’s business what type of firearms, ammunition or magazines are legally purchased and owned by another unprohibited American citizen UNTIL that owner does something criminal with them. Gun prohibition fanatics please note that I said “legally purchased and owned”, no need to spin this off into your bazooka and heavy artillery extremist nonsense. It is also none of anyone’s business as to WHY anyone chooses to own what they legally own. Let’s try a little exercise; QUESTION- “why do you feel you need to own a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?” —ANSWER- “None of your business!”. Maybe if everyone would stay out of everyone elses business we could get along so much better in this country. Unfortunately it seems this world is going in the opposite direction at light speed via facebook and twitter..

    Let me finish with this, neither the vast vast majority of my fellow legal gun owners or I are responsible for the statistically small numbers of abuses (as serious and depraved as they may be) that have been committed with the types of firearms and magazines pictured above! Please don’t blame us or lump us in as part of the problem, WE ARE NOT the problem. If anything, society is the problem and we all share some small responsibility for the way we are letting our culture slide right into the abyss.

  450. 459 nedsmithy

    Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

    Just what was the original name of this group? (Coalition to Ban Handguns)
    It’s interesting that some of us “old farts” that have been in this battle over guns, sometimes have a good memory. Here’s a link to Wikipedia, you know, that right wing spin center?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_to_Stop_Gun_Violence

    For those on here that take the NRA to task for their “List”, it would appear that it was well founded, given the list that is on this site. Seems like I’ve seen these name before being listed as Anti Gunrights. Interesting that they are also listed as supporters of an Anti Gunrights Group?????

  451. 460 nedsmithy

    Prof:
    “but hey the libs just want reasonable laws on “assault weapons and magazines”…yeah right!!! :)”

    But when you hold their feet to the fire and make the point that it’s REALLY about the banning of free ownership of any firearm, they squeal like a little piggy!!!!

  452. 461 nedsmithy

    Mr CP,

    Still waiting to find out who you think is my “Buddy” on this thread??? You rolled it out there, time to own it!

  453. 462 cpcalta

    Ned,

    “Then I take it that my statement of less then 3 convictions since the 1 Year Mandatory Law was passed, is accepted as fact, per your lack of cut & paste rebuttal?”

    The only thing I can say about this number is that unless you have some source for this number, you’re simply pulling it out of your. . . well, you know where.

    What I’ll also say is that the legal system is much more complex than your example. If you really want to get at this issue of convictions and incarceration, show us how many people were charged with this specific crime, how many of those had multiple charges and what those other charges were, what the incarceration rate was for all individuals in this group, and if they were serving more time than the mandatory one year because of the other charges. Those individuals may be serving more time for other charges and may be serving the time concurrently rather than consecutively.

    So again, if you can prove your number is correct by citing an actual source please do so. Otherwise your hypothetical is useless.

    Where I vote is irrelevant, although I suppose the point you will try to make is that there are different laws for different states. So I’ll happily agree with you on that point.

    In case you haven’t figured it out your “little buddy” is the ironically named “Professor.” I didn’t really think it was that much of a riddle.

    Finally, to this:

    “But when you hold their feet to the fire and make the point that it’s REALLY about the banning of free ownership of any firearm, they squeal like a little piggy!!!!”

    No, it’s REALLY NOT about banning the free ownership of any firearm. I have stated that repeatedly, and all your protesting and righteous indignation doesn’t change my position.

  454. 463 cpcalta

    Ron,

    You mean the one about Brits wanting their guns back?

    You want a comment from me about this? Okay. It has absolutely nothing to do with the United States, therefore it has no bearing on our laws. Aren’t Republicans the ones living in fear of the US supposedly being given over Sharia law or the United Nations? Aren’t they also the ones screaming about the SCOTUS referencing international laws in their rulings? So why should anything going on in England have any bearing on the US?

  455. 464 stfdprofessor1

    “You mean the one about Brits wanting their guns back? It has absolutely nothing to do with the United States, therefore it has no bearing on our laws.” Because on LIBERALTOPIA history does not repeat itself. Just because crime rose everywhere else that a gun ban was put in place doesnt emotionally mean it will happen here I feel. See we LIBERALTOPIANS avoid logical deduction at all costs and when someone tries to apply logical deduction in an opposing view of our emotional opinion we either “spin” the topic or avoid it all together.

    BTW Chrissy I dont even know Ned, just because we agree on a few points you feel the need to lump us into a relationship? A bit prejudical dont you think. I think the one thing me and my “buddy” probably do agree upon is that you are a drama queen living in a fantasy land!

  456. 465 nedsmithy

    CP:
    “The only thing I can say about this number is that unless you have some source for this number, you’re simply pulling it out of your. . . well, you know where.”

    I may or may not be pulling the number out of my “Liberal Portal”. I will stand by the number until you can prove it incorrect! What you do not want to address is the pandering to the criminals with dropping charges & deal making. Just own it and admit that the system is a merry go round for criminals and you want to impose laws only on the law abiding people that are your low hanging fruit? Why? Because the law breakers are making fools of you and every other person that is more interested in analyzing the milk they drank in the 1st grade, or that they are only a “product of their environment”? Be accountable for your actions! What is so unique about that thought?

    “What I’ll also say is that the legal system is much more complex than your example.” No, it’s not complex, unless you spell complex “BROKEN”!

    “Where I vote is irrelevant, although I suppose the point you will try to make is that there are different laws for different states. So I’ll happily agree with you on that point.”

    I think it is very relevant, when if, you are let’s say a resident of PA. and on a CT blog sticking a finger in our eye about our laws. You have no skin in the game. You simply are a “Carpetbagger”!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

    The only laws that I see that we would have in common are Federal Laws & we both know you are not going to get what you want at the federal level. Not as many politicians have been stampeded, at the federal level.

    “your “little buddy” is the ironically named “Professor.””
    REALLY! How clairvoyant of you! I’m unimpressed. All this time I thought you were talking about Jez. 🙂 Although I have to agree with the Prof about the drama queen label. You do have a tendency to remind me of Nathan Lane in The Birdcage. As Jez would say, ROTFLMAO!!!!!

    “No, it’s REALLY NOT about banning the free ownership of any firearm. I have stated that repeatedly, and all your protesting and righteous indignation doesn’t change my position.”

    OK, I’ll cut to the chase on this one! I could say that your statement is “Bovine Scatology” BUT in truth it’s really just BULLSHIT!

  457. 466 cpcalta

    So now Ned you’re resorting to homosexual smears? It’s one thing to disagree on policy, but are you really that petty and pathetic that you feel the need to resort to these types of insults? I’ll say the same thing I’ve said to your little buddy, the comments and insults you recklessly throw around on this blog say much, much more about you than they do me. They are a condemnation of your character, not mine.

    Since many of the laws we’re talking about here, universal background checks, limits on magazine capacity, etc. are proposed federal laws, I will say this again: The state in which I reside is irrelevant. You are the one who is trying to bring local statutes into the discussion. You stand by a fictional number that you pulled out of the air. You ignore verifiable statistical data and cry “liberal bias” without providing any contradictory evidence. Then you attempt to misrepresent my beliefs so that you can rant against some dark, conspiratorial boogeyman when no one on this blog, nor those proposing reasonable legislation, are suggesting anything close to your total ban on the right to own a gun, or guns. No one has seriously suggested repealing the Second Amendment, and I for one wouldn’t support that.

    And really, you had to go to Wikipedia for the term carpetbagger? Not to mention that this term is really about someone who runs for office in an area they have no connections. It’s not about discussions that have federal implications and relate to citizens of all states OUR country.

  458. 467 cpcalta

    “It’s not about discussions that have federal implications and relate to citizens of all states OUR country.”

    Should be:

    “It’s not about discussions that have federal implications and relate to citizens of all states in OUR country.”

  459. 468 nedsmithy

    Cp:
    “So now Ned you’re resorting to homosexual smears?”
    I do not recall posting anything about your sexual desires. I simply made a reference to Nathan on the “Drama Queen” statement. Run around scream and wail? Like Nathan did in the movie???? What you guys do in your bedrooms in the Keystone State is strictly up to you!

    ” but are you really that petty and pathetic that you feel the need to resort to these types of insults?”
    Insults? Surely you jest young man. If I were to pass on the insults that have crossed my mind a few hundred times since you came on this thread, I would have made George look like a Saint! Please, don’t flatter yourself. Pathetic is your “little buddy” statement. Something I would expect to hear on the school house playgrounds!

    ” You stand by a fictional number that you pulled out of the air”
    ABSOLUTELY! Prove me wrong. BUT wait, that is a local issue, so why do you have any concern about it?

    I’m to assume that all your comments are at the Federal level?

    “nor those proposing reasonable legislation”
    We’ll just have to wait and see what turns out to be reasonable, at the federal level.

  460. For you statistic buffs-

    US High in Gun Ownership, Low in Murder Rate

    “Several reports on gun ownership around the world clearly refute the assertion that the abundance of guns in the United States leads to a high rate of firearm homicides.

    Americans are the biggest gun owners by far, with an estimated 270 million civilian firearms, in addition to those used by law enforcement and the military. That’s according to the Small Arms Survey of 178 nations conducted by the Switzerland-based Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

    In sheer numbers of civilian firearms, the No. 2 nation, surprisingly, is India with 46 million, followed by China (40 million), Germany (25 million), Pakistan (18 million), and Mexico (15 million).

    The United States also leads in gun ownership rate, with about 88 firearms per 100 people, according to the most recent Small Arms Survey compiled in 2007.

    That is far ahead of No. 2 Yemen, which has 55 firearms per 100 people. Switzerland is third with 46 per 100 people, followed by Finland (45), Serbia (38), Cyprus (36), Saudi Arabia (35), and Iraq (34).

    But when it comes to the firearm homicide rate, the United States doesn’t even make the top 25.

    According to figures collected by the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime through its annual crime survey, 9,146 Americans were victims of a firearm homicide in the most recent year. That translates to a rate of 2.97 firearm homicides per 100,000 population, only the 27th highest rate in the world.

    The highest rate by far can be found in Honduras, 68 homicides per 100,000, followed by El Salvador (40), Jamaica (39), Venezuela (38.9), Guatemala (34), and Colombia (27).

    For America’s neighbors, the rate in Mexico is 9.9 per 100,000 (where they have the toughest firearms laws on the continent), and in Canada, 0.5 per 100,000.

    It is interesting to note that not only does the United States have a relatively low homicide rate compared to its gun ownership rate, but Switzerland, which ranks third in the civilian gun ownership rate, has only the 46th highest homicide rate, and Finland, with the fourth highest ownership rate, is 63rd on the list.

    “The most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involve the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence,” writes CNS News commentator Stephen Gutowski. “In other words, more guns must mean more gun violence.”

    But in light of the ownership and homicide figures, he observes: “More guns do not, in fact, mean more gun violence. Guns can be, and commonly are, used in a responsible manner, especially here in the United States.”

    So when Great Britian and Australia report an increase in violent crimes after banning certain types of firearms and magazines why are many still calling for bans here in the US? Is it really about saving more lives OR emotion over experience?

  461. 470 stfdprofessor1

    how about a legal opinion 🙂

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2138468100001/

  462. 471 nedsmithy

    Good message! Oh DAMN it’s from that terrible right wing group called Foxnews!!! Not a “real” news organization in some peoples view here. That completely negates this Lawyers view? YUP, in some peoples view. You see, the gun violence problems of Chicago, Washington DC & other areas will go away as soon as there is a total ban of ownership of firearms. We all know that the criminals will abide by that law! Ya THINK!!

  463. 472 nedsmithy

    You just have to wonder, when the stat is related to “Long Guns” being less then 2% of gun violence, just how many of the “Long Guns” are the threaded “Assault STYLE Long Gun”. Let me take a WAG at the percentage. Let’s say it’s 60%, so 60% of something under 2% would be maybe 1%? BUT banning 1% of firearms is “A good first step”.

  464. 473 nedsmithy

    Disgusted writes:

    “For you statistic buffs-”

    I just love it when someone whispers sweet numbers in my ear!!!!!

  465. 474 stfdprofessor1

    “That completely negates this Lawyers view”

    Ummmmmm…she’s a judge “little buddy”!

  466. 475 nedsmithy

    OK “Big Buddy”! I had better pay attention!! 🙂

    I guess I’m going over the senile cliff!! I cannot even type the correct words, threaded in place of dreaded!!! Next thing you know, Ill be judged incompetent & they will come for me toys?? 🙂

  467. 476 mikereynolds

    Jesus Christ, nearly 500 comments on this topic. The horse is bloated and stinks beyond belief.

  468. 477 nedsmithy

    Kind of depends on which end of the horse you are dealing with!!!! 😈

  469. “Since I was 18 I have been a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I was an NRA member and served in the military.”

    And you think people speaking out about a topic where their core rights are at risk compares with a horse that is bloated and stinks beyond belief? I’d think you’d be more amazed and saddened that there are only a few posting here that are not ready to roll over.

  470. 479 mikereynolds

    We need George back to kill this thread.

  471. 480 nedsmithy

    Disappointed!

  472. 481 jezebel282

    Mike,

    “We need George back to kill this thread.”

    I think Disgusted, Prof and Ned have pretty much killed it by now. Don’t you think?

  473. 482 stfdprofessor1

    Well in that case you wont mind this link courtesy of an organization you and Chrissy convinced me to join…Enjoy 🙂

    https://videos.allinnra.com/strobe/StrobeMediaPlayback.swf?src=https://videos.allinnra.com/video-f4m.f4m?f=Microsite_BorderMexio_rv3

    BTW I really dont care what any Harkins supporting RINO thinks about my opinions-George’s absence-or this thread 🙂

  474. 483 nedsmithy

    Ask me again why I’m headed to Florida!!!! 😕
    Letter from my future Congressman in Florida Mr. Vern Buchanan.

    Dear Mr & Mrs Nedsmithy:

    Thank you for contacting me about your concern over President Obama’s recent gun-control proposals.

    As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I believe Congress must exercise sound judgment as it seeks meaningful solutions to reducing gun violence. The Constitutional rights of Americans must not be jeopardized.

    I support a national discussion on ways to reduce gun violence, and I have suggested that we consider taking steps to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally deranged individuals like those responsible for the mass shootings in Connecticut, Colorado and at Virginia Tech. If people with serious mental illnesses are slipping through the cracks of background checks, we need address that issue immediately.

    We should also be asking the entertainment industry what more it can do to address the violent video games and movies marketed to young males.

    And finally, we must work to enforce the thousands of existing gun laws already on the books before we rush to enact measures that could compromise the Second Amendment.

    Again, thank you for contacting me and please continue to stay in touch on this very important issue.

    If you want to receive congressional updates on this issue click here.

    Sincerely,

    Member of Congress

  475. 484 jezebel282

    “After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all.”

    -Wayne LaPierre

    Ned, do you know what color the sun is on LaPierre’s planet? Obviously he has never been in the Brooklyn on this planet.

  476. 487 nedsmithy

    In the LA riots, what was used by the Asian business owners to protect their lives & property from looters?

  477. 488 jezebel282

    “NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly announced on Thursday afternoon that 18 individuals were arrested for looting at a Key Foods in Coney Island, and 2 more were arrested in Staten Island, ABC News reported”

    Yup 20 arrests…out of 4 million people. I love it when it is proportional, don’t you? By the way, ever been to Mermaid Ave?.

  478. 489 nedsmithy

    Jez;

    I guess, in my mind, I’ve given you to much credit ! Your REALLY not going to try and foster the idea that there were only 20 occasions of looting are you? Do not build straw men!

  479. 490 jezebel282

    Ned,

    I’m just not going to buy a gun because there’s a hurricane or snow storm. And the fact that some ash*les broke into empty stores is not going to do it either.

  480. 491 nedsmithy

    Then don’t buy a freaking gun! You have that choice! Do you hear me telling anyone that they must purchase a firearm? Again, you are so blinded by your own bias! I hear no pro firearms supporter telling you that you have to own firearms, BUT I hear plenty of people who choose not to purchase firearms wanting to force their will on firearms owners!

    What really is “stinking up this thread” is the will of some of us to not bow and kiss the Jack Boots of the Liberal Demoncrats. NEVER, no compromise and that is going to drive some of you NUTS!

    I will say AGAIN for the record that the panty waist politicians of Ct. will undoubtedly pass some Draconian Laws for the citizens of CT! When these same laws are tried at the Federal level, I believe you have a rude awaking coming!

    Ya know I’m correct on that one!

  481. 492 jezebel282

    I’m not going to. But I don’t recall telling you that you can’t buy another.

  482. 493 nedsmithy

    Oh but I beg to differ! You most certainly are for restrictions on what firearms I can purchase! I will take the same restrictions that are on the 1st Amendment, applied to the second. I recall no restrictions, only accountability! Go back and reread my post on screaming fire in a crowded movie theater. You can speak ANY words you want, you will simply be held accountable for what you say. I want to own any firearm I choose, BUT be held accountable for my actions with that firearm!

  483. 494 nedsmithy

    Interesting what James Madison had to say in Federalist Paper #46

    (Summary)
    “A comparison is then made of the ability of federal and State governments to resist and frustrate the measures of the other. Points made above and in the last paper favor the State governments in this manner. Added to this is the bias that members will carry to the federal Government which will certainly favor the States from which they come whereas it would be rare that the bias would be in favor of the federal Government. More arguments are made using the theme that since the people are closer to the State Government the Federal Government will be unable to take authority from the States.

    An hypothesis of interest today is suppose a regular army equal to the resources of the country was formed entirely devoted to the Federal Government. Madison argues that State Governments with people on their side in militias and armed would have more firepower than the regular army. 🙄 He considers being armed an advantage that Americans have over the people of almost every other nation and that it “forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of”. 😀 Obviously our founders considered the right of the general population to bear arms as protection against dangers from an internal Federal Government as well as from attacks by external foes.” ❗

  484. 495 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “restrictions on what firearms I can purchase!”

    At some point there has to be reasonable discussion. You do indeed have the right to keep and bear arms. However, I am not convinced at all by any of your arguments that whatever firearm gets invented and developed by any manufacturer is automatically available for purchase by anyone.

    For one thing, I believe there should be restrictions placed on manufacturers to ensure that the gun you just bought doesn’t blow up and kill you when you shoot it the first time. According to you, that would be one of those liberal paintywaist restrictions. Of course Libertarians would argue that the marketplace would punish the manufacturer after you are dead.

  485. 496 stfdprofessor1

    WOW, Im really starting to like this guy:

    🙂

  486. Of all places this was on CNN

    Even Joe Biden admits that the proposed laws may be useless. The commentator said he may be “too honest” isn’t that a sad statment?

    __________________________________________________________________

    Jez- “For one thing, I believe there should be restrictions placed on manufacturers to ensure that the gun you just bought doesn’t blow up and kill you when you shoot it the first time.”

    There already are those type of regulations Jezebel and I don’t think anyone is pushing to have them repealed. Have you heard of a rash of exploding guns somewhere lately or is this just another “reach” to appear reasonable? There is also a mountain of “tort law” protecting the consumer.

    I believe Ned is against new laws making what is now legally owned and posessed from becoming prohibited items. I think most people on “our side” of the fence want current laws enforced vs. new restrictions enacted which will be ineffective in solving the issue at hand, that will only be obeyed by law abiding Americans and will more than likely be unenforced given the previous track record of enforcement.

    Am I the only one who thinks it’s odd that the President of the United States has to issue an Executive Action to the Justice Department to enforce the current law of the land?

  487. 498 jezebel282

    Disgusted,

    “I believe Ned is against new laws”

    It was just an example. You know, like hordes of minorities looting your neighborhood?

  488. In my neighborhood I am a minority

  489. 500 nedsmithy

    jez write:

    “At some point there has to be reasonable discussion.”

    Absolutely NOT! You failed to read or understand my post, that I would accept all the restrictions that are applied to the 1st, to be also applied to the second! No discussion, NO compromise!

    “However, I am not convinced”

    I’m not looking to convince anyone, especially you! I don’t give a damn what your distorted views are. Please address the question of would you accept the same restrictions on the 2nd as what is in place for the 1st? Not an essay question! Simply yes or no!

    “whatever firearm gets invented and developed by any manufacturer is automatically available for purchase by anyone.”

    It’s called free ownership of firearms, is that so hard to comprehend?

    “I believe there should be restrictions placed on manufacturers to ensure that the gun you just bought doesn’t blow up and kill you”

    Remember the PM we had a while back when you made the snide remark about alcohol and the keyboard? Practice what you preach! Are you so ignorant about manufacturing of “any” product in the USA? You really aren’t that ignorant are you? When you purchase a step ladder or extension ladder, what portion of the price that you pay is nothing but Product Liability Insurance? Research that and do your cut & paste! When I was in the business my Product Liability Insurance averaged out to about 20% of my “Gross” sales!!! Higher rates then a Pediatrician!

    “According to you, that would be one of those liberal paintywaist restrictions.”

    Act your age. Your being a school yard child!

    “Of course Libertarians would argue that the marketplace would punish the manufacturer after you are dead.”

    NO! It will be some bottom feeding, ambulance chasing Lawyer. You know who they are, same ones that want to sue the maker of the Snow Blower after some stupid ass sticks his hand in the auger and doesn’t want to take responsibility for his own actions!!!

    As I said in a prior post, I really think I’ve given you to much credit in the past!

  490. 501 nedsmithy

    Jez writes:

    “It was just an example. You know, like hordes of minorities looting your neighborhood?”

    My dear young Lady, I never suspected you of being a racist and profiling!!! Very enlightening!

  491. 502 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “No discussion, NO compromise!”

    And there it is.

  492. 503 nedsmithy

    YUP!

    You REALLY want us to have a discussion with you about restricting or eliminating our rights!!! We will have that”discussion” immediately after you have the “discussion” with us to restrict or eliminate your 1st amendment rights. Whats fair is fair, you get to put restrictions on the 2nd and we get to put “real” restrictions on the 1st. :mrgreen:

    Lets go with this example:

    You get to restrict magazines to 10 round capacity.

    We get to restrict the speed and capacity of printing presses & internet access to anything.

    Because you see, the founders had NO IDEA how fast and widespread the press was going to get. 💡

    You get to take a marble out of my basket & I get to take a marble out of yours. Fair,no?

    Here’s the real deal on this problem! We are not going to freely give up any of our rights. They will have to be “taken from us”! If you do not like the 2nd Amendment, then you have a perfect right to go to your representatives and try to have them repeal it. We all know where that will go. The gun movement will equal or surpass the civil rights movement! 😡

  493. 504 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    I asked several questions of you in just the last 2 messages (500 & 501). Would you care to address them? It seems to me that when your “Straw Men” get destroyed you choose to ignore it. Then again maybe I’m giving you to much credit? 🙄

  494. 505 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    As to having a discussion of “real” restrictions of the 1st Amendment, I would suspect your reply might be:

    “No discussion, NO compromise!”

    Gee, where have we heard that statement before?

  495. 506 jezebel282

    Ned,

    There are plenty of restrictions on speech even though the Constitution contains explicit language barring Congress from passing such laws. Pornography and copyright laws spring to mind. Prohibitions of such expression have been adjudicated on the basis of such flimsy grounds as “I know it when I see it.”

    That is not the case with the Second Amendment. That amendment simply says you have a right to keep and bear arms. It contains no language specifying the type of arms you may keep & bear…or how many for that matter.

    “You get to restrict magazines to 10 round capacity.
    We get to restrict the speed and capacity of printing presses & internet access to anything.”

    Actually, that has been tried. Repeatedly. Remember Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)?

    Unlike the internet (it’s like a series of tubes) the one and only purpose of a firearm is the death of someone or something. Target practice or competition is merely providing the opportunity to become more proficient at it. Given that, my only point is that we, as a society, ought to be able to discuss how lethal weapons are distributed and used without becoming angry with each other.

  496. 507 nedsmithy

    OK Jez, we’ll go to your latest:
    “There are plenty of restrictions on speech even though the Constitution contains explicit language barring Congress from passing such laws. Pornography and copyright laws spring to mind. Prohibitions of such expression have been adjudicated on the basis of such flimsy grounds as “I know it when I see it.”

    There are no real restrictions on speech! You simply will be held accountable for your speech. Same accountability I want applied to firearms. If you use a press to print something restricted, is the response to ban the production of printing presses or are you held accountable for your actions and presses continue to be made? If you use your computer to download and or distribute Child Pornography, do they ban the production of computers or maybe hold the person accountable for their actions? In BOTH cases the tool used to commit the crime is ignored!

    “That amendment simply says you have a right to keep and bear arms. It contains no language specifying the type of arms you may keep & bear…or how many for that matter.”

    Oh but I beg to differ. “A well regulated Militia” , so given that, it must pertain to Militia Style Arms? If “the people” are to bear arms to be available for the Militia then it is goes to the fact that “the people” must have Militia Style Firearms! The second does not protect hunting, sporting, target shooting etc. etc.. It ONLY protects Militia Style Firearms.

    But as I said earlier:
    “As to having a discussion of “real” restrictions of the 1st Amendment, I would suspect your reply might be:

    “No discussion, NO compromise!”

    Gee, where have we heard that statement before?

    This will be a discussion held in Wash. D.C. by our representatives. Lets see what the outcome is at the federal level. 🙄

  497. 508 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “it must pertain to Militia Style Arms?”

    I do believe that was the point of the Topic title. Show me your membership card in the militia…..

  498. 509 nedsmithy

    NOT NEEDED!!!! Take up your argument with the most recent Supreme Decision! I believe we already discussed it here in an earlier post???? Heller vs DC! I just LOVE your Straw Men!!!!

  499. 510 nedsmithy

    Bows will be next on the list!!!!

    http://www.racembac.com/bowmag.html

  500. 511 nedsmithy

    For those of us that love You Tube!!!

  501. 512 nedsmithy

    In case Jez doesn’t have time to look it up:

    Issue

    What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?

    Holding and Rule (Scalia)

    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    Constitutional Construction

    The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause :mrgreen: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. :idea:”

    The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

    (separated from paragraph by me to make sure Jez can view the sentence by itself. The part about denying Congress is interesting, eh Jez?)
    The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

    This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the drafting history reveals three proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators from ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s interpretation.

    🙄

  502. 513 jezebel282

    Ned,

    “I just LOVE your Straw Men!!!!”

    Of course you do…it was your straw man.

    Reminder: “If “the people” are to bear arms to be available for the Militia then it is goes to the fact that “the people” must have Militia Style Firearms!”

  503. 514 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    To put it bluntly, What to hell are you talking about! My straw man??? You have truly gone over the edge! Try your shuck and jive somewhere else. This is what I replied to:

    Ned,

    “it must pertain to Militia Style Arms?”

    I do believe that was the point of the Topic title. Show me your membership card in the militia…..

    To wit I replied:

    “NOT NEEDED!!!! Take up your argument with the most recent Supreme Decision! I believe we already discussed it here in an earlier post???? Heller vs DC! I just LOVE your Straw Men!!!!”

    Your straw man was the “need to be a member of the militia”! IF you were to take the time to read Heller vs DC before you start pounding that keyboard you wouldn’t come of looking so ignorant of the decision. I even took the time to post an overview for you and you still failed to read. Point being that one does not need to be a member of any Militia to be afforded the 2nd Amendment!

    I really shouldn’t pick on your ignorance, as you are doing an outstanding job all by your lonesome.

    Two true statements come to mind:

    There is none so blind as those who will not see!
    There is none so ignorant as those who will not learn!

    No discussion, NO compromise on the 2nd Amendment!!! 😀

  504. 515 sudds

    Can we please kill this thread as it has NOTHING to do with Stratford????

    My Lord… 514 comments and it’s all about as relevant as one of George’s old posts!!!

  505. 516 nedsmithy

    Hey Jez,

    Sudds has my vote!

  506. 517 jezebel282

    Done!

    Unfortunately WordPress doesn’t allow blocking posts to a particular topic. So….just stop posting here.

  507. 518 nedsmithy

    Jez:

    Done deal on my part!!!!

    Thanks to all for reading the posts.

    Nedsmithy

  508. Well if we can all agree this topic has run its course I’ll sign off with an educational video to help the technically challenged among us. If they take the time, they will probably learn something.

  509. 520 cpcalta

    Actually, the topic has only run its course on this particular blog. Unlike the few extreme voices here drowning out reasonable discourse, Congress does appear poised to deal with at least some of the actions being proposed, namely universal background checks.

    And it seems fitting that Jezebel’s comment from above would be a much more fitting summation of the discussion:

    “Unlike the internet (it’s like a series of tubes) the one and only purpose of a firearm is the death of someone or something. Target practice or competition is merely providing the opportunity to become more proficient at it. Given that, my only point is that we, as a society, ought to be able to discuss how lethal weapons are distributed and used without becoming angry with each other.”

  510. 521 jezebel282

    CP,

    Enough.

    Topic is done. Let it go.

  511. 522 nedsmithy

    Jez;

    Thank you Jez. You & I leave this post with one last statement we can agree on.

    Thanks to all

    Nedsmithy

  512. 523 stfdprofessor1

    REASONABLE DISCOURSE??? yeah Chrissy reasonable when YOU want to pick MY pocket of MY RIGHTS you think its reasonable. How about we let a priest finish it off with some common sense

  513. 524 sudds

    Eh gads! You guys are suddenly making me start to miss George!!!

    How about if we focus on a much better topic (and not just her… ummm… “attractiveness”):

    http://stratford.patch.com/articles/letter-lack-of-communication-in-stratford-post-blizzard-absolutely-heartless

  514. 526 jezebel282

    Prof,

    Gee thanks. But we are no longer accepting contributions to this topic.

  515. 527 stfdprofessor1

    GEEZE Jez you “Georged” me and without a warning no less!!! First you go after my Second amendment rights, now you go after my First amendment rights??? Oh, I know, I know its your blog, but I’d bet the First amendment would apply with opinions that are agreed upon by the moderator…you know that you only get away with this Mironesk, Harkinsish double standard behavior cause you’re so sexy and cute (OK…just sexy)!!! I guess thats it for me on this thread too. I just want to thank everyone who helped me get off the fence on this topic. And thank you my sweet Jezebel just for being you 🙂

  516. 528 jezebel282

    Prof,

    LOL!

    Thank you for the sentiment. Your First Amendment rights are intact. I did not delete your comment even though you just cut and pasted someone else’s ideas. But Sudds and Ned are correct. 527 comments that go nowhere are enough.

    And I had no choice but to “George” you. You didn’t bother to read the previous 5 or 6 comments. Was it good for you?

  517. 529 jezebel282

    OK…tell me again what are assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns used for?

    “On the shooter’s person was a loaded semi- automatic Sig Sauer P226, 9 mm pistol and additional ammunition. Located near the shooter was a
    partially loaded Glock 20, 10 mm semi-automatic pistol that appeared to be jammed. A Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S rifle was located some distance away from the shooter. The rifle’s shoulder strap was attached in the front but disconnected at the butt of the rifle. The disconnected rear portion was the result of a failed nut attachment. It is unknown if the nut failed while the rifle was being used or as the result of being dropped or thrown to the floor.
    The Bushmaster rifle was found with the safety in the “fire” position. There was one live 5.56 mm round in the chamber and one PMAG 30 magazine in the magazine well. The magazine contained fourteen live 5.56 mm rounds of ammunition. The rifle did not appear to have malfunctioned
    when observed by the WDMC van unit, but a CSP-ESU report described the weapon as appearing to have jammed. When tested later, the rifle functioned properly.”
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/841589/sandy-hook-final-report.pdf

  518. 530 nedsmithy

    Jez,

    Again, nice try! We’ve already gone down this road before. Your on your own. As I recall we cut and pasted the crap out of subject before? Your trying to blow smoke up a dead horses ass!

  519. 531 jezebel282

    I suppose I’m just pointing out that reasonable gun safety advocates are not going to go away. Very little in life is absolute.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: