Parent Humiliates 9y/o Son: Uses Kid to Push Guns

NRA T-Shirt Stick to your guns - backSo this Gun Freak named Nightmare sends his nine-year-old son to school wearing this T-Shirt.  School makes the kid turn it inside out for the rest of the day.  Gun-Freak Dad spends 6 straight days blogging about it.

What is this extreme obsession with guns?   I weep for the poor little kid.  He’s not even old enough to use a gun and his Dad is using him to promote guns and scaring a lot of other little kids in the process.

Link: I was informed that he was removed from the classroom and taken to a Counsellor who convinced him to remove the shirt and turn it inside out. That spurs questions in my “investigative mind”…

He was then returned to the classroom. He was made to wear his clothing in an inappropriate manner in front of the other students.

Nevermind that his education was disrupted and he was singled out by the teacher.

Nevermind that the t-shirt contained no obscenities, doesn’t suggest or promote anti-social behavior, doesn’t advertise alcohol, tobbaco or the occult, violence, vulgarity, profanity or sexual references.

Nevermind that the school has a home contact and other emergency contact numbers for reaching us.

Nevermind that they didn’t call to bring the matter up.

I think the guy actually typed out the school’s handbook including dress code which forbids clothing that:

“advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law.
…suggests or promotes anti-social behavior, violence,…”

Is an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people on it promoting violence?    I would be hard to imagine a more violent t-shirt.  I suppose depicting and actual murder might be worse.

Does an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people  promote anti-social behavior? Next time you are in a nice social situation like school, church or family picnic, try pulling out a hand gun then take a poll.

Is it speech protected by the First Amendment? Yes, except in responsible schools with thoughtful policies designed to protect innocent children from the vagaries of their parents.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Bob S. on March 26, 2009 - 12:21 pm

    Cliff,

    Maybe you can get some facts straight before you start going off…then again you probably can’t — or don’t want to get your facts straight.

    So this Gun Freak named Nightmare sends his nine-year-old son to school wearing this T-Shirt

    But on the blog….under part 1, we find out that you start your post with a lie.

    We sent our young lad off to school. He had picked out his clothing, gotten dressed, etc. He picked a t-shirt that he had worn to school before with nary a complaint.

    He’s not even old enough to use a gun

    Another lie right off the bat. Nine year olds are capable of using firearms under supervision and many do. I think it is appropriate to start kids on .22s or other similar calibers…but certainly 9 is old enough to use a gun.

    So, right from the start, we find out you are lying and trying to mislead people.

    You own guns, right?

    How many of those guns have “shot at people” as you say they are designed to do?

    I would be hard to imagine a more violent t-shirt

    Wow, mere images of firearms is the most violent t-shirt you can imagine…what pant soiling hysteria.

    Does an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people promote anti-social behavior?

    See I noticed you don’t mention the 2 hunting rifles on the shirt…doesn’t fit your agenda for gun control?

    Nor do you mention the 2 shotguns, guess you pro-ignorance anti-freedom types aren’t ready to ask people to give up their shotguns yet either. Nice to know your focus.

    Next time you are in a nice social situation like school, church or family picnic, try pulling out a hand gun then take a poll.

    You would be surprised, but given the vehemence and the vitriol you are using to push your losing agenda maybe you wouldn’t be surprised to know that IF many people conducted such a poll your anti-freedom agenda would lose, again.

    BELLEVUE, WA – A new Harris poll has revealed that by a 2-to-1 margin, American adults are convinced that the Second Amendment affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said the new poll – taken between May 5 and 12 – also shows a greater majority of Republicans than Democrats believe the amendment supports an individual civil right. Another finding is that only 49 percent of those surveyed favor stricter gun control, down from 52 percent in 2004 and way down from the 69 percent who favored tougher gun laws in 1998. Twenty percent want less restrictions on firearms, and 21 percent want no changes in current laws.

    You slipped and gave away part of your agenda Cliff

    Yes, except in responsible schools with thoughtful policies designed to protect innocent children from the vagaries of their parents

    Once again you show this isn’t just about firearms, it is about control. It’s about people like you trying to control every aspect of people’s life.

    Soon, I imagine you’ll want people to give up their kids and let the state raise them in creches so they can be taught the proper order of things, eh?

    “Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they’re so frightfully clever. I’m awfully glad I’m a Beta, because I don’t work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don’t want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They’re too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I’m so glad I’m a Beta.”

  2. #2 by Moribund Republic on March 26, 2009 - 12:26 pm

    Daa veeeey Crockett…Kilt him a Bar when he was only three…Daaaveaay, Davey Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier!

  3. #3 by Kevin Owens on March 26, 2009 - 12:31 pm

    Why does it have to be all or nothing? I think we can allow adults to have guns, but also prohibit kids from wearing T-shirts to school which glorify man-on-man weapons.

    See I noticed you don’t mention the 2 hunting rifles on the shirt…doesn’t fit your agenda for gun control?

    I can’t speak for Cliff, but I suspect this is the case. Glorifying hunting rifles and glorifying handguns are two very different messages.

  4. #4 by Moribund Republic on March 26, 2009 - 12:36 pm

    Cliff can’t even keep his bathrobe clean. He isn’t into control in any real sense.

  5. #5 by Cliff Lyon on March 26, 2009 - 12:37 pm

    Busy Bob S,

    Is it out of convenience that you forget my position on guns? I like most Americans (75%) think that we should do smart gun control policy. I’m fine with hunting. I grew up hunting (you forget, I am a marksman).

    I have no problem with the ‘right to bear’ as long as it protected in some fashion which excludes INSANITY — like assualt weapons.

    Why do continue to direct arguments at me that assume I want to ban all guns?

    I know why, because you don’t have an argument say for why we should allow unrestricted purchase of automatic assaut weapons – the weapon of choice for anyone wanting to kill a lot of people quickly. Can you say INSANE Bob?

    As for the nine year old kid picking his t-shirt for school. Since when does a nine year old kid go clothes shipping? So Dad gave him the t-shirt. Should a nine year old kid want to please his Dad?

    The point is, the Dad (Nightmare) should not let him wear that t-shirt to school.

  6. #6 by Moribund Republic on March 26, 2009 - 12:50 pm

    It is an arm of war the assault rifle, and the 2nd says we have the right to bear arms.

    As a rule there were guns (Kentucky Rifles) that were used by Colonial troops, mainly Danial Morgan’s men. They were expressly hated by the British as they didn’t play fair, and were excellent at killing British officers at range. Bad sport they said. Life is tough for the tyrannically stupid.

    They British wished to ban them.

    Now in Switzerland all men trained have an assault rifle and the ammo and freedom to act when necessary. The Swiss have never struck me as an insane people. Though many gun controllers in the US surely do.

  7. #7 by Moribund Republic on March 26, 2009 - 12:52 pm

    Cliff a marksman? He doesn’t even know how to replace the air filter on his SUV.

  8. #8 by Bob S. on March 26, 2009 - 12:59 pm

    From the Miler decision (emphasis mine)

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.)154, 158.

    and this

    The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time

    Since there is ample evidence that the military and our militarized law enforcement agencies use pistols, isn’t it a little silly to try to ban them when clearly even the Supreme Court considers them to be protected.

    And that isn’t even getting into the Heller decision which clearly favors handguns.

    Next, how about those handguns used to hunt, Eh?

  9. #9 by Weer'd Beard on March 26, 2009 - 1:01 pm

    Hey Cliff. I’m new here, care to explain to me what you consider an “Assault Weapon”, and why you consider them “INSANE”?

    Just like to clarify your common sense for the sake of discussion.

  10. #10 by Bob S. on March 26, 2009 - 1:08 pm

    Kevin,

    Since the rifles and shotguns are on the same t-shirt, how does one set (handguns) glorify violence but the other set (rifles and shotguns) don’t?

    Perhaps it is because neither set glorifies violence?

    Please tell me exactly what in that t-shirt is glorifying violence?

    It amazes me that the crowd so adamant about not infringing on the free speech of others (unless it isn’t the approved liberal versions) is so unwilling to allow others to have their freedom of speech.

    To go so far as to say a picture of 4 hand guns “glorifies” violence is asinine.

  11. #11 by Kevin Owens on March 26, 2009 - 1:22 pm

    When someone prominently displays several handguns, it is usually a way to demonstrate his prowess. When someone displays hunting rifles, he may be expressing his love of hunting. Those are the two different messages.

    Displaying handguns may not glorify violence; I take that back. It can glorify violence, but it doesn’t necessarily glorify violence. Rather, I would say such a display is threatening and intimidating. Much like how an ape puffs out his chest and bares his teeth. Children should be prohibited from making intimidating displays in a public school.

    A public school for children has a compelling interest in controlling the dress of its students, because it acts in loco parentis. You wouldn’t want kids coming to school with pornography on their shirts. Free speech should appropriately be restricted in this situation.

  12. #12 by Moribund Republic on March 26, 2009 - 1:50 pm

    No more than a collection of hammers glorifies pounding nails and building houses.

  13. #13 by Cliff Lyon on March 26, 2009 - 2:01 pm

    Weerd,

    Are you having trouble making the connection between Assault Weapons and insanity?

    It is of course a matter of degrees on several trajectories.

    1. The purpose: National Defense — Self Defense — compensating for small penis — Collectors

    Some would argue that war in insanity.

    2. Posession: Soldier, Cop, Joe Blow, Man with Small Penis

    3. Practice/Use: Killing foreign enemy, killing ATF agents, killing black presidents, killing domestic attackers, killing Burger King robbers, killing school mates, threatening others, collecting, compensating for small penis.

    You pick your spot on these spectra and I will tell you if I think you are insane.

  14. #14 by Cliff Lyon on March 26, 2009 - 2:08 pm

    BS Bob,

    Now you are using the “well regulated militia” part to justify assault weapons.

    Fine. I have no problem letting National Guardsmen take their assault rifles home (but they don’t do that even now)

    How do you go from “well regulated militia” to sell them to any schmoe with a little dick?

  15. #15 by Moribund Republic on March 26, 2009 - 2:16 pm

    Cliff; you must have a little dick with all the references. Maybe that explains your SUV ownership. Maybe you need to get and assault rifle and a rack to go with it.

  16. #16 by Bob S. on March 26, 2009 - 2:21 pm

    Cliff,

    Since the “militia” isn’t limited to the National Guard, you’ve just agreed to let people own “assault weapons”. :)

    “311. MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES

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

    Now in this enlightened day and age, we would have to include those over 45 and females also in the miltia, can’t be accused of ageism or sexism, can we?

    The militia is everyone Cliff. Pure and Simple, everyone unless prohibited by criminal act or mental illness.

    Thanks for playing, you lose.

  17. #17 by James Farmer on March 26, 2009 - 2:44 pm

    Bob:

    You are letting technicalities get in the way of the argument that ready access to assault weapons is insane.

  18. #18 by jdberger on March 26, 2009 - 2:58 pm

    What’s the school protecting the other students from? Images of guns?

    Wow……scawy pichers…..

    Freud associates retarded sexual/emotional development with the fear and loathing of weapons.

    Hmmm….

  19. #19 by jdberger on March 26, 2009 - 2:59 pm

    You are letting technicalities get in the way of the argument that ready access to assault weapons is insane.

    So, James, argue it.

  20. #20 by Weer'd Beard on March 26, 2009 - 3:14 pm

    Cliff, You appeared to have totally dodged my question, substituting the old dick-joke saw. Seems that others claim this is your Modus Operendi.

    Because I’m new here I’ll give you the benifit of the doubt (also I’ll open the question to any like-minded oneutah poster)
    “What do you consider an “Assault Weapon”, and why do you consider them “INSANE”?”

  21. #21 by Shane Smith on March 26, 2009 - 7:23 pm

    “Freud associates retarded sexual/emotional development with the fear and loathing of weapons.”

    That isn’t really a good argument considering who it is coming from. I realize that much of the western world regards him as some sort of genius, but frankly, I think that some day humankind will look back at the society that believed the crap he spouted and shake their heads in disbelief.

    Freud also thought that holding and then excavating excrement in the body was an early sexual pleasure and that all men wanted to have sex with their mothers and kill their fathers and that all women had penis envy. “Unbelievably stupid” is a polite characterization of Freudian analysis. Frankly, if Dr. Fraud says it is so, the reverse is most likely true.

    In other words, retarded sexual/emotional development is more likely the reason some little boys never grow up, and always want to play with guns.

    But hey, that is just a personal reaction to a stupid statement by a nutcase.

    And Kevin, thanks for the picture. What has been seen cannot be unseen. Brain bleach required. That was even more wrong than Freud……

  22. #22 by Cliff Lyon on March 26, 2009 - 7:50 pm

    Weerd, Indeed you are new here. Let me take this opportunity to say welcome.

    You should ny now know that this is one of the rare places where you can engage educated thoughtful liberals. That said, you should also understand that petty amatuerish tactics DON”T WORK.

    i.e. you won’t trick anyone here. So rather than playing games by asking loaded questions while feigning an innocent honest desire to understand, I suggest you just make your best case or STFU.

    Peace and Love soldier.

    Cliff

    Now on to insanity

  23. #23 by Curious on March 26, 2009 - 8:35 pm

    Cliff.

    What do you know about the father?

    Curious.

  24. #24 by Cliff Lyon on March 26, 2009 - 9:44 pm

    Curious,

    I know that the father’s indignation is wrong. The Father suffers from an overdose of tribalism — a toxic concoction of common hormones selected for their reproductive advantage.

    Add a dose of anger, and you end up with a 25 percenter, a person who views the world from a paradigm of strict self-preservation.

    Such people tend to be souless and loud. And while relatively innocent, represent a menace to society. The are the imbalance of our species that prevent us from any significant departure from violence and war.

    While they are widely regarded as ‘good people’ (and they are), they are obsessed with the accoutrement of violence and most of all, they are stuborn backward looking people.

    They must be forgiven, but they must be stopped.

  25. #25 by jdberger on March 26, 2009 - 10:37 pm

    Well. Shane’s not a fan of psychotherapy. I guess we’ve determined that.

    Anything else to add?

    And Cliffy’s still an internet bully….

  26. #26 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 2:02 am

    “i.e. you won’t trick anyone here. So rather than playing games by asking loaded questions while feigning an innocent honest desire to understand, I suggest you just make your best case or STFU.”

    No loaded questions, Cliff. Actually I want to hear YOUR argument for the ban of “Assault Weapons” (You have one, Correct?).

    Of course that would require first be your definition of what these class of firearms are (the term exists only on gun control bills, and there are huge numbers of variations from bill-to-bill. ie: do you supports the Clinton AWB? HR 1022 ban? The California Ban, the Connecticut ban? ect.)
    And with your defining of the term, you would then need to support what exactly makes those guns worthy of banishment, as opposed to the guns you claim to support the ownership of.

    So what’s your argument? Maybe you’ll be repeating yourself, so I will accept a link to an earlier post if you feel it answers my two questions.

    Just because you assumed my questions were dishonest, and made what appears to be rude comments at me, I’ll also present an olive branch.

    Here’s my argument: I will argue, and will support with data that whatever definition of “Assault Weapon” you choose will simply be an arbitrary list of certain brand-name semi-auto firearms, and/or a list of mostly cosmetic features applied to a semi-auto firearm that in no way effects the performance of the firearm for any nefarious effect.

    I will also argue that besides multiple sporting disciplines that use firearms that have often been branded as “Assault Weapons” most guns on this list are ideal personal defense, and/or training firearms.

    Of course I can’t effectively argue these points unless I know what definition of “assault weapon” you’re using, and why you think they should be banned.

    Sorry for any misunderstanding, Cliff.

  27. #27 by James Farmer on March 27, 2009 - 7:55 am

    Weird:

    It’s not so much that assault weapons should be banned outright. The problem – i.e., the insanity – is the ready, too convenient access to such weapons.

  28. #28 by Cliff on March 27, 2009 - 8:10 am

    Weerd,

    I believe assault weapons should be banned for the same reason THEY WERE banned…plus a few new ones.

    The new reasons include demonstrating to the NRA and its members that they’ve been duped. The NRA has lied and manipulated its membership to support bad policy and worse candidates.

    In many ways, the NRA is responsible for the Bush Republican years and people like Sarah Palin, Alan Korwin, John Lott and other enemies of progrees.

    As for the old reasons for which assault weapons used to be banned, just ask JD. He collects them.

  29. #29 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 8:58 am

    Cliff, I noticed you made no attempt to actually answer my question. That’s the 2nd time. To show your itellect any respect I have to assume that was intentional.

    As for your secondary diatribe, maybe you haven’t been reading the news?
    http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/AWBLettertoHolder309.pdf

    Much to even my suprise, the status of Gun rights in America is possibly stronger than it’s ever been, dispite the intentions of our current President.

    Discarding the irrational fruit I move on to James:

    Are you aware what one must do to aquire ANY gun in America?

    Also it appears you make a distinction between “Assault Weapons” and firearms in general, what is your reasoning for this?

  30. #30 by Curious on March 27, 2009 - 9:09 am

    Have you met him to actually level what you are saying against him?

    You are taking his 6 entries and judging him on those.

    You missed something.

    I asked him a couple of questions. He answered and showed me what he was referring to. Your snide comments on his blog won’t rate you getting a response from him as to the anonymity issue.

    You are wrong and you don’t see what he’s actually doing.

    Some of the expressions on here are actually working to his benefit.

    Think about that.

  31. #31 by Cliff Lyon on March 27, 2009 - 9:19 am

    Weerd,

    I’m on the side that just wants sensible gun control. We do not believe the 2nd Amendment should preclude that.

    We’ve been all the way around the NRA arguments. They are all good ones. Just not good enough.

    Progressives believe that sometimes, individual desires, beliefs, priviledges, yes an even rights (Family over fetus) rights are subordinate to the public interest.

    I hope that helps.

    Per your observation “the status of Gun rights in America is possibly stronger than it’s ever been, dispite the intentions of our current President.”

    I think you are right. They are very strong and Heller was a terrible decision. Scalia is a scum sucking pig bitch.

    I’m pumped however to see that you are concerned about Obama. You should be. We will continue to apply pressure. And each time some sick powerless person picks up a gun and kills people, we will apply extra pressure.

    It would be nice if you triained, responsible gun owners could be everywhere. But you can’t. So in the meantime, it would be nice if you could see the light and help us.

    Thanks
    Cliff

  32. #32 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 9:44 am

    Cliff,

    It would be nice if you triained, responsible gun owners could be everywhere. But you can’t. So in the meantime, it would be nice if you could see the light and help us.

    Maybe the reason we can’t be everywhere is people like you are trying to impose restrictions that prevent responsible, trained gun owners from being everywhere?

    You’ve stated in the past that you want to ban all handguns, has that changed or do you only want people with rifles and shotguns being out in public?

    How about the laws against low cost firearms, the so called “saturday night specials’, the higher cost firearms prevent many people from purchasing firearms. And when the people do purchase them, they are less likely to seek training because of the higher cost of the firearm.

    The policies, those sensible restrictions, actually seem to be working against your desire for responsible trained gun owners.

  33. #33 by Ken on March 27, 2009 - 9:46 am

    Progressives believe that sometimes, individual desires, beliefs, priviledges, yes an even rights (Family over fetus) rights are subordinate to the public interest.

    Wrong cliff. In fact it is better for the entire world to be destroyed than for humankind to lose their individual rights.

  34. #34 by jdberger on March 27, 2009 - 10:00 am

    It’s not so much that assault weapons should be banned outright. The problem – i.e., the insanity – is the ready, too convenient access to such weapons.

    What do you define as “ready, too convenient access”, James?

    1) What preconditions should be met to buy a gun?

    2) Should there be additional restrictions on the buyer if the gun has different cosmetic features?

    3) What cosmetic features, exactly, would trigger those additional purchase restrictions?

    4) What would those additional purchase restrictions be?

    5) Please be as specific as possible.

    6) Finally, how do you square the additional purchase restrictions with the Heller decision?

  35. #35 by Kevin Owens on March 27, 2009 - 10:06 am

    Wrong cliff. In fact it is better for the entire world to be destroyed than for humankind to lose their individual rights.

    “Give me liberty or give me death,” eh?

  36. #36 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 10:11 am

    So Kevin,

    Ready to give up your individuality and join the Collective?

    The Borg are waiting.

    Personally, I’ll keep my individuality for a while longer. Give me liberty or give me death, worked then, works now.

  37. #37 by James Farmer on March 27, 2009 - 10:14 am

    Weird asks:

    Are you aware what one must do to aquire (sic) ANY gun in America?

    Yes, Weird, I am.

  38. #38 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 10:18 am

    “I’m on the side that just wants sensible gun control.”

    And could I ever hope for an explanation for exactly what that is, and why you think it would be worth the restrictions of rights?

    “It would be nice if you triained, responsible gun owners could be everywhere. But you can’t. So in the meantime, it would be nice if you could see the light and help us.”

    Technically we should be helping eachother, as nobody on either side of this discussion is supporting murder, crime, or criminal violence.

    I see many propositions (like the ’94 Assault Weapons Ban) as somthing that does nothing at the cost of infringing on rights, and making firearms popular for personal defense and many sports difficult to get.

    But I guess you really don’t want to talk about such things, and would rather I just submit to ignorance.

    Try again…

  39. #39 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 10:20 am

    “Yes, Weird, I am.”

    So what would you propose to ammend the problems you see, and what support do you have that it would work?

  40. #40 by James Farmer on March 27, 2009 - 10:21 am

    How about starting with background checks at gun shows.

  41. #41 by jdberger on March 27, 2009 - 10:23 am

    Licensed dealers conduct background checks at gun shows. It’s the law.

  42. #42 by James Farmer on March 27, 2009 - 10:34 am

    jd:

    Nice try, but you know better. Private individuals buy and sell guns all the time at gun shows, without the requirement that the purchaser undergo a background check.

  43. #43 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 10:36 am

    Yep all FFLs are required to do a NICS check at ALL sales. Be this at a shop, at a private home, hell I had a friend run a check on me in a parking lot with his cell phone.

    Most states allow private sales of private property.

    Of course transfering a gun to anybody who couldn’t otherwise buy a gun is a federal fellony and will get you a few years of gang showers and grey bars.

    Of course criminals won’t notice one bit, as their already criminal acts will just become more illigaler.

    So what you propose is a redundant law.

    Got any others?

  44. #44 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 10:38 am

    James,

    Isn’t one of the key gun control phrases that “gun owners need to compromise” more?

    If we approve universal background checks, which current law gets removed?

  45. #45 by MountainPirate on March 27, 2009 - 11:12 am

    This entire situation just completely blows my mind. Whether or not it was the father or the child that picked out the shirt, the fact that a shirt like this even comes in a size small enough for a 9 year old to wear is ridiculous. I firmly believe that assault weapons should not be available to any non military civilians. these weapons are specifically designed to wound and kill people, and while in some cases they are used in game hunting, are not designed for the sport. If people feel that they need a firearm for protection, get a shot gun, it’ll still get the job done.

    As a hunter safety instructor in Maine, i have certainly taught children this young proper firearm handling and shooting techniques, but for the purpose of hunting game, not people. Many children i teach are sent to the class by their parents, willingly, so that they can get their license and help to feed their family.

  46. #46 by jdberger on March 27, 2009 - 11:32 am

    Nice try, but you know better. Private individuals buy and sell guns all the time at gun shows, without the requirement that the purchaser undergo a background check.

    Are you suggesting that government permission should be required for all transfers of private property, James? That, Sir, is a pretty slippery slope. Doncha think?

  47. #47 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 11:33 am

    MountainPirate,

    Exactly what makes this shirt inappropriate for a 9 year old?

    Is it the expression of standing up for a person’s rights? I wouldn’t think that would be a problem.

    Maybe it is the NRA, heaven forbid a minor promote the activities of an organization designed to help protect our rights. So I guess all ALCU shirts for minors that young are inappropriate also?

    I’m glad you believe what you do about assault weapons, don’t you find it ironic that you exercise your 1st amendment rights to tell people they shouldn’t have their 2nd amendment rights?

    As a hunter safety instructor in Maine, i have certainly taught children this young proper firearm handling and shooting techniques, but for the purpose of hunting game, not people.

    How do you gather that this child was being taught to “hunt people”? Because there are handguns on the shirt?

    Isn’t that a little far fetched and asinine? Target shooting with handguns is a sport that even 9 year olds can participate in. Many of those sports use hand guns.

    Are you claiming the only purpose for firearms is hunting? Surely I misunderstood your implication.

  48. #48 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 11:36 am

    JD,

    Also consider a precondition needed to have all private sales conducted through licensed dealers:

    The government would have to know who exactly who has what firearms.

    Unless the government knows who has a firearm and who doesn’t there will be no way to trace whether or not a private sale occurred.

    So now we have firearm registration as a requirement in addition to the requirement of going through a licensed dealer….and the added cost of that transfer

  49. #49 by jdberger on March 27, 2009 - 11:37 am

    As a hunter safety instructor in Maine, i have certainly taught children this young proper firearm handling and shooting techniques, but for the purpose of hunting game, not people.

    What kinds of guns are you using for instruction?

    Streetsweepers? (shotguns).
    High Powered Rifles with Sniper Scopes? (deer rifles).

    Hang together or we hang separately.

  50. #50 by Cliff Lyon on March 27, 2009 - 11:47 am

    Well Curious, You seem to have a very special relationship with Nightmare.

    “You are wrong and you don’t see what he’s actually doing. .. Some of the expressions on here are actually working to his benefit.”

    Very special.

    Truth be told: I don’t much give a shit about anonymous people, especially anonymous people who spend to much time obessing over guns. The combination can only mean on thing…

    …SPINELESS!

    This is not about Nightmare, really, this is about exposing the sickness of the pro-gun movement.

  51. #51 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 11:56 am

    MountainPirate, Where in Maine are you from? I’m a UMaine Grad born and raised in Portland. If there were better jobs in the Sciences up that way I’d move back in a heartbeat.

    Still I find your statements fairly troubling.

    ” I firmly believe that assault weapons should not be available to any non military civilians”

    Oddly enugh if that was the case there wouldn’t be “Assault Weapons” as no military actually issues these kinds of guns. “Assault Weapons” are not Military Assault Rifles, tho the pro-ignorance anti-freedom crowd love to blur those lines.

    “these weapons are specifically designed to wound and kill people, and while in some cases they are used in game hunting, are not designed for the sport. If people feel that they need a firearm for protection, get a shot gun, it’ll still get the job done.”

    How do you want to play this game, Pirate? There are plenty of “Assault Weapons” designed spesifically for hunting and target shooting
    http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/Model_R-15_VTR.asp
    here’s a great example.

    Yep the origonal design was for the Armalite AR-15 rifle that was later adopted as the M-16 Assault Rifle (M-16 and it’s military cousins of course have full-auto sears in them which are not readily available for civlian ownership) but this one is made from the ground up for medium game hunting (they have a larger one that can take .308 win which should have enugh to harvest all north American game) So how is that objectionable?

    Hell go back far enugh and you’ll find just about everything was hauled around by a soldier at one point or another. As a hunting instructor I bet you see a LOT of Remmington 700s, and Winchester M60s, right? Oddly those are as similar, if not more, to the German K98 Mauser infantry rifle as the Remmington semi-auto linked above. It’s a weapon of war that also happens to be damn good at taking Bambis and smaller game. Of course also a lot of people still hunt with Mil Surplus guns. Buddy of Mine’s gran’ma takes deer with an M1 Garand in the Bangor Area. Semi-auto .30-06 makes a damn good hunting gun. Same with the Springfield 1908 infantry/sniper rifle. They were cheap and easy to get ahold of in the ’60, and they’re in .30-06 so lots of people made them into deer guns. They’re not too different than a Win M60 anyway.

    I won’t scoff at your statement that shotguns are great defensive arms. He’ll they’re far more powerful than just about anything on the “Assault Weapons Ban” list. Still 12 and 20 guage are hard kicking rounds. My wife prefers revolvers for her personal protection. I prefer 1911s.

    Still I have a home defense shotgun, it’s a Mossberg 590 shotgun, it’s not an “Assault Weapon” as it’s a pump-action, but it IS a firearm that is issued to military troops. Do you want my 590 to be taken away?

    Also, I’m curious, what exactly is wrong with guns that are effective against people? Personal defense is still grounds for lethal force. What’s wrong with having an effective arm to protect your life?

    I did a 3 part peice (link is the 3rd, but has the URL of the first two at the top) here.

    Maybe we can discuss this a little more?
    http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/475124.html

  52. #52 by Cliff Lyon on March 27, 2009 - 12:26 pm

    Weer’d,

    Gun obsession?

  53. #53 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 12:46 pm

    Cliff,

    Abandoning the debate?

    Again?

  54. #54 by Cliff Lyon on March 27, 2009 - 1:04 pm

    Weer’d,

    I notice you’ve disparaged me personally on your website….by name.

    Is that your idea of manhood?

    Whats your real name? Why are you hiding? Do you really think that you may need to use your weapons against your government?

    Do you realize your blog friends claim to know people who own tanks and P-15′s?

    It seems to me, there is enough secrecy and threatening speech on your blog that it might be prudent for the government to investigate you. Doncha think?

    How do you feel about the African Prince we elected president?

    What do you think about the African Americans?

    Have you ever pulled your gun on anyone?

    Bob S, If you’re feeling left out, you can answer these questions too.

  55. #55 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 1:38 pm

    Cliff,

    Since your mental capacity is obviously diminished, I’ll answer the questions again.

    Whats your real name? Why are you hiding? Do you really think that you may need to use your weapons against your government?

    My Real Name is Bob. My last name is common enough that disclosing it wouldn’t help you identify me anymore then you already know about me.

    You have my email address(es) since I provide those each time I comment. I don’t comment anonymously as you claim, I just don’t bother to use my last name. That is a major distinction you are unable/unwilling to process.

    I’m not hiding, never have been, never will. I just don’t owe it to you to met your arbitrary and capricious demands for identification. I notice that you tend not to ask those using pseudonyms for identification when they agree with you.

    Do I really think I may need to use my weapons against my government? Hmm, probably not but I would rather have them and not use them, then to need them to use against a tyrannical government.

    Obama – I think that he is turning out to be every bit, if not more, of a socialist than I believed before the election. I think the direction he is trying to take our country is wrong. I think that it is hypocritical of people like you to bash Bush for huge deficits but not say a word that I’ve seen about Obama tripling or more the deficit. And that doesn’t even include the Stimulus package debt.

    What do I think about African Americans? Tell me which one, I don’t know everyone so I can’t give you an opinion on everyone. I see and value individuals.

    Have I ever pulled my firearm on anyone? Nope and I hope and pray that I never have to do that.

    Now, I’ve played your question and answer, how about truly answering Weer’d's questions?

    I would be interested.

  56. #56 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 1:39 pm

    By the way Cliff, Since you’ve visited Weer’d's site….is anything I’ve said about you there false?

  57. #57 by Cliff Lyon on March 27, 2009 - 1:47 pm

    Bob S,

    What is your full real name and address?

  58. #58 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 1:57 pm

    Cliff,

    What difference does it make?

    How does my name and address change what I say on this board?

  59. #59 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2009 - 2:00 pm

    On Kevin’s picture:

    Happiness is a warm gun…

  60. #60 by jdberger on March 27, 2009 - 2:13 pm

    What’s a P-15?

    Unfortunately, I don’t know anyone who owns tanks anymore. He died, recently. I guess that the tanks belong to the estate now.

  61. #61 by jdberger on March 27, 2009 - 2:19 pm

    It seems to me, there is enough secrecy and threatening speech on your blog that it might be prudent for the government to investigate you. Doncha think?

    Once again, Cliff assumes that people don’t read his links.

    I guess the other explanation could be that you’re so sauced by this point in the afternoon that you can’t read them yourself.

    Really, Cliff. You should lay off. Once you have to cover one eye to read you have had enough. Doesn’t it also violate the terms of your probation?

  62. #62 by Cliff Lyon on March 27, 2009 - 2:28 pm

    Bob S,

    “What difference does it make” if you gave us your name and address?

    It makes a big difference in terms of your credibility with people who ARE using real names.

    Can you not understand why we can’t give you the same respect?

  63. #63 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 2:43 pm

    This should be fun! Cliffy Quotes:
    “Weer’d,

    Gun obsession?”

    Seeing as you seem to blog and comment about guns as often if not more than I do, I’ll accept any label you’ll apply to yourself. Are you gun obsessed, Cliff?

    “I notice you’ve disparaged me personally on your website….by name.” Not really. I did use your real name (of course how do I know that IS your legal name?) but that’s the only name I know you under. Still what did I say about you that was untrue?

    “Whats your real name? Why are you hiding? Do you really think that you may need to use your weapons against your government?”

    I don’t blog under my real name. I own a lot of guns, I’d hate to have them stolen, also there are lots of people who play lots of rude games on the internet to people they disagree with. I don’t feel like playing that game. We ever meet face to face I’ll tell you my real name, and buy you a beverage of your choice. If I run for public office, I’ll likely let my real name be known on my blog.

    If Bush refused to step down from office in January and declared martial law, that would be a good enough reason, don’t you think? It’s always a possibility, and that’s one of the reasons the founding fathers put that amendment in.

    “Do you realize your blog friends claim to know people who own tanks and P-15’s?”

    Really, Cool! Maybe they’ll give me a ride. I have a few friends that collect military surplus vehicles. It’s a really neat hobby!

    “It seems to me, there is enough secrecy and threatening speech on your blog that it might be prudent for the government to investigate you. Doncha think?”

    Only if their reading comprehension is as bad as yours.

    “How do you feel about the African Prince we elected president?”

    Our current president is Hawaiian, and I thought they abandoned their royalty generations ago. Anyway, part Kenyan, part Kansas white-trash, I wouldn’t lay any claims to the throne. I’m impressed he became president, it’s likely a greater life accomplishment any of us will do, and that deserves some respect. Politically, I don’t much care for him, but he’s done some respectable things too. I’ll let you read my blog so you can further misunderstand my points. ; ]

    “What do you think about the African Americans?”

    I think they’re only different from white folks in that they don’t get sunburn as easy as crackers like m’self. Other than that they’re just people, like you and I, how do you feel about them?

    “Have you ever pulled your gun on anyone?”

    Nope, and hopefully I never will. Have you?

    So, Cliff, now that I answered your questions, would you answer the ones I posted earlier?

    What do you define as an “Assault Weapon”, and why do you think they should be banned?

    Of course I’m prepared for dodge #3, and I’m betting on some rude statements too!

  64. #64 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 2:52 pm

    Cliff,

    What part of the fact that I am using my real name isn’t getting through to you?

    I like how you failed to answer the question and simply restate it. You want my identity to

    Besides, many of the early pamphleteers during the American Revolution used pseudonyms, did it change the validity of what they had to say?

    You can establish my credibility through my writings.

    Am I consistent in what I say? Am I accurate with the facts, figures and data provided?
    Those can be verified independent of my identity.

    Are the legal cases, the opinions I cite accurate and truthful? Are those opinions properly cited so others can validate the source?

    Those also can be verified independent of my identity.

    Are the arguments I make valid in their own right? Again, no identity needed.

    Perhaps, I just prefer to carry on a tradition established by others

    Pen Name Real Name
    Acton Bell Anne Bronte
    Currer Bell Charlotte Bronte
    Ellis Bell Emily Bronte
    Nicholas Blake Cecil Day Lewis
    Boz Charles John Huffam Dickens
    Lewis Carroll Charles Lutwidge Dodgson
    Elia Charles Lamb
    George Eliot Mary Ann Evans
    Maxim Gorky Alexey Maximovich Peshkov
    O. Henry William Sydney Porter
    John le Carre David John Moore Cornwell
    George Orwell Eric Arthur Blair
    Ellery Queen Frederic Dannay
    Saki Hector Hugh Munroe
    George Sand Amandine Dupin
    Stendhal Marie Henri Beyle
    Mark Twain Samuel Langhorne Clemens
    Voltaire François – Marie Arouet
    Mary Westmacott Dame Agatha Clarissa Mary Christie

    Are the works of any of those people any less valid because they didn’t write under their real name?

    Frankly Cliff, from the behavior I have seen here from you, I doubt your intention is to verify my credibility.

    You seem to have a bad habit of attacking people for their personal characteristics when you start loosing the debate…as you have repeatedly attacked me.

    As for as the people using real names, there is no evidence that the person posting or commenting under that name is the actual person.

    I see a name and a picture, you could have grabbed that off the “real” Cliff Lyon’s information and are using it.

    Sorry but once again, you just try to distract from the debate about the issues.

    Why don’t you focus on that ?

  65. #65 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 2:56 pm

    Good points, Bob!

    Btw, Does this mean Nixon was innocent of any wrongdoing? Or did some fucked-up hippies name their son after a Porno????

    Ouch, Cliff. That’s a rough spanking you’re getting!

  66. #66 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2009 - 3:02 pm

    Was Winchester a real name that somebody wanted to put on his own product because he was proud of his worksmanship?

    You guys have to know the answer to that, and I want a quick response because I have to go to work.

  67. #67 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 3:09 pm

    Nope, just the man who bankrolled several craftsmen to produce their designs. Certainly their most popular design is the Winchester Model 1893, which was invented by the great John Moses Browning.

    BTW while you can buy guns with the make of “Browning Arms”, which takes it’s namesake from John Browning, during his life, John Browning only produced guns under the name of Winchester, Colt, and Fabrique Nationale de Herstal, Belgium.

    Good enough for you, Larry?

  68. #68 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 3:11 pm

    Oh BTW, is there somthing shameful of the works of
    Ramón Gerardo Antonio Estévez?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Sheen

    Or his Son Carlos Irwin Estévez?

    Man this is REALLY funny!

  69. #69 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2009 - 3:18 pm

    Weer’d Beard:

    I’m impressed by the speed of your comment. Did you have to use google, or did you know that off the top of your head. Don’t worry, you can change your name if you lie.

    I doubt Mr. Winchester or Browning would have allowed their name on the final product no matter who designed it, so…

    I WIN, I WIN…

    USA! USA! USA!

  70. #70 by Moribund Republic on March 27, 2009 - 3:26 pm

    You sniffing the jenkem jar again Larry?

  71. #71 by jdberger on March 27, 2009 - 3:40 pm

    Winchester was a shirt-maker who saw potential in the Vulcan design.

    Any gun guy worth his salt knows that, Larry.

    Put down the jenkem.

    Larry “Jenkem” Bergan. You earned that name, Bud.

  72. #72 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 3:46 pm

    Tell that to Ron Barret, Dan Wesson, Sam Colt, Bill Ruger….god I could go on and on, Larry. Can we just agree you’re wrong?

  73. #73 by Cliff Lyon on March 27, 2009 - 4:59 pm

    Ok Girls (forgive me Becky),

    Let me try to answer your gun related questions. FUCK YOU! If I’ve said it once, I said it a thousand times.

    I don’t give a shit about your arguments. I’ve heard them all and I’ve researched the subject thoroughly.

    You guys can’t even defend the NRA’s arguments but you don’t care. You just want your guns and I want to take them away.

    Deal with it.

  74. #74 by jdberger on March 27, 2009 - 5:10 pm

    Uh…

    How exactly do you think you’re gonna qualify for a CCW with nutso posts like that, Cliff?

    Maybe, if you drink QUALITY rather than QUANTITY – you’ll be less hammered by noon and can make more cogent posts.

    Best, Sugar.

  75. #75 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 5:14 pm

    “I don’t give a shit about your arguments. I’ve heard them all and I’ve researched the subject thoroughly.”

    Evidently not. But I’m willing to hear them. I won’t hold my breath.

    “You guys can’t even defend the NRA’s arguments but you don’t care.”

    Speak for yourself Cliffy, I’ll hold their ground all day long. Against a rude zealot like you I won’t even break a sweat. Hit me with your best shot!

    “You just want your guns and I want to take them away.”

    Come and get them, Cliffy. Deal with that! : ]

  76. #76 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 5:22 pm

    Cliff,

    Are you proud of your hypocrisy?

    You require, or try to, us to answer your questions no matter how inane but then you turn around refuse to answer similar questions.

    You don’t care about our arguments but you throw up arguments and points all the time. Only when you get shot down (pun intended) and your arguments shredded, do you claim you don’t care.

    IF, and that is a mighty big IF, you’ve researched the arguments, shouldn’t you present the information so that your readers can learn the same information?

    Surely you owe it to all the readers of OneUtah to provide them with the benefit of your deep and thorough research, right?

    Surely you can easily refute our arguments with ease and provide the documented evidence from the properly credentialed experts?

    You just want your guns and I want to take them away.

    Again the mask slips and you provide a clue to your intentions. I thought you only wanted to ban guns, now you say all guns. The NRA isn’t just about handguns, but all firearms.

    And you clearly and distinctly state you want to take them away.

    Notice how you don’t include your own guns in that statement….again your blatant hypocrisy shows your true nature. Just another gun grabbing elitist.

  77. #77 by Weer'd Beard on March 27, 2009 - 5:28 pm

    At least his outburst and juvenile tactics show us he also knows he’s wrong.

    You don’t have to cop to it, Cliff, I’d hate to stop the dance! : ]

  78. #78 by Cliff Lyon on March 27, 2009 - 5:34 pm

    Weerd,

    Why do you say you don’t know my position? I’ve spelt it out for your personally. Are you daft?

    Perhaps Bob can also point you to the States study that show a direct corolation between guns/capita and death by gun.

    He didn’t do an acceptable job disputing it. (he did smear the messenger however)

    I guess without real fire power, you guys are farting in your panties.

  79. #79 by Cliff Lyon on March 27, 2009 - 6:16 pm

    Do you guys like all get your periods all at the same time (excepting Bob of course who is past menopause?)

  80. #80 by Bob S. on March 27, 2009 - 7:48 pm

    Cliff,

    I really want to thank you for the service you do for the pro-freedom, pro-rights side of the argument.

    Your attempts at insulting people who disagree with you only shows how lacking in merit your argument is. It also show you shallow nature and ability to intelligently discuss issues.

    Keep up the good work and soon enough the pro-ignorance, anti-freedom groups will be mere hollow shells….well, more then they already are, that is.

  81. #81 by Pete on March 27, 2009 - 9:24 pm

  82. #82 by jdberger on March 27, 2009 - 11:06 pm

    Hey Cliffy? Your study is a bunch-o-crap. It’s bought and paid for by an advocacy group. Shame that you can’t grab some of that Joyce Foundation moolah in those swollen little fingers. You’ve sure been trying.

    Anyway, my little Japan v. US math experiment proves it wrong (Japanese have more murders per gun than the US does).

  83. #83 by Weer'd Beard on March 28, 2009 - 3:11 am

    “Perhaps Bob can also point you to the States study that show a direct corolation between guns/capita and death by gun.”

    No need for Bob’s help. I’ve read the study. It’s correct. Of course you take out suicides and hunting accidents (which might as well not be in in the first place at the rate they’re falling thanks to all the hunter safety courses out there, the lion’s share of thanks belonging to the Boy Scouts of America, and the National Rifle Association) the numbers suddenly flip.

    Throw in that I personally don’t care any more about a murder or an assault if the assailant used a knife, or a gun, or a piece of pipe.

    That’s a huge difference between Gun Rights supporters and the anti-freedom pro-ignorance crowd.

    People like you see a raped woman with her throat cut as a victory for your cause, while a rapist with a .38 slug in his lung is another “Death by Gun” (The study you cite ALSO includes justifiable homicides)

    I will have to take a hit for the Anti-Ignorance team and call out jdberger, despite him being on the same side of the issue as me.

    I’d like to see that study, last time I researched it, Japan had a very low (not zero) gun crime, and gun homicide rate. And as far as the books go they even have a lower crime rate….tho I take those numbers as suspect, personally knowing women who were groped and assaulted on the subway, as well as other crimes that simply don’t get reported in that culture, that would result in charges filed in the United States makes such number less than trustworthy.

    “Why do you say you don’t know my position? ”

    I know your position plenty. You’re a member of the religion that demonizes guns, and much like showing an ammonite fossil to a biblical litteralist, or explaining to an Iranian misogynist how women are perfectly capable of becoming doctors, lawyers, and world leaders, you will do not only everything in your power to deny the truth, but to convince others that the untrue is reality.

    It’s not even a challenge demonstrating how wrong you are….but that doesn’t mean it isn’t fun!

  84. #84 by Cliff on March 28, 2009 - 6:15 am

    JD, If the peer review Harvard Published study is crap, there are no studies you will accept.

    But I should accept your ‘idea’ about Japan?

    Your arrogance knows no bounds.

  85. #85 by Bob S. on March 28, 2009 - 6:40 am

    Cliff,

    I already discussed how the “peer reviewed” system can be completely misused and abused to provide a biased report.

    Here is a study that looks interesting, but I’m too cheap to purchase the full version.

    Factors Associated with State Variations in Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Deaths
    Journal Journal of Community Health
    Publisher Springer Netherlands
    ISSN 0094-5145 (Print) 1573-3610 (Online)
    Issue Volume 29, Number 4 / August, 2004
    DOI 10.1023/B:JOHE.0000025326.89365.5c
    Pages 271-283
    Subject Collection Medicine
    SpringerLink Date Monday, November 29, 2004

    James H. Price1 Contact Information, Amy J. Thompson1 and Joseph A. Dake2
    (1) Department of HPERS, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS
    (2) Department of Public Health, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, 43606

    Abstract This study examined the relationship of 16 variables with homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm deaths. This cross-sectional analysis, using adjusted partial correlation coefficients, found that state-level firearm homicide rates significantly varied by the prevalence of firearms and by percent of the population which was African American. Whereas, state-level variations in firearm suicide mortality significantly varied by firearm prevalence, per capita alcohol consumption, percent of the population which was African American, and level of urbanization. None of the variables were significantly (p le .05) related to state-level variations in unintentional firearm mortality. Furthermore, state gun laws had only a limited effect on firearm-related homicide deaths. Although the current study cannot determine causation, firearm mortality in its various forms is most commonly related to the prevalence of firearms and the percent of the population that is African American.

    Notice that it isn’t just the prevalence of firearms, but also the subject that must not be breached on OneUtah…race.

    Then there is this study, using Homicide rates as the correlating factor that seems to refute your argument.

    I don’t think the chart will carry through, click to view. I make no claims as to the validity…but it is a refutation of your argument Cliff

    This is a small study I did exactly one year ago today. I will post the original, brief summary as well as a few other observations in regards to gun control. I was reminded of this by the posting on the main page of the British marches against firearms control and their negative effects.

    A difficult aspect of the gun control debate is proper comparison of similar regions and the effects of gun control and gun ownership on crime. Russia has low gun ownership rates but world leading homicide rates while Switzerland basically requires its citizens to be armed yet has low murder rates. However, when Japan is added to the mix, which has both a low murder rate and heavy gun control, we find that there is zero correlation between respective gun ownership levels and crime rates.

    So, what I have done is researched the gun ownership levels, which reflect the severity of the state’s ownership restrictions and compared them to the state’s homicide rate. I am assuming there is a reasonable level of comparison within the United States for this to be valid. I have included the results as a chart:

    Now, what I did was plugged this chart into the handy-dandy regression analysis program provided in Excel to run a Statistical approach. The formula spat out is the following:

    Homicide Rate = 61.8873%-0.0355%(Gun Ownership Rates)

    What this means is that if the mathematical comparison is good, Texas, which has a gun ownership level of 39.5% should have a homicide rate of 60.4851%. The actual homicide rate is 64.9727%, making Texas slightly more violent than the predicted value. Now for Washington DC, the predicted rate is 61.7523% whereas the actual rate is 80.0333%. A comparison going the other direction is New Hampshire, which has a gun ownership of 30%, which predicts 60.8218% homicide rate but the actual is 41.3900%.

    The big deal is the t-value of -0.3585 and the p-value of 0.7214. This means that there is a 72.14% chance the prediction will be rejected and there is no reasonable comparison between the dependent and independent variables.

    Basically, what this says is there is absolutely no correlation
    between gun ownership rates or gun restrictions and homicides. Criminals still kill, guns or no.


    So, since the level of gun control, where low ownership and high restriction Massachusetts and high ownership low restriction Alaska have the same murder rates, we can safely say that removal of firearms restrictions is a reasonable decision.
    When the number of weapons in circulation have no impact on crime and homicide rates, there simply is no reason spending billions of dollars regulating laws that clearly have no impact on criminal activities.

    I then ran the same numbers with reading at a 4th grade level and that comparison only has a 34% chance of being rejected. Being able to read a newspaper has a stronger bearing on firearms violence than gun ownership does.

    I did notice something rather remarkable in the few minutes of research that I did: Most of the “studies” or citations showing the link between homicide and gun ownership all link back to the Hemenway study…which has been shown to have been bought and paid for by the Joyce foundation.

  86. #86 by Weer'd Beard on March 28, 2009 - 8:59 am

    Because I’m Bored I think I’ll play with Cliffy a little!
    “Why do you say you don’t know my position? I’ve spelt it out for your personally. Are you daft?”

    Well let’s see what positions have been mentioned here:
    From Cliff we have these Gems:
    “Why do continue to direct arguments at me that assume I want to ban all guns?”
    “I’m on the side that just wants sensible gun control. We do not believe the 2nd Amendment should preclude that.”
    But then:
    “You just want your guns and I want to take them away”

    Who’s Daft?

    Then there’s been the “Assault Weapon” Canard.
    “I have no problem with the ‘right to bear’ as long as it protected in some fashion which excludes INSANITY — like assualt weapons.”

    “I firmly believe that assault weapons should not be available to any non military civilians. these weapons are specifically designed to wound and kill people, and while in some cases they are used in game hunting, are not designed for the sport.”

    But when I ask for a definition of “Assault Weapons” (note that there are at LEAST a half-dozen of them around) We get:
    “you won’t trick anyone here. So rather than playing games by asking loaded questions while feigning an innocent honest desire to understand, I suggest you just make your best case or STFU.”
    And
    “You are letting technicalities get in the way of the argument that ready access to assault weapons is insane.”

    Of course the difference between a “Assault Rifle” and a Rifle is nothing but technicalities, but of course we wouldn’t want to talk about that….or about what the ’94 ban actually accomplished (Besides making the AR-15 pattern rifle the most popular rifle in America)

    Oh and this old saw:
    “The purpose: National Defense — Self Defense — compensating for small penis — Collectors”
    “How do you go from “well regulated militia” to sell them to any schmoe with a little dick?”

    Then this little stub:
    “It’s not so much that assault weapons should be banned outright. The problem – i.e., the insanity – is the ready, too convenient access to such weapons.”
    When asked to clarify what they wanted:
    “How about starting with background checks at gun shows.”

    of course when we mentioned what such laws ACTUALLY entail and how they would effect the criminal population (let’s face it, we don’t care about a Dad giving his son or daughter a hunting/target rifle, or a husband/boyfriend giving their wife/girlfriend a carry gun for protection. We care about drug dealers and gang members getting their guns!)

    Let’s see, Cliff tried to play the game of equating the National Guard to the unorganized state militia.
    “Fine. I have no problem letting National Guardsmen take their assault rifles home (but they don’t do that even now)”

    But when called on it that canard was quickly abandoned.

    “Weer’d, Gun obsession?” Coming from a man who blogs almost exclusively about guns, Pot meet kettle! So maybe we’re all obsessed!

    “It makes a big difference in terms of your credibility with people who ARE using real names.”

    Well besides not actually seeing Cliff’s Birth Certificate (BTW my Name is Thomas Collins, My wife’s first name is Vodka!) He of course is admonishing all people who have ever used a pen name. But of course he isn’t REALLY doing that, and that was also abandoned as quickly as it was brought up.

    There of course was the nice 20 questions, many of them quite juvenile. Of course OUR questions were met with foul language and avoidance. Neat huh?

    I’ll close with this gem:
    “It would be nice if you triained, responsible gun owners could be everywhere. But you can’t. So in the meantime, it would be nice if you could see the light and help us.”

    It would be nice if all gun owners were like Bob and I, but that’s the price you pay for freedom. Overall when you look at the number of bad things happening by people who LAWFULLY have guns, it’s pretty respectable, compared to say, car ownership.

    But if you read my post, what exact light am I supposed to see? That you are against freedom, foster Ignorance, and generally don’t actually want to discuss the issue of gun control….or constantly contradict yourself?

    How do you want us to help you with that?

  87. #87 by jdberger on March 28, 2009 - 9:01 am

    Weerd – here’s the post that does the Japan math.

    The Freedom States Alliance (a recipient of GENEROUS Joyce Foundation money – you listening, Cliff?) states that the US has fewer murders per gun owned than Japan?

    I thought that Japan was a model for gun control? No?

    Japan is a good case in point as to why fewer guns make a difference. With a population of 128 million people, it is estimated that Japan has fewer than 400,000 legally owned guns resulting in a total of 22 gun murders in 2007 according to Japan’s National Police Agency.

    The United States on the other hand has a population of 306 million, 280 million guns and over 12,000 gun homicides each year. Even if, for arguments sake, we were to more than double Japan’s population to match the U.S. population, that would leave Japan with just over 50 gun homicides compared to America’s over 12,000 gun murders. It’s shameful.

    Well, here’s the math:

    IJapan has had 22 murders per 400,000 guns or 22/400,000. That works out to 5.5 murders per 100,000 guns (5.5/100,000).

    The US has 12,000 murders (roughly) per 280,000,000 guns or 12,000/280,000,000. that works out to 4.2 murders per 100,000 guns (4.2/100,000).

    Interesting comparison, eh?

  88. #88 by jdberger on March 28, 2009 - 9:07 am

    JD, If the peer review Harvard Published study is crap, there are no studies you will accept.

    But I should accept your ‘idea’ about Japan?

    Math?

  89. #89 by Weer'd Beard on March 28, 2009 - 9:45 am

    Ahhh I thought you were using per-capita rather than per-gun numbers.

    Very neat.

    BTW Cliff, Your Harvard study was funded by Joyce.

    I won’t expect you to accept a study conducted by the NRA or GOA at face value, don’t turn around and do the comparative thing to us.

    Then again we also don’t call you names, and answer your questions, so I guess I see how far that goes.

  90. #90 by jdberger on March 28, 2009 - 12:23 pm

    The best part is that I was using an editorial from Freedom States Alliance. They’re heavily funded by Joyce.

    In fact, they recieved $150,000 in 2007 from the Joyce Foundation. Pretty good for a couple of editorials and a crappy website.

    Additionally, Gun Guys, a sister site run by a PR firm received almost $850,000 from Joyce.

    You just know that Cliff’s beady little eyes light up when he thinks of how he can get his swollen little hands on that kind of loot.

    Oh, wait! The Harvard University of Public Health recieved $700,000 from Joyce in 2005 to “to conduct policy-relevant firearm research”. Betcha that load of dough didn’t have any influence on the outcome of their research.

    Nope. Nothing to see here. Move right along.

  91. #91 by Weer'd Beard on March 28, 2009 - 1:26 pm

    Man, The gun guys get so much bread for sub-par gun blogging, yet bloggers like myself and many others get NOTHING from the NRA!

    Oh well, I guess gun blogging will have to be a side hobby rather than a career path!

  92. #92 by jdberger on March 28, 2009 - 8:53 pm

    Run a Google search for Mark Karlin and Associates out of Chicago. That guy’s got a racket going. He can’t even get facts right (claimed that a .50 muzzle-loader could take out a 747).

  93. #93 by Cliff on March 28, 2009 - 9:11 pm

    Wow! Sounds like you guys have been circle jerking all day.

    Funny, I was at the gun range with James, knockin the cobwebs outta the AR-15.

    JD, I do know how you feel. Its a powerful feeling. Man would I love to take out a shit load of like, Bush supporters or some other species of asshole that deserves it.

    Maybe I *will* get me one.

  94. #94 by jdberger on March 28, 2009 - 11:15 pm

    You know how I feel, Cliff? I don’t think so, Porky.

    I don’t fantasize about “taking out” people.

    I really think that you need to get back on your medication.

    I wish that you’d reconsider buying another gun, Cliff. I really am concerned that you would do something stupid. You clearly can’t control your emotions. You threaten people on a regular basis. You launch into spastic incomprehensible screeds at the drop of a hat. And, again, you threaten to shoot people.

    Please. Reconsider.

  95. #95 by Weer'd Beard on March 29, 2009 - 3:00 am

    +1 your last statement constitutes a direct threat. Couple that with you asking for our names and addresses, and you’ve got a recipe of having all your guns taken away.

    Watch yourself.

  96. #96 by Bob S. on March 29, 2009 - 6:09 am

    I smell a rat in some of the posts.

    Notice that originally anything from Cliff was signed as “Cliff Lyon” with a blue link indicating a website attached, now these latest posts are being signed as just “Cliff” no website attached.

    I’m not saying that someone is posting as Cliff or it is a different Cliff but let’s look at the possibilities

    1. It is a different Cliff altogether.

    2. It is someone trying to post and make us think it is Cliff Lyon

    3. It is Cliff posting as himself but forgetting to indicate his website
    3a. It is Cliff but using a different computer that does not automatically remember his information….or his system reset and he didn’t log back in to OneUtah

    4. It is Cliff deliberately posting in that manner as to be able to claim he didn’t say those things.

    5. It is Cliff deliberately posting in such a manner as to try to illicit a response that he can use to paint the respondent as off base.

    Last Cliff Lyon post

    # Cliff Lyon Says:
    March 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pm

    Do you guys like all get your periods all at the same time (excepting Bob of course who is past menopause?)

    Next post — Cliff

    # Cliff Says:
    March 28th, 2009 at 6:15 am

    JD, If the peer review Harvard Published study is crap, there are no studies you will accept.

    But I should accept your ‘idea’ about Japan?

    Your arrogance knows no bounds.

    I don’t know what is going on, but watch let’s watch the assumptions. Don’t want anyone being accused of anything unnecessarily.

  97. #97 by Becky on March 29, 2009 - 7:42 am

    Paranoia strikes deep in the heartland.

  98. #98 by jdberger on March 29, 2009 - 9:59 am

    Paranoia strikes deep in the heartland.

    Pay attention, Becky. Bob is giving Ciffy the benefit of the doubt.

    In contrast – I just assume that his multiple personalities are products of fermentation and distillation.

  99. #99 by Shane Smith on March 29, 2009 - 11:21 am

    Wow Bob, your tinfoil hat needs to be checked too….

    Looks like we had better all be sure to be logged in at all times least we use our own names for nefarious purposes! Dun-Dun-Duuuunnnnnn!

    Personally I prefer to cross a stately lion with a miner for an immortal porpoise vs nefarious porpoises, but to each their own.

  100. #100 by Shane Smith on March 29, 2009 - 11:25 am

    BTW Becky, I don’t know if that was a song lyric reference, or if it wasw hiwch of many songs that say that, but ironically,

    Yesterday it was my birthday
    I hung one more year on the line
    I should be depressed
    My life’s a mess
    But I’m having a good time

  101. #101 by Becky on March 29, 2009 - 12:00 pm

    That’s the one, Shane. Paul Simon, Have a Good Time. I have that on vinyl, and I’m inspired to go pull out the record player.

    Was it your birthday truly? Congrats! And I’ll join you in that sentiment. I’m also having a good time despite this mess.

  102. #102 by Larry Bergan on March 29, 2009 - 1:13 pm

    Sorry I’m so late with this comment, but I think I plugged my mp3 player in at the wrong time and it did something to my operating system.

    I think you guys missed the point of my mentioning Winchester. What I was trying to get across was:

    If you are proud of your ideas and comments you would put your real name on them.

    Do I have a point?

  103. #103 by Larry Bergan on March 29, 2009 - 1:15 pm

    Shane:

    I’ve never been much in awe of Freud, but holy cow, I didn’t know about THOSE beliefs!

  104. #104 by Bob S. on March 29, 2009 - 1:33 pm

    Larry,

    Mark Twain was proud of his points, did it change the validity of his points by him putting Sam Clements on those points?

    The early American pamphleteers were anonymous and it didn’t change their points in a single degree.

    Who really knows that you are Larry Bergan and/or the Larry Bergan that lives at such and such address. Absolutely no one is there watching you typing the comments and certifying the truth.

    The kick about us using our names is a red herring so that Cliff can point out that we aren’t qualified, or that we don’t have the credentials, or for him to make fun of us for some other reason. Cliff seems to favor the personal attacks when he can’t argue the facts anymore.

    Shane and Becky, the comments made by “Cliff” border on illegal if not flat out illegal. The fact that Cliff Lyon has stated he plans on seeking his Concealed Carry Permit makes those comments especially important.

    If Cliff Lyon made them, do you feel they rise to the level where he would have to answer yes to the following question on the application:

    Have you ever been involved in any incident in which you have used unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence?

    Even without him seeking his permit, shouldn’t people be worried about someone who has repeatedly made such comments?

    My reason in pointing out that was to show it may or may not be Cliff Lyon. Shouldn’t I give him the benefit of the doubt?

  105. #105 by Becky on March 29, 2009 - 2:06 pm

    Bob,

    I’d have to strain to be so naive as to take that last post seriously. First of all, think about early American pamphleteers and why they might require anonymity – I don’t think you fall into that category. Secondly, everyone else you list is a fiction writer. By comparing yourself, should we assume you are composing fiction here?

    Finally, we can all see right through your feigned, and trumped up fear of Cliff.

    Really, who can take you seriously after all that?

  106. #106 by Bob S. on March 29, 2009 - 2:43 pm

    Becky,

    I compose fiction all the time on this blog, here is a sample:

    Cliff Lyon is an intelligent, articulate, reasonable fellow that deserves many rewards for his thoughtful and well reasoned responses.

    See, pure fiction.

    Tell me what difference knowing my full name, note that I am using my first name and last initial. Also note that Cliff and every other admin on this board, including you, have access to my email address. Hardly anonymous, eh?

    So, why require full disclosure?

    I’m not an author on this blog, I’ve never claimed expertise in a subject that I couldn’t back up by displaying knowledge. I’m not claiming to be famous or anything. Tell me why I should disclose my full name?

    Can you prove that it is really “Becky” posting and not someone else?

    The point that I was posting about “Cliff” was that it might not be Cliff Lyon posting those comments and as such, we shouldn’t direct any issues toward Cliff Lyon; Unless Cliff Lyon admits that he was posting as Cliff.

    As far as trumped up and feigned fear of Cliff, that is non-existent. I don’t fear Cliff at all, but I do pay attention to threats, credible or not.

  107. #107 by Cliff on March 29, 2009 - 2:48 pm

    Bob S,

    It was me and it is me.

  108. #108 by Cliff Lyon on March 29, 2009 - 2:48 pm

    See? Bob.

    I do not allow other to post under my name…because it is my name.

  109. #109 by Linoge on March 29, 2009 - 3:01 pm

    You just want your guns and I want to take them away.

    Deal with it.

    Actually, Mr. Lyon, should you ever actually attempt to execute that desire, I believe it will be you who will have to deal with the consequences.

    You see, I am a large fan of personal, private property – what I purchase with the money I earn through my own efforts is mine, and mine alone. Should you arrive at my doorstep desiring to relieve me of my firearms, you would be more than welcome to them – after you involunarily accept delivery of my ammunition first. The same would realistically apply for any personal property I own, and have legal rights to.

    Of course, in the end, I seriously doubt it would be Mr. Lyon on my doorstep – no, he is indeed far too cowardly to put his desires into action himself, and will instead implore an increasingly controlling government to do his dirty work. Funny, that, especially considering the chest-beating he does over putting his real name online.

    That said, the above blockquote (and the comment from which I quoted it) is probably the most honest thing Mr. Lyon has said throughout this entire tortuous thread (by the way, Weerd, I owe you a drink for keeping up with and responding to the rampant hopolophobia exposed here). The thing is, Mr. Lyon does not give two shits about the Constitution, the Second Amendment, individual rights, self defense, or anything else as silly as those concepts. He wants what he wants (for the irrational, illogical, and inconsistent reasons he wants it) and the rest of us be damned.

    Unfortunately for him and the rest of the anti-rights hoplophobes of the world, the Second Amendment is very clear in what it says, and a recent Supreme Court ruling only served to prove that the “individual interpretation” is, indeed, correct. Furthermore, despite our newly-elected glorious President wanting one, and our new Attorney General wanting one, our Congress has clearly shown that a ban on firearms that look evil will not make any headway, whatsoever, for the forseeable future. Additionally, numerous states have been proposing, and passing, legislation indication that if such a ban were to pass, those states would take it upon themselves to ignore it, disregard it, and protect the rights of their citizens.

    It must suck to have almost every level of the government working against you hoplophobes, eh?

    Regarding the intial post, nine years of age is more than enough to start hands-on learning with firearms, under close supervision. And if the child wanted to wear the shirt, the child is more than welcome to wear the shirt (which, by the way, does not advertise anything that is against the law for him to do, nor any activity that is anti-social or violent (unless you consider perforating paper to be violent)) – hell, I am more than sure I did a few things as a child that my parents disagreed with / were embarassed about / etc. But, that is what kids do.

    At any rate, given Mr. Lyon’s previous disregard of any dissenting opinions and his unexpressed desire for maintaining an echo chamber here at his weblog, this will be my first and only comment here, ever. However, in the interests of defending myself against hoplophobic “reasoned discourse”, this comment will, of course, be backed up and reposted at my own site should it disappear.

    • #110 by Cliff Lyon on August 4, 2009 - 6:34 pm

      Yeeee haaa! We got a live one boys! Welcome to OneUtah Mr. Linoge.

      you who will have to deal with the consequences.

      Dear sweet Linoge, whatever do you mean by that?

      Dont bother responding, I think I know. How many people have you killed so far? Or would I be your first time?

      What did you do to get yourself in a position that your need for a person killer, outweighs the safety of your family?

      • #111 by Linoge on August 5, 2009 - 3:51 am

        How many people? None. How many people do I hope to? None.

        If my firearms are “person killers”, they are quite defective. Of the six I own, not a single has so much as injured anyone in the five+ years I have owned them. Furthermore, my family still appears to be quite safe, quite sound, and quite intact, despite me having six firearms in our home. Or are you trying to reference a massively-discredited study in order to support your anti-rights, anti-self-defense, and anti-Constitution stance?

        So… when should I look for you to show up at my front door step in order to violate my naturally-granted, Constitutionally-protected rights?

  110. #112 by James Farmer on March 29, 2009 - 3:12 pm

    Linoge:

    Mindless ramblers like you make me wonder whether Mr. Lyon is spot on in his assessments of 2nd amendment freaks. I am still trying to figure out just what it is you have to say, other than to thump your chest about shooting someone at your doorstep! No, I think it is you who are the coward!

  111. #113 by Cliff on March 29, 2009 - 3:17 pm

    Mr. Linoge,

    Welcome to OneUtah. When I say I want to take way your guns, I don’t mean ME literally. I have a hard and fast rule. Never EVER try to take a redneck’s gun away from him.

    I want very strict gun regulation which might require for instance that you voluntarily give up some of your weapons.

    But you must have considered that risk when you bought the beasts.

    Would you be willing to surrender an assault rifle should the government pass a law requiring you to do do?

  112. #114 by Larry Bergan on March 29, 2009 - 3:19 pm

    Names on the internet are a big problem, but they are also a problem in the larger world. For instance there is a Bob Bennett in Ohio and a Bob Bennett in Utah. They are both involved in politics and the nationwide scheme to trump up the fake issue of “voter fraud”, but at least I assume they are using their real names.

    The internet is a whole-nuther animal and the risks are there. Somebody used my name to put a post on this blog and nothing has infuriated me more. It mirrors the danger anybody faces if a stranger decides he wants to do you harm; There’s, almost nothing you can do to stop him. He, or it, has the element of surprise on his/their side, but I decided a long time ago, that if anybody was going to take me seriously, I would have to use my real name rather then waste my time trying to alert my fellow citizens to real dangers that the media ignore.

    Politicians face real danger all the time and they don’t get enough credit for it, but actual assasinations are almost non-existent. Sometimes you just have to take your chances and trust the people around you not to be like Ted Nugent, (real name? I doubt it!), or to accidentally run over you in their car.

  113. #115 by Cliff Lyon on March 29, 2009 - 3:24 pm

    Larry,

    Did you see the last 2 Moyers? Both of guest are advocating strongly for taking to the streets as a matter of course.

    …and as you have like no one else I know…except maybe Tim DeChristopher.

    Mike Davis was particularly amazing I thought. I’ve watched it twice.

  114. #116 by Larry Bergan on March 29, 2009 - 3:34 pm

    Cliff:

    I love the Moyers show, but I haven’t seen that one yet. I’ll have to watch it when I get home from work.

    The other great program he started, “Now”, is out of funds and will be off the air indefinitely after winning many awards, but Glen Beck and the others are there just like clockwork. Even Bob S. won’t associate himself with Beck and he doesn’t even have a name.

  115. #117 by Becky on March 29, 2009 - 3:51 pm

    Linoge,

    You’ve got a “backup” of your comment? Whee, paranoia runs rampant today. OneUtah is not in the habit of censoring comments.

    I took a peek at your gun worship site and didn’t see your comment, but maybe you haven’t posted it yet.

  116. #118 by Cliff Lyon on March 29, 2009 - 4:13 pm

    Really, Cliff

    No one can post under someone else name on the board?

    I find that claim amazing

    Signed,

    Tom Paine…aka Bob S. AKA Mr. Anonymous.

  117. #119 by Bob S. on March 29, 2009 - 4:33 pm

    A Climate of Fear
    By Ken Anderson
    Mar 22, 2005 – 10:19:00 PM

    Every now and then, I receive a comment from someone questioning our policy of publishing anonymous letters to the editor, or articles written under a pseudonym. The prevailing theme of these comments is that we shouldn’t publish such letters or articles. This is understandable, and I can both understand and support newspaper policies against publishing anonymous letters. However, this is not the policy of the Magic City Morning Star, and I will argue that American tradition supports us in this.

    If not for the use of pen names, our monetary system would probably be in pounds and shillings rather than dollar
    s. The political debate that led to the American Revolution and the ratification of the United States Constitution was waged under pseudonyms, published not only in newspapers throughout the colonies, but in pamphlets that were widely circulated.

    In “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution,” Harvard University historian Bernard Bailyn estimates that more than four hundred pamphlets discussing America’s grievances against the Crown were published in the colonies between 1750 and 1776. Publication continued through the Revolution. By the time the War of Independence ended in 1783, the number of pamphlets had grown to fifteen hundred.

    Often published under pseudonyms and circulated by hand from one patriot to the next, these pamphlets constituted a true underground medium. “It was in this form – as pamphlets – that much of the most important and characteristic writing of the American Revolution appeared,” writes Bailyn.

    What was the central point of these newspaper articles and pamphlets? Conspiracy theories, of course.

    Just as we do here today, the Founding Fathers had a hard time getting Americans to see the big picture. Far too many of the colonists failed to connect the dots. Here and there, some particular act of the King or of Parliament might annoy or inconvenience them, but most Americans failed to see the underlying pattern or logic to these events. They failed to see that one bad law led to another, and that sooner or later liberty itself would be snatched away.

    The anonymous revolutionary pamphleteers helped Americans connect the dots. They helped the average colonist see the greater plan or conspiracy that lay behind such seemingly random and unrelated legislation as the “Stamp Act,” the “Tea Act,” the “Massachusetts Government Act,” the “Quartering Act,” and so on.

    The historical evidence indicates that early American patriots opposed attempts to require that anonymous authors reveal their identities on the grounds that forced disclosure violated the “freedom of the press.”

    There is little doubt that the Founders engaged in anonymous political writing. The essays in the Federalist Papers, published under the pseudonym of “Publius,” are only the most famous example of the outpouring of anonymous political writing that occurred during the ratification of the Constitution. John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton shared the pen name “Publius” when they wrote the Federalist Papers.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote several newspaper essays using a variety of pen names taken from characters from ancient Rome.

    Benjamin Austin, a Baptist minister and author of some of the Federalist Papers, wrote under the pseudonym “Candidus.”

    Benjamin Franklin often wrote under pseudonyms, including “Silence Dogood,” “the Busy-Body,” “Obadiah Plainman,” “Robin Good-fellow,” and of course, “Poor Richard.” Franklin frequently used the name “Richard Saunders,” the same pseudonym as he had used when he wrote “Poor Richard’s Almanack,” which was first published in 1732. As Richard Saunders, Franklin was given both the freedom to express his thoughts and the freedom to do so with dramatic license.

    Samuel Adams, perhaps the most effective rabble-rouser in American history, was known to incite riots with his articles, published under several pen names so that the British would think that their opposition was stronger than it really was at the time.

    John Adams, our second president, often used the pseudonym “Novanglus” when he wrote, but he was published frequently by the Boston Gazette under the name “Clarendan.”

    John Leland, a Baptist minister and American patriot, wrote under the pseudonym of “Jack Nipps.”

    John Carroll, the first Bishop of our nation, used the alias “Pacificus” for his documents.

    These are just a few examples. Our founding fathers, as well as others who were deeply involved in the events that led up to the American Revolution and the founding of the United States of America, used pseudonyms often, and for a variety of reasons. One significant reason was to avoid being arrested by the British.

    We are in similar situation here. While we were trying to get people to come into the town office to sign the petitions calling for the recall of Councilors Matt Polstein, Gail Fanjoy, and Avern Danforth, very few people that I spoke to were unwilling to see them removed from office, yet very few were brave enough to risk signing their name to a petition. And for good reason, as many of those who did were punished for it.

    Yes, I wish that there were more people around here who had the guts to stand up for what they believe in, particularly since I am convinced that most of the people here know that the things that are going on are wrong, and would like to see something done about it..

    But they are afraid. They are afraid for themselves, their families, jobs, homes, and camps. They are afraid of having their names published in the newspaper. They are afraid of being ridiculed in the press, and even in church. They are afraid of the sheer hatred that is likely to be directed their way if they dare to defy the folks at MAGIC. They are afraid of their businesses being destroyed, of customers and even vendors being warned away from doing business with them, and I know from personal experience that these fears are not at all unwarranted. Some are even afraid for their lives.

    So, the Magic City Morning Star will continue to publish letters anonymously when that is requested, because to do otherwise would be to further stifle the voice of the people of Millinocket. Our readers, of course, are free to give more or less credibility to anonymous letters than to those which are attributed.

    Just consider me carrying on a great American Tradition. Assign as much credibility or not to my writings….but consider what the writing say more then who is saying.

    Is there truth in my words?
    Are the facts accurate?
    Is the llogical conclusion of my argument supported by true and factual premises?

    Focus on the facts, don’t be dazzled by the name attached to the writing. All too often as I’ve shown with Cliff Lyon, just because he publishes under his real name it doesn’t mean he knows what he is talking about.

  118. #120 by Becky on March 29, 2009 - 4:50 pm

    Bob S.,

    Your argument becomes more ludicrous. You compare OneUtah to the tyranny of King George? Or even to an intimidating town councilor? Come on, Bob, how do those scenarios compare to your posting here?

    By the way, I don’t care if people prefer to remain anonymous. I just think your argument in support of it is nuts.

  119. #121 by Shane smith on March 29, 2009 - 5:01 pm

    Becky! You actually ask if it was my birthday?

    Would I lie to you?
    Would I lie to you honey?
    Now would I say something that wasn’t true
    I’m asking you sugar would I lie?

    Oh and Bob, please don’t use Toms name in vain.

  120. #122 by Bob S. on March 29, 2009 - 5:20 pm

    Becky,

    It is ludicrous when Cliff Lyon and others advocate removing one of our rights?

    It is ludicrous to worry about announcing that I may have firearms and then announcing to everyone my name and address?

    Gee, maybe I should just tell everyone where I hid the spare keys at the same time.

    By the way, aren’t you being a little hypocritical here?

    You aren’t listed on the Authors page. On your own blog, that I found simply by clicking on your name, here is the information listed in your profile:

    bekkieann

    * Age: 61
    * Gender: Female
    * Industry: Technology
    * Occupation: Technical Writer
    * Location: Utah : United States

    So, it appears on your own blog, you disclose less then I do. I at least give my last initial. I’ve posted my state of residence previously, Texas. I’ve even posted the area in Texas in which I reside; the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex.

    So, what right do you have to criticize anyone if you are posting to the same limited information

    This is just more typical hypocritical bunk from the anti-freedom, pro-ignorance crowd.

    What is the purpose of requiring me to identify myself? So that people like Cliff can assign more “labels”, I’ve already been called “redneck”, “fat white men” and dozens of other insulting names.

    Shouldn’t people be accepted on face value until they have proved themselves false?

    Show me where my words and actions have been inconsistent.

    I didn’t compare OneUtah to the tyranny of King George, but editor of the newspaper pointed out that. I would also point out that the government, our current government with our “African Prince” as Cliff calls him still maintains the “Terrorist Watch list”.

    Missouri just found out that their report “educating police” about certain people caused a few waves.

    A secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center lists Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and equates them with radical race hate groups and terrorists. This is merely the latest example in an alarming trend which confirms that law enforcement across the country is being trained that American citizens are a dangerous enemy

    Gee, maybe anonymity isn’t such a bad thing.

  121. #123 by Bob S. on March 29, 2009 - 5:22 pm

    Shane, if that is who you are,

    I didn’t take his name in vain….just pointing out the obvious to those of the pro-ignorance crowd not bright enough to see the obvious without help.

    If the shoe fits.

  122. #124 by Becky on March 29, 2009 - 5:31 pm

    Bob,

    That’s right, I removed my full name from my Blogger profile after receiving some unnerving phone calls at my home from a man whom I didn’t know and who was following my blog.

    Nevertheless, I tell enough about myself in my posts that it would probably take you seconds and not minutes to find my name. But don’t go to all that trouble. If you click on my picture by any of my posts here at OneUtah, you’ll get my full name.

    May I repeat, I don’t mind if people want to remain anonymous, I just find your argument for doing so ludicrous.

  123. #125 by Bob S. on March 29, 2009 - 6:22 pm

    Becky,

    Then what argument for remaining anonymous do you not find ‘ludicrous’?

    And more importantly, why should I give up my anonymity?

    Does it make the statistics I post any more or less valid?

    Does it the legal arguments I post any more or less valid?

    In what way does it change the argument, isn’t that what should be the focus?

    Isn’t Cliff’s insistence on people revealing their personal information just another way he can attack them? You can not deny that Cliff engages in personal attacks quite frequently, can you?

    I have heard one, and only one argument for non-anonymous posts; that was it grants more credibility to the words a person wrote.

    So, why not advance a reasonable argument for it, you, Cliff, anyone?

  124. #126 by WTF? on March 29, 2009 - 6:31 pm

    “I think the guy actually typed out the school’s handbook including dress code which forbids clothing that:

    “advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law.
    …suggests or promotes anti-social behavior, violence,…””

    How does a child wearing a shirt with guns on it promote violence? I understand that promoting a product that is not permitted to minors by law, but the shirt does not promote violence.

    Our society is a little too nutty these days. This should not have been such a big deal. If other children in the class were upset by the shirt, then maybe the parents should have been informed to make sure the child did not wear it again, but I think both sides of this argument have gotten carried away.

  125. #127 by Becky on March 29, 2009 - 6:37 pm

    Bob,

    Some people are sometimes anonymous on the internet because of how their views could be perceived by their employer (or may reflect on their employer), possibly affecting their employment status. Many women are anonymous because of the problem of internet stalkers. I’m sure there are other good reasons.

    Yes, anonymity affects credibility. It makes it easy to engage in antisocial behavior and language, make outrageous claims, engage in hyperbole, etc., etc. (you get the idea), things you might not normally do. When you appear here under your real name, you make a record that can be found and reproduced by anyone interested. Thus, you are more motivated to ensure it represents who you are and what you think, and to use more measured, diplomatic speech. This tends to make you more honest in my eyes.

  126. #128 by Becky on March 29, 2009 - 6:48 pm

    WTF and others,

    Something that has not yet been mentioned on this thread is the great sensitivity schools must have to guns because of tragic shootings that have occurred at schools around the country. Here in Utah, if a student shows up with so much as a water pistol, they can be expelled from school. Schools take this issue very seriously as they can’t afford not to. Kids+guns+school = Tragedy. No-one should honestly object to banning advertising guns in school.

  127. #129 by Mamawe'reallcrazynow on March 29, 2009 - 6:48 pm

    James Farmer Says:
    “It’s not so much that assault weapons should be banned outright. The problem – i.e., the insanity – is the ready, too convenient access to such weapons.”

    James, or anyone who agrees with what James says here, what do you suggest we do to make these weapons less available?

    I am anti-gun control, but willing to listen to your suggestions on the issue. Personally, I believe that no matter what we do to try and keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals, those people will always have ready access to weapons.

    According to the US Department of Justice-Office of Justice Programs-Bureau of Justice Statistics, a survey of state prison inmates, among those having possessed a gun, the source of the gun was from; two percent said flea market, twelve percent said a retail store, and an overwhelming eighty percent said family, friends, a street buy, or other illegal source. In interviews of inmates found on Youtube the question was often asked “Does gun control scare criminals?” The inmates always replied that they do not even consider gun laws. Thay stated that they buy their guns from a contact in an illegal manner anyway.

    So, I’m asking gun control activists to tell me what more do you think can be done, and do you really believe further gun control will make a difference. I ask this honestly, there is no sarcasm in my question. I myself don’t believe gun control will ever stop criminals from obtaining guns, just the law abiding citizens who wish to own guns for thier own protection, or sport. So if you disagree and think you can back up your claim, then by all means please share.

  128. #130 by Bob S. on March 29, 2009 - 7:20 pm

    Becky,

    As the saying goes “YGTBSM”

    It makes it easy to engage in antisocial behavior and language, make outrageous claims, engage in hyperbole, etc., etc.

    Do you to compare my writings on this blog and Cliff Lyon’s writings on this blog and tell me which has greater antisocial behavior and language, who is making more outrageous claims, who engages in hyperbole, etc? The clear cut winner in those anti-social activities is Cliff, not the anonymous Me.

    By the way, why not go back and check the postings and find where Cliff posted a comment using my identity and refused to remove it. Even when called on it by other authors on this board. Talk about anti-social behavior.

    When you appear here under your real name, you make a record that can be found and reproduced by anyone interested.

    Will you people please understand that I am appearing under my real name!! What will it take for you people to understand that simple concept. If you post under Becky, aren’t you using your real name?

    I am consistent in my posting online, I have a clearly established identity as posting as “Bob S.” Here and on other boards.

    IF I trusted Cliff, I would consider posting my full identity, but frankly his behavior and actions has not earned that trust and probably won’t any time in the future.

    the great sensitivity schools must have to guns because of tragic shootings that have occurred at schools around the country

    We can understand that and appreciate it, but don’t confuse the image with the reality. An organization that stands up for a right listed in the Bill of Rights should be applauded and encouraged. As much as I dislike the ALCU stance on some issues, I still encourage membership in it.

    That is all the NRA was doing with that shirt, trying to get people to stand up for our rights, just like the ALCU does.

    No-one should honestly object to advertising guns in school.

    I don’t object to advertising guns in schools, I think you meant a “ban” on advertising.

    But the shirt wasn’t advertising firearms, it was advertising our rights; surely no one should object to a shirt advertising our rights.

  129. #131 by James Farmer on March 29, 2009 - 7:35 pm

    Bob:

    Come back to the debate … I couldn’t even stomach reading the above comment.

  130. #132 by Cliff Lies on March 29, 2009 - 8:20 pm

    Cliff Lyon, has spun this story, and made the father out to be a monster. What do you really know about this man, eh Cliff? His son wore a shirt that refers to a right issued in the constitution. Arguably an educational shirt if it inspires children to ask questions about what right the shirt is referring to. Maybe a good conversation starter, the way has inspired much debate on this forum. I’d rather a child wear that shirt than one of the Spongebob Sqaurpants shirts all his peers were likely wearing.

    • #133 by Becky on March 29, 2009 - 8:31 pm

      Yes, Bob, I meant banning advertising. I corrected my comment.

      C. Lies, I’m sure there are plenty of ways of teaching constitutional rights in school without this particular t-shirt. See my previous comment about schools’ sensitivity to guns, even toy ones, or even a promotion of guns on a t-shirt. A school has to err on the side of caution.

  131. #134 by Cliff Lies on March 29, 2009 - 9:00 pm

    I just can’t get over how stupid this Cliff guy is. For someone as educated as he is, I’d expect more common sense.

    How is a firearm antisocial? Can an inanimate object be antisocial? Behaviors are antsocial, not guns. Wearing a shirt that harmlessly displays firearms isn’t antisocial either. The idea the guns present is not antisocial either. What’s antisocial is acting like you know all, and claiming anyone who disagrees must change thier ways, and get in line with you. Who cares about this harmless shirt? I mean come on, there are bigger problems all around us. Who made you king of the liberal scum?

    I hate conservitives, and I hate liberals. I’m tired of arguing against both groups. Why don’t you all stop kissing the asses of whatever group you choose to belong and think for yourselves.

    I mean topics such as gun control, seem to have two crowds constantly arguing. The side that says gun control is bad and there should be as little as possible, and the side that says gun control is good and banning guns will decrease the crime rate substantially. Both are laughable positions. I think there is a happy middle ground in there somewhere.

    • #135 by Becky on March 29, 2009 - 9:16 pm

      C. Lies,

      You’re out of sync in this thread. I was the one talking about anti-social behavior, and it was only in context of a discussion about anonymity on the internet, not about the t-shirt.

  132. #136 by Cliff Lies on March 29, 2009 - 9:12 pm

    Becky, I read your previous comment about sensitivity in schools. I am torn in my response, upon first reading I thought you had a good point, but when thinking about it a little more I realized that it shouldn’t matter. Because of a couple of kids who didn’t something terrible, we are going to ban images of an object? Should we take guns out of the history books too? Maybe we should just change history in all our sensitivity.

  133. #137 by Cliff Lies on March 29, 2009 - 9:20 pm

    Becky, maybe you should read the original article over again. Cliff Lyon refers to antisocial behavior before you ever do. Who’s out of sync? Maybe you should read the original post by Cliff Lyon.

  134. #138 by Cliff Lies on March 29, 2009 - 9:23 pm

    You’re funny, Becky. Trying to make this about you. Cliff askes and I quote “Does an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people promote anti-social behavior?” He then continues on to imply that the shirt does promote anti-social behavior.

  135. #139 by jdberger on March 30, 2009 - 12:11 am

    Come back to the debate … I couldn’t even stomach reading the above comment.

    James,

    You’ve made a couple of comments that I’m interested to hear (read) you expand upon.

    First, why is “ready access to assault weapons is insane”?

    Second, What do you define as “ready, too convenient access [to assault weapons]”, James?

    1) What preconditions should be met to buy a gun?

    2) Should there be additional restrictions on the buyer if the gun has different cosmetic features?

    3) What cosmetic features, exactly, would trigger those additional purchase restrictions?

    4) What would those additional purchase restrictions be?

    5) Please be as specific as possible.

    6) Finally, how do you square the additional purchase restrictions with the Heller decision?

    Third – you suggested that all firearm transfers at gunshows should have a background check – even those that constitute a transfer of private property. Are you suggesting that government permission should be required for all transfers of private property, James? That, Sir, is a pretty slippery slope. Doncha think?

    Finally, you posted this in response to one of Bob’s posts about anonymnity:

    Come back to the debate … I couldn’t even stomach reading the above comment.

    Why did Bob’s post upset you so much?

    I do value your rhetorical skills, James. I also think you have a keen mind – but I think that you get a little lazy on this blog. You should take the time to expand upon some of your posts, especially when asked, no?

  136. #140 by fjdk;f on March 30, 2009 - 2:42 am



  137. #141 by kjnbap;ijnkdsanf; on March 30, 2009 - 2:43 am

    Boogers and Poop!

  138. #142 by kjnbap;ijnkdsanf; on March 30, 2009 - 2:44 am


    Smelly farts too!

  139. #143 by Weer'd Beard on March 30, 2009 - 2:54 am

    “Here in Utah, if a student shows up with so much as a water pistol, they can be expelled from school. Schools take this issue very seriously as they can’t afford not to. Kids+guns+school = Tragedy. No-one should honestly object to banning advertising guns in school.”

    Becky this is a fine point of exactly what us Pro-rights people are talking about. You disreguard all context for the sake of demonizing an inaimate object.

    So now what you’re promoting in the denial of edjucation to a child because of the posession of a toy or a picture, idependant of context.

    Now before you get me wrong, there is a bill in this state that I support that simply states that if a replica firearm is presented in a threatening maner that is criminal threat, and those being threatened may assume and respond as if the repilica was in fact the real McCoy.

    A child using a toy gun to threaten or intimidate others is a very bad and dangerous thing, but a child being thrown out of school because of a water pistol or a GI Joe in his backpack IS a Tragedy!

    We’ve given the govenment the right to impose a baseless phobia on us.

    Over here at my place I had some interesting comments:
    http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/489548.html

    From BobS:
    “”I grew up in Montana and Mississippi, it was not uncommon for us to walk around with toy guns, bb guns and pellet guns. Many of which looked identical to the real firearms.

    In all the times we interacted with the cops, NOT ONCE did any of them draw down on us. It isn’t the toys that are the problem, it is the over reaction of the police.”

    People like Becky and Cliff are encouraging an over reaction and claiming it as reasonable. They do this with no support or evedence, and want us to accept it as dogma.

    They also want us to overlook the fact that their irrational behavior takes our rights away.

  140. #144 by Bob S. on March 30, 2009 - 5:37 am

    Becky,

    I’m going to extrapolate what you said here, into a greater “sensitivity”, tell me if I get it wrong:

    Something that has not yet been mentioned on this thread is the great sensitivity schools must have to guns because of tragic shootings that have occurred at schools around the country.

    So, because of violence that has occurred in schools, those schools must have a greater sensitivity about violence. Is that correct?

    So, if the simple image of a firearm can be said to “promote” violence; what about a story that has rival groups killing each other for reasons that neither side can truly remember? A story about kids who want to be together but the rival “gangs” make that peaceful relationship impossible and causes several deaths.

    Should such a story be used in schools because it could promote ‘gang’ activities and deaths because one side was “dissed”?

    Of course, I’m talking about the classic Romeo and Juliet, a perennially staple in literature classes.

    In History class, the number of wars discussed can be truly staggering. Is any picture of firearms or soldiers carrying firearms promoting “violence”?

    How about a t-shirt with a classic “MinutePerson” (formerly known as a MinuteMan but political correctness and all)? Does that shirt promote violence?

    It is absurd to say that a simple image of a firearm promotes violence.

  141. #145 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 2, 2009 - 9:06 am

    First, look up the definition of “animism.” Guns are inanimate. So are T shirts.

    Second, my kids have been shooting since age 4, archery since 5, kung fu since 7. I’m not clear on where YOU get off telling me what is too old or too young to operate a gun, which, assuming you really ARE a “marksman” (I’m not sure what definition you’re using. I use the military definition), you should know are easier and safer to operate than say, a bicycle on a residential street.

    Here’s my daughter at 9: http://olegvolk.net/gallery/friendsandstrangers/madmike/pinkrifles0511.jpg

    She’s 11 and shoots better than most of the Infantrymen I train.

    Third, trying to play the bogus “assault weapon” card means you automatically lose. My wife and I are military. We get 100 rounds a year for practice and qualification. Since we both do go in harm’s way, I make it a point to shoot at least once a month, typically about 300 rounds, through both AR15 and M4 style platforms in semiauto only (Which is the shooting style we teach in the military. Burst and auto are for specific types of engagement only). We also practice with AK style platforms, since that’s what our enemies are shooting, and familiarity is a good thing.

    Attempting to prevent me from maintaining that practice is rather objectionable. Please don’t try to play the “support the troops” card. I’ll call you out.

    So, you’re opposed to free speech unless it fits your agenda, opposed firearms unless they fit your agenda, ready to define what behavior I and my children may engage in without even knowing us or our personal situations. I’m willing to bet you have ideas on how to spend my tax dollars and restrict my investments, too.

    Fascist much?

    BTW, as National Guardsmen, we are under orders from the FEDERAL government, who owns all weapons in our armories. The National Guard is not, and never has been, the militia. It is a reserve of the Army and Air Force (and in a few cases, Navy), under federal authority, pay and regulation, which can be made available to the governor with Congressional or Presidential authority. I live in IN but my Guard unit is in IL, and we have members from TX, KY, MO and TN. We are not anyone’s “militia.”

    Incidentally, your hunting rifle (Assuming you own one) is more lethal than an AR or AK. Perhaps we should ban that, since the 2A provides for “defense,” not “hunting.” I don’t see “target shooting” in there, either. It seems my guns are legitimate, I’m a trained professional, and you’re the panicky, untrained civilian with weapons not authorized by the Constitution.

    You also don’t seem very well trained in free speech. Perhaps we should have some restrictions on that, before you cause emotional or legal problems for people.

    After all, “Right of the people peaceably to assemble” means the states can have legislatures. How do you figure it constitutes a right to spread misinformation while hiding behind an alias? That sounds like borderline behavior only criminals would want to engage in.

  142. #146 by Cliff on April 2, 2009 - 3:49 pm

    Williamshe,

    Look up the definition of militaristic redneck with the same old tired arguments.

  143. #147 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 2, 2009 - 3:57 pm

    well, at least you don’t lie and pretend you support this troop.

    Thanks for that.

    You might want to check out my site before you cast aspersions.

    BTW: trying to feminize my name? A good comeback…for a five year old.

    You have failed to address any facts, offer anything of substance. You’re conceding the argument?

  144. #148 by VikingArthur on April 2, 2009 - 4:28 pm

    What a joke! Not only will my child be fully trained on all weapons he will get extra time with “assault” rifles. The day you bastards come to register every gun will be the day your lives will end. That is the only reason you have not done it yet. I say “you” because if you support gun control in this draconian form…there will be sides and you will be on the wrong side.

  145. #149 by Cliff on April 2, 2009 - 5:49 pm

    But Michelle I DO support the troops, most of them. What up?

    Viking, I hope your little girl grows up to be a big lovable gay woman who packs whenever she goes home for thanksgiving even though Dad is and angry old white guy.

    Are YOU an angry white guy?

  146. #150 by Weer'd Beard on April 2, 2009 - 6:09 pm

    Why Cliffy, is there a problem with Gay people?

    Of course you’re avoiding the issue, while calling names like a small child.

    I’d say you have conceded the argument.

    Where logic fails, there you find the “Progressives” preaching Gun-Control Dogma!

  147. #151 by Cliff on April 2, 2009 - 6:15 pm

    Weerd,

    What issue am I avoiding?

    I thought that hosting a blog under my real name si kinda like you know, DEALING WITH THE ISSUES?

    Again, I ask you, What issue am I avoiding?

  148. #152 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 2, 2009 - 6:17 pm

    Your obsession with trying to use a feminized name–which didn’t affect me when I was 12–seems to indicate you’re also a chauvinist, and a gay-hater.

    Just how many bigotries are you hiding there? Some of your best friends Jewish?

    In any case, your comments make it clear this is not a forum for adult discourse.

    I pity your children, if you have any, if this is the type of response you find appropriate.

    You might want to look in the mirror for the redneck.

  149. #153 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 2, 2009 - 6:19 pm

    Oh, this is rich. From your bio:

    I hold degrees in International Relations and Philosophy from The University of Vermont.

    Sure you do. If so, that tells me a lot about UV, or about what it takes to get a philosophy degree.

  150. #154 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 2, 2009 - 6:21 pm

    OneUtah.org is an ersatz Public Square for Utah. We feature the writings’ and commentary of Utah’s many thoughtful and articulate citizens,

    Or maybe it says something about Utah.

    No, I think I’m going to assume it’s just you.

  151. #155 by Cliff on April 2, 2009 - 6:28 pm

    Michelle,

    I think it seems pretty clear that I am one of many.

    And this IS an open forum. We have many conservative authors. Search Paul Mero or Frank Stahali on this blog.

    Its just that most conservatives don’t have so much to say anymore.

    If you live in Utah and meet the other simple requirements, you too may be a OneUtah author.

    We LIVE free speech here. I wish I could say the same for conservative blogs. Without going there, I bet YOUR blog moderates. Right?

  152. #156 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 2, 2009 - 6:32 pm

    You bet wrong. I don’t moderate my blog. I have nothing to fear. My forum at Baen’s is moderated against spam, outright threats and is limited to PG13. I’d be happy to let you debate with my readers. The Hall is moderated against spam.

    You also seem to assume a particular political stance on my part.

    Are you sure about that degree?

    Come on, call me a “poopyhead.”

  153. #157 by Cliff on April 2, 2009 - 6:37 pm

    Did you vote for President Obama Mr. Williamson?

  154. #158 by ColdServings on April 2, 2009 - 6:39 pm

    Cliff,

    I know you’re trying hard here. Perhaps this will help:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

    While Wikipedia is far from the best source out there, it’s a good start in this case. Learn what’s discussed on that page. Make a serious effort to avoid the various described fallacies in your arguments and maybe, just maybe, you’ll be able to reach a point where you not only make sense but have the ability to actually convince people who think with their brains rather than their glands.

    Just something to consider.

  155. #159 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 2, 2009 - 6:49 pm

    I’m not clear on why that’s relevant, but no.

    I didn’t vote for McCain, either.

    Nor Ron Paul.

    You failed to respond to the provided facts–the National Guard is not a state entity, and members may not possess their FEDERAL weapons without consent of the FEDERAL government. The militia is defined as “All able bodied males from 17-45, and anyone else who wishes to declare so,” in Title 10 USC.

    And if you do actually shoot, your rifle is almost certainly more powerful than an AK or AR.

    Not that it matters. The act of owning a gun no more entitles you to a political position on the 2nd Amendment than owning a computer entitles you to a position on the 1st. Let me demonstrate: “I’m a professional writer and I’m all for free speech, except for the LUNACY of allowing bigots to have websites.”

    See? Strawman, argument from authority, artificial goalpost…but you have a degree in philosophy, so you should know this better than I.

    Since you apparently are possessed of a stack of bigotries, a dishonest character and an inciteful, childish personality, perhaps we should take your guns away? I certainly feel my daughter displays better maturity and character than yourself.

    But, since it’s obvious you don’t want honest debate, count me as a classical liberal who doesn’t have much to say. I prefer to say it in fora where there’s actual articulate debate, not childish name calling by cryptofascists masquerading (badly) as “liberals.”

    Good, day, sir. I’ll keep an archived copy for reference, next time someone tries to stereotype liberals as enlightened, fair and unprejudiced.

  156. #160 by Cliff on April 2, 2009 - 7:01 pm

    Thank you Michael, I appreciate your honesty and transparency. It is MUCH more than I can say for the right wingers commenting on this post.

    Would I be correct to label you a libertarian? i.e almost no government?

  157. #161 by ColdServings on April 2, 2009 - 7:03 pm

    Now, let’s consider some of the “issues” that have been brought up.

    First pictures of handguns making the shirt violent.

    At a first blush that proposition is absurd. By far the most common use of handguns is by putting holes in targets. I, personally, have put more holes in paper than all the illegal uses of handguns for the entire state in which I reside for the same period. Considering the number of shooting ranges where only handguns can be used, it’s not that unlikely that the ratio of “target shooting” to “violence” is actually lower for handguns than for other firearms. Hardly justification for singling out a picture of a handgun as being “violent.”

    Then there’s the other major use of handguns–self defense. Now, some people consider “self defense” to be “violence” in the same category as the assault against which one is defending. I cannot argue with people like that because their value system is so completely different from mine (and, I am happy to say, from most of the people I know) that there’s just no point of commonality for discussion.

    Yet even the lowball estimate of defensive gun uses (the NCVS survey) with 108,000 defensive gun uses (lowball, because it surveys victims and, therefore, doesn’t include any defenses where the person stopped the crime before becoming a victim) far outnumbers criminal gun uses. Since in most defensive gun uses, the gun is never fired, it would seem that handguns are more often used to prevent/end violence then to perpetrate it.

    So much for the pictures of handguns making the shirt “violent.”

  158. #162 by Cliff on April 2, 2009 - 7:16 pm

    You must be kidding Cold.

    How then do you account for all the sensational gun-related violence in our movies and TV and news media?

    If it didn’t sell as a symbol of violence, it wouldn’t be in 80% of the movies we see.

    Your innocent portrayal of the NRA propaganda is suspect.

    The NRA marketers knows damn well that handgun = violence and power.

  159. #163 by Moribund Republic on April 2, 2009 - 7:48 pm

    Gee Cliff, who runs Hollywood?

  160. #164 by Egil on April 2, 2009 - 8:02 pm

    Cliff

    Things do not corrupt people as much as you types wish to think so (and I lump you in with the Evangelical Christians beause you represent this believe). A handgun is an inanimate object, incapable of doing anything on its own. I’ve done experiments, I left a Sig Sauer on the ground with a magazine in the grip and began insulting it. It did not jump up, cycle itself and shoot me.

    If we have a spat of people using carpentry hammers to kill people, do hammers suddenly become a symbol of violence and power?

    Yes, firearms were designed for violent means whether it be taking human life or putting food on the table. Ditto for blades, they were designed for the same things, warfare and putting food on the table. Are we to outlaw blades because of it? To say they have a value alternate to violence is all said and good, but so do Handguns and firearms in general. Target practice is very zen.

    Violence and power is neutral. Those two qualities are not evil in and of themselves. Moral people will use those two qualities for moral purposes. For instance, a homeowner producing a handgun or a shotgun to do violence on an armed intruder is a good thing unless you believe that people should be at the mercy of criminals (if you do, you advocate people commit suicide). A law enforcement officer uses his handgun for similar purposes though mistakes are made in the line of duty. Even then, LEO’s have at times snapped and taken the law into their own hands and committed murder. Are we to take handguns from cops for that same reason? If you say no you advocate your responsibility for yourself and expect other people to save your life in times of need. If you argue yes, the only person responsible for your safety is yourself.

    As for Assault Rifles. The AR-15 is a weapons platform that with a few simple modifications can fire a multitude of cartridges including some major hunting cartridges such as .308 Winchester. .50 Beowulf is developing a cult-following among boar hunters and the only platform I know off that can fire it is the AR-15. Because of this ability to be used for a variety of reasons, its utility to us law-abiding citizens outweigh the risks. I’ll also remind you that Assault Rifles are used in a very low percentage of crime. Under the mantra of crime prevention alone, we should outlaw cars, baseball bats and steak-knives.

  161. #165 by Moribund Republic on April 2, 2009 - 8:07 pm

    Stop talking sense Egil, Cliff will have none of it.

  162. #166 by Jaktens Tid on April 3, 2009 - 12:44 am

    If there is one thing I have never and probably will never understand about any gun control advocates is their constant prattling regarding why “only the police and military should have assault weapons” while they turn around and lament on DailyKos and other leftard websites about how the US is becoming such a “police state”. Gun control advocates will always be advocates for control, for creeping authoritarian incrementalism, and everything the founders of this great nation despised and sought to guard their fledgling government against.

    Have you, Cliff, ever stopped to wonder why Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is able to obtain a concealed carry permit by way of the classes and fees alone, while her constituents can only receive one if they make a “good enough” case to the CA Dept. of Justice in addition to the other requirements? Is Dianne Feinstein’s life more precious than the lives of those she represents? Is a government’s ability to defend itself from foreign invasion or domestic insurrection more important than the individual’s right to defend himself from that same government?

    handgun = violence and power.

    You are absolutely correct, but perhaps not in the way you intended. Arms in the hands of the many citizens is a symbol of power. What kind of power? The power to control one’s own destiny, rather than leave the decision in the hands of autocrats and bureaucrats and street thugs and organized crime members. Violence should always be available as a last resort when the sword of statism looms perilously over individual freedoms. Will you place that sword overhead, Cliff? Will you allow governments to have a monopoly of force over their subjects – as opposed to citizens, which are FREE men – and do with them as they choose? Even those filthy stinking Commies, Lenin and Marx, realized the importance of ordinary citizens who were armed against the possibility of despots and thieves.

    Whose side are you on, Cliff? Are you going to keep up your statist-enabling antics?

  163. #167 by Weer'd Beard on April 3, 2009 - 3:33 am

    “What issue am I avoiding? ”

    We’ve been here before, Cliffy, you didn’t want to talk about it then.

    You avoid talking about guns, Gun laws, and crime rates in general.

    The reason is simple anyway, you’ve been blogging about guns for pleanty long enugh. You know you’re wrong, I assume you do it to wick people like myself and Mr. Williamson, so instead you choose to call names, and change the subject.

    It’s pretty obvious.

  164. #168 by Daniel on April 3, 2009 - 4:42 am

    Cliff,

    As a non-white, pro-natural rights person who is much more educated than you, you look weak by completely avoiding everyone’s argument. I fail to see how a t-shirt with guns on it promotes violence. I’ve been shooting since I was 4 years old and by some miracle I’ve never had a violent encounter with my guns. And surprisingly, they don’t talk to me either nor do they walk under their own power. Have fun calling me “Danielle”, I can’t wait buddy!

  165. #169 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 4:58 am

    Cliff,

    Considering how utterly ridiculous most portrayals of firearms of all stripes are in Hollywood, using them as an example of anything gun related is purely laughable. Next thing you’re going to tell us is that dropping a firearm down a stairwell will cause it to repeatedly fire and kill everyone in the room (except the good guys, of course) because you saw it in True Lies, or that one can shoot down a military helicopter with a handgun because you saw that in a movie.

    Movies are exaggerated, sensationalistic, and completely made up.

    Here’s a clue for you: movies are fiction. Hollywood is in the business of telling lies for fun and profit.

    As for “NRA propaganda,” I got the numbers that were the basis of my comment from the Department of Justice, not from the NRA. If I were using NRA propaganda, I would use Lott’s or Kleck’s work rather than the lowbal NCVS numbers. Where did you get your numbers? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any, not even implicitly.

  166. #170 by Becky on April 3, 2009 - 6:36 am

    Wow, the testosterone on this thread has become almost lethal. I’m going to take a chance with a hit and run comment as I won’t be around this morning to follow up, but I do think little consideration has been given to why schools need to have rules about this and other t-shirts.

    Teachers have more than they can handle already with classroom distractions. Some schools have banned all t-shirts with any type of message. Some have even had to resort to school uniforms. No matter what side of the gun issue you are on, you have to admit that teachers need all the help they can get in maintaining control in the classroom. Kids should not show up as little billboards for your cause. Stop beating your chests, gun owners, and think about the practical issues involved.

  167. #171 by Shane Smith on April 3, 2009 - 6:55 am

    Becky, you are trying to insert something rational into what has, so far, been a wonderfully entertaining thread to me. Please don’t. That would ruin it all.

  168. #172 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 6:56 am

    Becky,

    We do think about the practical issues involved, it is just that the practical issues are being abused in this case.

    The shirt was worn previously by the child…no issues were raised. The parents weren’t notified that their child was subject to discipline and yes being forced to turn a shirt inside out is discipline. Very mild but still discipline.

    Don’t you want to know when or if your child was being sent to the office, being forced to stand out due to an issue? Isn’t that a practical matter?

    Second, it really is a bogus argument. Teachers have problems with classroom management that are real issues. Cheating, theft, total lack of respect, foul language, uninvolved kids and parents.

    This t-shirt didn’t create any problems other then in the minds of a teacher or administrator. The class wasn’t disrupted by it, it wasn’t disrupted when the shirt was worn before. It doesn’t promote violence, it doesn’t promote a “culture of violence” unlike some music and or groups.

    So, what is the real practical problem with a child wearing a shirt that ask people to stick up for their rights?

    Maybe I answered my own question. Maybe the kids are being indoctrinated, forced to conform to standards that are antithetical to our constitutional rights?

  169. #173 by Shane Smith on April 3, 2009 - 7:06 am

    “So, what is the real practical problem with a child wearing a shirt that ask people to stick up for their rights?”

    This is a really good point.

    I am going to make a series of tee-shirts about rights and sell them to kids.

    I think I will start with “My parents are gay and can’t get married because your parents are bigoted assholes.”

    I might also print “Your god and your religion need to STFU in my school.”

    Maybe, since Bob is so worried about the constitution, we could print “Real men don’t mind if their phones are tapped, as long as they can keep their replacement manhood cocked and loaded.”

    I may have to open a cafepress store.

  170. #174 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 7:08 am

    Ok, So we now have all the no predictable cliches brought to you by the NRA and delivered by billy goats and parrots.

    “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

    “Cars kill people. Should be ban cars?”

    “Hammers (substitute any tool) are used as murder weapons, should we ban hammers?”

    “Kids who are raised around guns and taught how to safely use and respect them are very responsible with them. If we could train all kids to respect guns like I was, we wouldn’t have all these shooting problems.”

    Gentlemen, we’ve heard them all before. They’re all in the NRA pamphlets.

    None of them fly. Guns give any idiot the ability to take away my right without notice or cause and in Utah now, even on my property.

    Exactly which argument would you like me to destroy…again.

    As Americans have grown more concerned with the level of gun violence, those simple cliches don’t work any more.

  171. #175 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 7:17 am

    I must say I’m impressed the guys on that pro-gun forum that Cold linked are using actual names.

    One such bullet head (Joe Williams) said,

    My kid’s teachers have no doubt about how my family and I feel about guns, they have no doubt that I will not tolerate such anti-American suppression of my child’s rights. I will not tolerate them claiming he is a threat of some sort, I will not tolerate them denying him the right to talk about his hobby. I will not tolerate an adult attacking my child.

    A tough talking guy who clearly hasn’t tested the school system. Public schools have been long empowered to tell parents like these to shove it.

  172. #176 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 3, 2009 - 7:40 am

    But Cliff, you haven’t actually refuted any arguments. All you’ve done is call people names and deliberately mis-state the presented facts.

    If you believe the father’s narrative of events is wrong, produce some evidence.

    If you believe the DoJ numbers regarding crime with guns are erroneous, produce a peer-reviewed primary study.

    If you believe my presentation of the legalities of the National Guard vs Militia, produce a legal essay.

    You have failed at least four times to respond to the latter. I’m not even keeping track of the others.

    Name-calling and quoting Sarah Brady’s best masturbation material, which has been debunked by the DoJ, ATF, various criminal justice studies, and frequently by basic observation (forex, Mexican drug gangs don’t buy grenades and machine guns in US gun stores), does not constitute debate. Heck, you haven’t even accurately quoted the NRA yet. You sound like a Creationist spouting the “if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” canard, and tossing out the “evolution is anti-Christian and its proponents lack a moral compass and this invalidates all their science!” argument. Except that even they present a more cogent and literate style than you (even if their arguments are as flawed as yours would be if you bothered to make any).

    I’m calling bullshit on both your alleged degrees. You’re incapable of debate, and seem to nothing but a self-aggrandizing ranter.

    My specific politics? Vary by issue and can’t be summarized with one label. However, generally I’m on the side that doesn’t resort to lies and name-calling.

  173. #177 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 7:43 am

    Cliff,

    Exactly which argument would you like me to destroy…again.

    Short answer…all of them.

    Try to, please try to destroy them it should be entertaining to see how fast you resort to your “standard debating” techniques instead of discussing the issues.

    By the way, you can start by responding to the lies about “90% of firearms used in Mexico are from the USA”.

  174. #178 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 7:56 am

    I can see why Cliff thinks in terms of using arguments from the playbook since pretty much everything he’s said has been right out of the anti-gun playbook.

    We get the usual “blood will run in the streets” nonsense which is predicted every time RKBA comes up and every time the prediction is made it keeps failing to happen.

    Funny thing is, right after I got my handgun license, I was involved in an auto accident–rear ended by someone when I had to stop because of the person in front of me making a sudden stop. Yet, strangely enough, despite all the claims from the anti-gun propaganda I didn’t feel the slightest inclination to draw and shoot the idiot who was following too close, and paying insufficient attention to traffic.

    Most people are perfectly capable of telling when a situation actually calls for potentially deadly force. It seems, however, that the anti-gun folk have some difficulty with that which is why the constant predictions of “fender benders” or “bar brawls” or the like “turning into shootouts.” They keep predicting it, and it keeps not happening.

    Stop projecting your insecurities, fears, and lack of self control onto others.

    Oh, and that “any idiot can take away my right,” if someone means you harm no “gun control” will stop them. All that you accomplish with that is making sure that my 100 lb wife is defenseless against a 200 lb rapist. I suppose the idea of her lying dead in an alley with her pantyhose wrapped around her neck and a rapist’s semen dripping from her . . . rather than standing with a smoking gun in her hand and a dead rapist at her feet makes you feel morally superior.

    More DOJ statistics: in recent years there has been about 1 violent felony (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) per 200 people. The majority of those crimes do not involve the use of a gun. Since violent felonies by definition have at least one person who is harmed or seriously threatened with harm and many of them have more than one, that means that for the “average citizen” there is a minimum of a one in 200 chance of being seriously harmed or threatened with serious harm in a violent crime. Since most of them do not involve firearms and most of the remainder do not involve firearms obtained legally, no possible “gun control” can have much effect on that. While I suspect that degrees in philosophy don’t include a whole lot of math, it’s pretty easy to figure out how those numbers stack up.

    Over the course of an average person’s life, that one in 200 chance translates as about a 30% chance of being harmed or seriously threatened by harm sometimes in one’s lifetime, most likely NOT by someone using a gun. For the average household, that works out to about a 70% chance that someone in the “average person’s” household will be faced with that. At. Least. Once. (For those with a bit of math background, I’m basically reporting the converse of the probability of it never happening–it’s a bit easier to figure that way.)

    On the flip side, there are over 80 million gun owners in the United States who never use their guns to threaten anyone.

    Are you really trying to tell me that it’s unreasonable to be armed against a 30% chance that I might be threatened with seriously bodily harm at some point in my life or a 70% chance that someone in my household might be so threatened? Particularly when even a complete ban on guns would not materially reduce that risk. All it does is make sure that I and my family are disarmed against those who would do us harm. Mind you, in my case, that’s not as big a deal as it is for some. I’m a big ugly guy who goes to the gym regularly, is reasonably strong, and is moderately capable at several martial arts. But what about my wife? She’s tiny. Even if she could spend hours every day training her body does not respond well to strength building exercises and, frankly, most “martial arts” are just a quick way to get killed in real street confrontations when the assailant is armed, or significantly stronger than the defender, or there are just more of them then there is of her.

    30% chance that my wife will face a violent assault, either directly or in the course of another crime (such as robbery) sometime in her life. Sorry, but I’m not willing to condemn her to those odds simply to satisfy your need to “feel safe.”

  175. #179 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 7:57 am

    Michael,

    I can only deal with one question at a time so let me address your first question. For you convenience, I’m reposting my ‘evidence’ from the top post for your convenience since the home key on your keyboard is apparently not functional.

    The school
    s dress code is clear:

    “advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law.
    …suggests or promotes anti-social behavior, violence,…”

    Is an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people on it promoting violence? I would be hard to imagine a more violent t-shirt. I suppose depicting and actual murder might be worse.

    Does an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people promote anti-social behavior? Next time you are in a nice social situation like school, church or family picnic, try pulling out a hand gun then take a poll.

    Is it speech protected by the First Amendment? Yes, except in responsible schools with thoughtful policies designed to protect innocent children from the vagaries of their parents.

  176. #180 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 8:06 am

    Cold,

    You simply must admit that the fact that you did not shoot the guy who rear-ended is not an argument.

    Its anecdotal.

    Have you ever pulled your gun on someone?

  177. #181 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 8:18 am

    Michael,

    I can only deal with one question at a time so let me address your first question. For you convenience, I’m reposting my ‘evidence’ from the top post for your convenience since the home key on your keyboard is apparently not functional.

    The schools dress code is clear:

    “advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law.
    …suggests or promotes anti-social behavior, violence,…”

    Is an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people on it promoting violence? I would be hard to imagine a more violent t-shirt. I suppose depicting and actual murder might be worse.

    This really speaks more to your imagination than anything else. Since the vast majority of uses of hanguns in this country is simply shooting at targets the simple depiction of a handgun is only “violent” in your imagination. The problem is yours, not the shirts.

    And before you bring out the movies canard again, not only are movies fiction, but note that it’s not the “showing handguns” that makes them violence, but that they actually show, you know, violence. Showing violence is violent. Duh. Showing handguns, which, per the DOJ’s own lowball study, are used to avoid violence more than they are used to commit it, are not.

    Does an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people promote anti-social behavior? Next time you are in a nice social situation like school, church or family picnic, try pulling out a hand gun then take a poll.

    School? Not going to happen because like it or not, guns are illegal at most schools under most circumstances. Church? Depends on the church (and, in some jurisdictions, they have ridiculous laws prohibiting guns in churches) and the people there. Family picnic? Maybe your family would be horrified at the idea of a gun, but that is far from a universal case.

    But also note that hunting, trips to the shooting range, competitions, and so forth are all very social activities. They may not interest you, but that doesn’t make them less social activities because of it.

    Is it speech protected by the First Amendment? Yes, except in responsible schools with thoughtful policies designed to protect innocent children from the vagaries of their parents.

    Ah yes, we have “freedom” but only the “freedom” that government autocrats deign to grant. And the schools are not educational institutions to teach children skills but political indoctrination centers.

    “You think true freedom is doing what you want? Well, you’re wrong. True freedom is doing what I tell you.” (the Ape, from C. S. Lewis’ “The Last Battle”)

    I suspect that the irony of that quote will escape you.

  178. #182 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 8:20 am

    If your Constitutional scholarship comes from Charlatan Heston…this might help.

    Link: The gun rights people believe that “Militia” doesn’t actually mean anything, because it refers only to the whole body of the people, thereby giving every citizen the right to bear arms. The gun control people, by contrast, believe that nothing in the Second Amendment gives any individual the right to own a gun. At most, it gives the states the inalienable right to form state militias–effectively it protects the National Guard. (Amusingly, some pro-gunners thing the words “well-regulated” only means that the militiamen are able to shoot straight, not that they are subject to any government discipline.)

  179. #183 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 8:23 am

    Cliff,

    It was an anecdote, belittling the frequent claim of “blood running in the streets.” The prediction keeps being made and it keeps not happening.

    All the claims of dire consequences whenever, for example, laws to make a state “shall issue” on handgun licenses, keep failing to come true.

    Anti-gun folk keep making the same predictions which keep failing to happen. Now, either they are actually expecting to get a different result each time, which is insanity almost by definition (doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result) or they no good and well that the predictions are not going to come true but hope to delude others into thinking they will in order to further their agenda. That’s called “lying.”

  180. #184 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 8:30 am

    Cliff,

    In the case of Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), decided last April 5th, the plaintiff had been denied a concealed carry license by various city and county authorities in California. He sued on the grounds that the denials were an infringement of his Second Amendment rights.

    The federal appeals court confirmed that Hickman had no standing to bring the lawsuit. In brief, the concept of “standing” deals with whether the party bringing a suit has a real grievance of a nature that the law can recognize. The question in Hickman’s case, as stated by the appeals court, was “whether the Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce the right to keep and bear arms.” The court concluded that Hickman could show no legal injury, and dismissed his case.

    The court said: “Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.”

    Now made completely null and void by the Heller decision. The SCOTUS clearly stated that the right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon the militia.
    Try to use a source that is a little more current.

    Next:

    “advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law.
    …suggests or promotes anti-social behavior, violence,…”

    First, firearms are pemitted to minors by law, with the supervision of their parents or guardians. So the first part of that doesn’t apply.

    Now, you state that you go to the range and enjoy target shooting, clearly that isn’t anti-social behavior nor is it violence.

    The shirt did not display anything that promoted violence….unless you are counting encouraging people to exercise their rights as violence.

  181. #185 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 8:32 am

    The old “National Guard” canard.

    First off, the US Code defines the Militia. The relevant quote has been given uptopic.

    Second, I’m amazed at the magical prognostication skills you attribute to the Founding Fathers to put an Amendment into the Constitution to protect the forming of an organization that wouldn’t even exist for over 100 years (National Guard formed in 1903). Amazing precognition that.

    Furthermore, as Mike has mentioned uptopic, the National Guard remains a Federal force. It is funded by the US, it’s weapons and equipment is supplied by the US, its membership–even in indiidual “state” units–comes from people all over the US, and it is entirely subject to Federal orders. The US government effectively “loans” units to the various states but can take them unilaterally at any time. To call the National Guard the militia of which the Founding Fathers spoke is utterly laughable.

    None of this comes from Charlton Heston or the NRA, despite your attempts at argument ad hominem (really, I would expect someone with a degree in philosophy to have more of an understanding of logical fallacies and to not be so quick to fall into them). It comes from the actual text of the US Code, and from the actual regulations and procedures governing the use of the National Guard.

  182. #186 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 3, 2009 - 8:33 am

    Cliff:

    The image does not appear to show guns being used in any violent fashion. You might as well claim a picture of a sports car promotes the criminal act of reckless driving. If you are not capable of seeing that, you either have serious issues requiring professional help, and/or do not have ANY training in philosophy. And in fact, every gun on that shirt is a “sporting” gun of the kind you claim to be comfortable with. So your argument is completely without merit.

    Now, if the school wants to ban ALL logo shirts, that’s a different argument.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

    § 311. Militia: composition and classes

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

    So it seems that, per US law, the anti-gun people are wrong.
    Incidentally, SCOTUS accepts this definition, and has invoked it in several recent cases. So any arguments to the contrary are without merit.

  183. #187 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 3, 2009 - 8:37 am

    Shane: If it just says, “My parents can’t get married because your parents are bigots” I have no problem with it at all. Actually, _I_ don’t have a problem with any of it, but I’m sure the school would prohibit the profanity.

    You seem to have some Freudian issues you might want to address with a professional.

  184. #188 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 8:37 am

    Cold,

    I don’t see where I claimed “blood running in the streets.” If you are trying to associate someone else claim with me, you are wasting your time.

    I already believe blood is running in the streets. How many people will die TODAY in America from gun fire? How many injured?

    Help me. What’s the number? A homicide occurs every 3 minutes in this country? 10 minutes? Do you know the number?

    When do we get to find out how often a responsible gun-packing gun owner like yourself pulls his piece?

  185. #189 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 8:44 am

    Well, I refer to the historical context of the personal right.

    When Alexander Hamilton was shot dead by Aaron Burr, the sitting vice president in a mutually agreed upon duel, were their brace of pistols personal weapons or militia weapons Cliff? For surely they owned them, and no one was charged with any violation of the law. Though dueling was discouraged, it wasn’t illegal. It was viewed as self defense. Neither was using guns to protect yourself. It still isn’t.

    The words of the 2nd, as with many words, depend on the context, and the interpretation can be directly opposite. This is why precedence and historical context decide law and rights.

    For example, many folks say, “Spare the rod, spoil the child”.

    One interpretation means for you to corporeally discipline unruly children, lest the be ruined.

    Another interpretation, and I know people that have believed so since they heard the axiom, believe that in sparing the rod, you never beat your children, and that you should spoil them rotten.

    Thankfully the Supreme Court has guaranteed the personal right. With the end of the “assault” weapons ban, the precedents and right are returning to a place they have come from in historical context.

    Nobody knows what the hell you are doing Cliff, but it is your time.

    Legally utilized firearms infringe on no ones rights, use them so and lose them. Just like a drunk loses his license to drive, and often his vehicle upon DUI conviction.

  186. #190 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 3, 2009 - 8:54 am

    http://www.kreaser.co.uk/ekmps/shops/kreasercouk2007/resources/image//AK%2047%20TShirt.jpg here, here’s a shirt that might be considered to endorse violence, though it’s a parody on a quote from Pulp Fiction.

    See the difference? A bunch of sporting arms standing upright, and an endorsement of a right the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled is constitutional, versus a military weapon and an endorsement of killing.

    There don’t seem to be too many shirts out there endorsing violence. It took a while to find that one…unless shirts that endorse zombie killing are violent? Zombies being mythical.

  187. #191 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 8:55 am

    How many people will die today? As a general trend, less than yesterday. “Gun control” has utterly failed to do anything about it. Strangely enough, however, drops in violent crimes of all types, committed with guns and otherwise, track reducing/repealing “gun control” quite well and increases tend to track places where “gun control” is made more strict.

    Now would be the time to cite all these other nations with strict gun control and supposedly lower crime rates, but you already know the response is to look at what crime was like in those other countries before the “gun control” was implemented. Even a cursory look quickly reveals that the reasons for the difference in crime has to be found in things other than gun control. While rates may be low now, they were at least as low (often lower) before the “gun control” was implemented.

    And once you start taking those other factors into consideration, the picture quickly becomes a whole lot more complicated. Take the case of Japan, one of the “poster children” of the gun control crowd. Yes, Japan has a very low “gun crime” rate and a low homicide rate (at least reported homicides). BTW, my wife is from Japan so I have access to information that doesn’t make CNN very often (if at all). It quickly becomes apparent from a close look at Japan that their low homicide rates derive more from their culture than from any gun laws. And yet that culture has a darker side: Japan is the nation that gave us the word “karoshi” (look it up). Also, Japan has a suicide rate higher than our homicide and suicide rates combined. That’s right, a person living in Japan has a greater chance of dying a violent death (since suicide is generally considered a form of violent death) than a person living in the US. In the US, the threats are external to oneself and one at least has a chance to defend against them. In Japan they are internal, taken in with mother’s milk as it were, and far more insidiously dangerous because of it.

  188. #192 by Owen N on April 3, 2009 - 9:06 am

    Cliff,

    Your argument contains many fallacies.

    Your first argument that guns are considered illegal in many schools. The kid did not bring a gun to school, he wore a t-shirt. There was no profane wording on the shirt, and no profane images.

    Second, that you imply that the first amendment may only be applied selectively. The first amendment protects all speech. The actual text is the following:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    By adhering to the spirit and the wording of this very important law, you will find that your position cannot be considered correct or even constitutional. Note, there is no distinction between people, citizens, immigrants or children. All are considered to have this very inherent right.

    Ignoring the fact that your initial response was to attempt to denigrate, insult, and humiliate the first person to argue the opposite position does not speak well of your almer mater. You should return your degree with your head hung in shame, even Plato ornery bastard he was would come up with a logical counter argument.

    You must also acknowledge, that the constitution is an enumeration of our governments powers. Not a restriction or a granting of citizens rights.

    From your arguments above I could classify you as a socialistic and fascist person.

    You wish a government that owns and produces the goods for society, and what they consider to be a fair distribution of profits. This is the definition of socialism.

    You state that it is good that students are only exposed to a certain way of thinking. That society as a whole must comply to a singular way of thinking, and enacting laws. This is the definition of fascism.

    I have not asked you to stop your rhetoric, only that if you wish to engage in a logical discourse that you actually use logic.

    Logic being predicated on correct information, as well as experience with an explanation of alternatives and possible ramifications.

    Have a good day sir.

    Owen

    I can only deal with one question at a time so let me address your first question. For you convenience, I’m reposting my ‘evidence’ from the top post for your convenience since the home key on your keyboard is apparently not functional.

    The school
    s dress code is clear:

    “advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law.
    …suggests or promotes anti-social behavior, violence,…”

    Is an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people on it promoting violence? I would be hard to imagine a more violent t-shirt. I suppose depicting and actual murder might be worse.

    Does an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people promote anti-social behavior? Next time you are in a nice social situation like school, church or family picnic, try pulling out a hand gun then take a poll.

    Is it speech protected by the First Amendment? Yes, except in responsible schools with thoughtful policies designed to protect innocent children from the vagaries of their parents.

  189. #193 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 3, 2009 - 9:09 am

    Cliff:

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

    166 revocations in FL, for crimes “involving” a firearm (Which does not indicate actual use–it could mean trespass, improper display, expiration of license, etc) out of 1.4 million permit holders. That’s .01%, or 1:10,000. Over 22 years.

    Shall we now discuss why you should not be allowed to own a car, since 25% of drivers will cause a life-threatening accident?

  190. #194 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 9:10 am

    Cliff,

    Another typical argument from the pro-ignorance crowd:

    I already believe blood is running in the streets. How many people will die TODAY in America from gun fire? How many injured?

    Less then 10% of the violent crime in America is firearm related

    After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.

    The violent crimes included are rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and homicide.

    Shouldn’t we focus on violent crime in general, a reduction in the total crime rate would reduce all crimes while focusing on firearms can only reduce that 10%?

    Second, you also don’t address how many murders, how many injuries have been prevented today because someone used a firearm defensively. How many crimes were stopped by the presence of a firearm, by the display of a firearm, by the willingness to use a firearm to stop a crime?

    When do we get to find out how often a responsible gun-packing gun owner like yourself pulls his piece?

    We presented that information many times and all you did was call Mr. Korwin a liar for telling you how many times.

  191. #195 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 9:13 am

    Shall we now discuss why you should not be allowed to own a car, since 25% of drivers will cause a life-threatening accident?

    How ironic to hear this statement from gun supporters! No, people don’t call for eliminating cars. Cars are designed to provide transportation. But because they can be dangerous, we do require that cars and their users be registered, insured and that users be tested before using them.

    But we don’t do that for guns. We require little other than a background check, which is far short from registration. No testing is required. And, guns are designed to shoot, and thus require careful control, because of their dangerous nature.

  192. #196 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 9:18 am

    Cliff

    You have refuted no argument. Instead, you have refuted the arguer, ad hominem (I learned this in Intro to Philosophy in my freshman year). Calling people names or even pointing out ‘cliche’ is not refuting the argument. Try again.

    You maintain guns kill people. Refute the argument that baseball bats are used to kill people and that the primary purpose of a baseball bat does not justify them remaining illegal thus they should be outlawed. How many people have died or suffered horrendous injury because a simple game requires a tool remain legal?

    Evil people will commit evil acts. We saw this with an innocuous fertilizer. And we saw nearly 3000 people killed on one day and not a single firearm was used in the comission of that crime. Hey, maybe we should outlaw Islam because Islam kills?

    I point you to a guy named Keck and his study (and there are far more studies along this same line). Guns are used far more often in the prevention and intervention of crime than used in the commission of crimes. And other studies have proven that most victims of gun violence are infact criminals and the perpetrators were criminals before the act.

    It is not a problem of guns, it is a problem of crime. Look at those Criminals and their backgrounds. Dysfunctional families, drugs, low standard of living. It is a problem of society. Taking firearms away will do nothing to make criminals into law abiding citizens.

    The position that because an item is used to commit evil or evil follows it around should therefore be outlawed is absurd at its base. That line of reasoning can justify the outlawing of syringes. Moreover, it ascribes to objects human qualities which they do not have. We outlawed Drugs because of this reasoning and the problem hasn’t gone away. Look up Prohibition which led to the rise of Organized Crime in America.

    Really, from your perspective, the easiest way to prevent murder is to outlaw the act… Oops, we already have.

    Outlawing firearms do nothing to prevent crime. Statistics in European nations, Australia and other nations that had legal possession before restriction back this up. Outlawing firearms does one thing, disarm the law-abiding Citizenry. It does nothing else. It does not hamper criminals as they get their weapons through the blackmarket. Moreover, a disarmed populace embolden the criminal, he can do his trade without fear that a victim will pull a handgun on him and use him for a Mozambique Drill.

  193. #197 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 9:21 am

    use them illegally.

  194. #198 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 9:28 am

    From The LawDog files who says it better then I’ve ever seen it said

    I see that the gun grabbers have resurrected the old “We license cars, so why can’t we license guns?” meme.

    I tell you what — every time you hear a gun grabber snivel about licensing guns like cars, call him a liar to his face.

    I would absolutely love to license guns just like we do cars and drivers — for the same reason that every gun grabber who suggests it is lying through his or her snaggle teeth.

    Think about it.

    We give a drivers license to every seventeen-year-old high school student who can pass a lowest-common-denominator Drivers Ed course. A course that can be successfully passed by a lobotomized chimpanzee.

    In a large percentage of cases, we give drivers licenses to 16 year-old kids who state that they have a particular hardship.

    Tell me, Mr or Ms. Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You’ll give a gun license to every 17 year-old who wants one — just like a drivers license.

    You’re a liar.

    Any person who possesses a drivers license can drive on any public road on any state in the Union. They can drive on school grounds, they can drive on college campuses, and they can drive to any courthouse in the Union.

    Tell me, Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You’ll let anyone with a gun license carry a gun anywhere they want to, in every State in the Union — just like a drivers license.

    You’re a liar.

    Drivers licenses issued by one State must be honoured by all other States. Anyone with a Texas Drivers License can drive any car he (or she) wants to, anywhere in New York City that he can fit. And the New York authorities don’t have a thing to say about the matter.

    Tell me, Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You’ll let any 17 year-old cowboy from Bugscuffle, West Texas carry his gun anywhere he wants to in New York and tell the New York authorities they can’t do anything about it — just like a drivers license.

    You’re a liar.

    If you get caught driving a car without your drivers license, you get a $90 traffic ticket that comes off your record in three years.

    Tell me that you want to license guns just like cars. Tell me that if that Texas cowpoke is visiting Chicago, and gets caught carrying his gun without his license, he gets a traffic citation — just like a drivers license.

    You’re a liar.

    No one must undergo a background check to get a license, any felon can get a drivers license, no mental checks are required for a drivers license.

    Tell me again that you want to license guns just like cars. You’ll let everyone — 17 to 70, felons, no mental checks, pay your money, take your test, here’s your gun license — just like a drivers license.

    You’re a liar.

    If I’m on private property, I don’t even need a driver license to drive any car I want to, the only limit to the number of cars I can possess is the size of my bank account, I can buy as many cars at once as my wallet can stand, and I can buy a car off a street corner in Compton today, another from a back-yard in New York tomorrow, I can import cars as many as a I want, from any country that I want, and I can sell or trade any or all of them to anyone I want — and the Federal Government doesn’t have word one to say about the matter.

    I build any car I want to — with no Federal permission; I can modify, cut-down, trick-out, customize or skeletonize any car I want to without so much as a “Yes”, “No”, “Boo”, “Kiss my arse” or “By your leave” from the Federal Government.

    Tell me, Mr or Ms. Gun Control, that you really want to treat guns just like cars. Tell me that your “gun license” that is “just like we license cars” will let us treat guns just exactly like we treat cars.

    You are a damned liar.

    LawDog

  195. #199 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 9:28 am

    Cliff

    Gun ownership is a Constitutional if not a Natural Right, driving is not (though the Right of Travel is a Natural Right. The Founding Fathers had an ideal, it is called Liberty you should really read Mills, Locke, Hume as well as correspondance between the Founders as well as the Federalist Papers. You should also look up the Militia Acts of 1792, every free and able-bodied Male was required to own a gun!

    Background check is a criminal record check. They look at Felonies but also history of violent behavior such as Domestic Abuse. My fingerprints are on record as well as the serial number, make and model of the guns I own. I think my Sig’s ballistic signature is also on record as I remember the store saying it used to be a LEO’s backup pistol.

    You cannot legally buy a handgun or assault rifle unless you are old enough to drink which is well above the legal driving age.

  196. #200 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 9:38 am

    How ironic to hear this statement from gun supporters! No, people don’t call for eliminating cars. Cars are designed to provide transportation. But because they can be dangerous, we do require that cars and their users be registered, insured and that users be tested before using them.

    But we don’t do that for guns. We require little other than a background check, which is far short from registration. No testing is required. And, guns are designed to shoot, and thus require careful control, because of their dangerous nature.

    You need to look a little deeper. If you’re going to draw the license guns like cars comparison, you need to go all the way.

    We do not require cars, nor their drivers, to be registered or licensed EXCEPT for use on public streets. One of my hobbies is autocross. At the events I attend, a significant number of the cars are not licensed for the street. They are not titled (which is really only a preliminary to registration). Many of the drivers are folk who do not possess valid drivers licenses, nor are they required to. Legally there is no such requirement. The sponsoring body has its own rules, but they carry no weight of law behind them. But there’s more. It was perfectly legal for these unlicensed cars, to be driven by unlicensed drivers, to transport (i.e. carry) their cars to the event. Now, given that cars are, in general, somewhat heavier than guns, this “carrying” usually involved a trailer, which trailer did have to be licensed for operation on the streets. However, there was nothing legally stopping a particularly strong individual from picking up one of the lighter vehicles in the cart classes and carrying it to the event. I suppose that would only be physically doable for someone whose car is stored (whether at home or elsewhere) close to the event.

    So the first point of difference between what people ask for when it comes to licenses and registration is that they want the license and registration to be for simple ownership, not for actual use (in the case of cars, driving, in the case of guns, shooting) on the public streets.

    Oh, BTW, generally in cases of bona fide emergencies, one can generally ignore the “licensed for the public streets” provision. If someone was having a serious medical emergency and had to be gotten to the hospital quickly, even more quickly than the response time for 911, nobody would even bat an eye at an unlicensed driver (provided that no licensed driver was available) using an unlicensed car (ditto) to take them to the hospital. The extension of that principle to someone simply “transporting” a firearm (which, in a true parallel with cars would not require a license–oh, and it need not be unloaded any more than one of those race cars has to have the fuel tanks drained).

    On the flip side, once I have my car licensed in my home state I can drive it on the public streets in any state in the Union. Furthermore, my license allows me to drive just about any car (we’ll leave aside the question of larger trucks and busses–the transportation equivalent of long range artillery) I wish, again in any State. There are no limits on the power of car I can drive, whether Suzuki Sidekick or Dodge Viper. I can have small, fast, and nimble, or big and heavy. All of that from a license with “tests” scored so that just about any idiot can get one and just about every idiot eventually does.

    Of course now you’re going to scream that the comparison doesn’t work–that guns and cars are different. But, you see, that’s my point. Of course guns and cars are different. That’s why the “license guns like cars” line fails right. from. the. start.

  197. #201 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 9:46 am

    LawDog

    You are correct. Arguing that guns should be as controlled as cars and DLs is a strawman argument. If gun-grabbers really want to treat guns like cars, they’d argue for gun education classes in schools with the intent of obtaining a owner’s license at age 16-17 that’d allow them to buy handguns, shotguns and assault rifles from dealers. The class would have range days where the students are taking to a gunrange where they fire handguns, shotguns, lever-action, bolt-action and semi-auto rifles. There’d be no restriction on what type they could legally own, we’d even go so far as that passing the test would allow them to carry onto school grounds as students can drive their own cars (and no public place or school could prevent the carrying of weapons unless they also prevent people parking their cars on the grounds).

    It is a strawman argument.

  198. #202 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 9:55 am

    Do you guys have any intellectual substance?

    You cant just equate licensing of cars and guns beyond the thing being licensed. How funcking stupid is that?

    Cars and guns serve very different purposes.

  199. #203 by Merllin on April 3, 2009 - 10:01 am

    Here’s a question for you?

    What is an “assault” weapon… Assault is a verb, not a noun. It is an action, not an object.

    If I paint my golf clubs black, or camouflage, or “scary”.. can I call them Assault Golf Clubs?… Or my computer keyboard, if I make all the keys black and green.. is it an Assault Keyboard?….

    Its all fear mongering and propaganda. A gun is a gun is a gun, handgun or rifle. It makes no difference. Does one “need” a car that can go over the speed limit?… By thinking you know what is best for society, you are defeating your own argument Cliff. Your blog has created just as big of an argument as the shirt did, and so what fear mongering agenda are you trying to push?

    If Cliff is really for “not scaring people”, then maybe he would concentrate on the actions of people, rather then using the inanimate objects that he thinks so seemingly defines them.

    • #204 by Becky on April 3, 2009 - 10:49 am

      Merlin,

      What is an “assault” weapon… Assault is a verb, not a noun. It is an action, not an object.

      Ok, it looks like I have to play the role of grammar teacher here. Assault is indeed a noun, as well as a verb. Check the dictionary of your choice. In the case of assault weapon, it is a noun used as an adjective. Your whole comment just illustrates how ridiculous the pro-gun arguments can become. I suggest you stick with arguments you actually know something about.

      as-sault

      –noun
      1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
      2. Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.
      3. Military. the stage of close combat in an attack.
      4. rape 1 .

  200. #205 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 3, 2009 - 10:08 am

    Cliff: Classic case of moving the goalposts.

    You asked “how soon” it would be before someone with a CCW gunned you down. Government statistics say, “almost 0 chance.”

    I’m going to call that one resolved. If you still live in fear of that non-issue, I can recommend a good clinical psychologist.

    The debate over the meaning of “militia.” Resolved by US law and the Courts. Any other interpretation is invalid per our legal system.

    With those two resolved, you’re concerned about the shirt “endorsing” violence. Do you want to try to make the case? It shows a picture of an inanimate object. There is nothing threatening in the terms or grammar used. Please show the connection you make for your argument, other than “guns can kill.” Yes, we’ve established that. So can ball bats, for which there is no practical need–it’s a recreational device only. So can alcohol, which serves no practical use.

    Really, if your concern is potential violence, I have a much better claim to my guns than you do to your “recreational” ones. Mine are training tools. I do need them. If all you do is poke holes in paper, a BB gun, laser tag or slingshot will serve as well. What right do you have to possess a weapon?

    You have failed, btw, to make a case for owning a car. Do you engage in legitimate, licensed business that requires spontaneous travel or the transport of large amounts of goods? Or is it merely a convenience to avoid development and/or use of an environmentally friendly mass transit system? Given your position on guns, you can’t expect me to accept a selfish, “But MY car doesn’t hurt anyone!” argument. IT COULD. Statistically, it’s VERY LIKELY it will, if it hasn’t already.

  201. #206 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 10:09 am

    Cliff

    You argued to license guns like vehicles, so we took it to the logical conclusion. If we treat guns like cars, a 16 year old upon completion of the public school class and obtaining an owner’s license could legally carry their guns onto school campus which they can do with Cars. Or if they don’t wanna take that class they go to the department of safety and take a Gun test and they get a Learner’s Permit, a few months later they can take their test and get a Driver’s License.

    Buying a Car is as easier than buying a handgun. Buying a car is easier than buying a Class III Firearm. Getting that car registered is easier than obtaining an FFL or obtaining a Handgun Carry Permit. Obtaining a Driver’s License is as easy as obtaining a Handgun Carry Permit.

    In order to get my Handgun carry permit I had 8 hours of course work and then a shoot test involving 48 rounds shot at 3 yards, 7 yard, 15 yards and back to 3 yards, we had to get 70 percent of rounds in the 7 ring. The Instructor told us, if we do something unsafe, he would not give us a passing grade and thus could not apply for a permit. Then I had to get fingerprinted and pay 100 dollars to the state. All told, gun, carry class and fee was over 800 dollars. This is more than required to get your Driver’s License.

    I’d rather go back to get a Driver’s License then try to obtain the free-excercise of a Constitutional Right.

  202. #207 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 3, 2009 - 10:13 am

    Author: Cliff
    Comment:
    Do you guys have any intellectual substance?

    Yes. Do you need some? You have still failed to respond to anything other than to move goalposts, invoke misinterpretation, call childish names, attempt argument from authority, false analogy, straw man, evasion of the question, diversion, ad hominem, quote soundbites from sources that are unqualified and debunked…

    Do you REALLY expect us to believe you know more about philosophy than how to spell it?

  203. #208 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 10:14 am

    Egil, so you mean like 18 yr.males must do in Germany and Switzerland upon compulsory military service?

    If you are a objector of conscience you still have to serve, at a hospital, or old folks home. 21 months in Germany if you object, up from 15 months if you choose the military service and training.

    In Germany, if you can show cause, (I carry money, I have been threatened, and so on) you can concealed carry. Here we do not have that requirement because the 2nd amendment prohibits such sanction.

    Given the German history with firearms abuse, their historical context is just a bit different. They have had a few problems with guns and the people who own, especially under what used to be called their “laws”.

    As far as I know in Switzerland, which has far less trouble with guns and violence than we do, people with compulsory training leave it, and bring their fully automatic assault rifle home with them. All the ammo they desire as well.

    Of course if you are nuts or a criminal you have to get your guns the same way criminals get them here. Illegally.

  204. #209 by Owen N on April 3, 2009 - 10:20 am

    Cliff,

    I am still waiting for a reasoned response to the points I postulated.

    Lacking such, I must conclude that you have conceded the argument.

    -Owen

  205. #210 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 10:25 am

    Moribund

    Here is my opinion:

    The Militia is the entire body of free and able-bodied people capable of bearing arms in the defense of their State and the United States. I think Gun Ownership is infact a duty and responsibility incumbent upon the individual as a member of the Militia and should be taught as such in Public Schools with training in proper marksmanship, safety and maintenance.

  206. #211 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 10:26 am

    Can’t you see? Cliff is a wanna be Fascist.

  207. #212 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 10:31 am

    No complaints from me, with the caveat that parents could opt their children out if desired, or adults as well, depending on their conscience.

    We have the right to follow our own paths in America.

    The provision for those who wish to serve and learn shall not be infringed.

  208. #213 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 10:38 am

    Moribund

    FDR started the Democrat Party down the path of Fascism. The first gun-control law was enacted under his administration.

  209. #214 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 10:50 am

    Egil,

    Just a clarification, I’m not Lawdog. I just posted his superb rebuttal of the gun/car argument.

    Isn’t amazing how fast Cliff can drop an argument when it doesn’t turn out in his favor…then try to deny that he set up that comparison?

    But because they can be dangerous, we do require that cars and their users be registered, insured and that users be tested before using them.

    But we don’t do that for guns. We require little other than a background check, which is far short from registration. No testing is required. And, guns are designed to shoot, and thus require careful control, because of their dangerous nature.

    And for his intellectual rebuttal of the argument he set up?

    You cant just equate licensing of cars and guns beyond the thing being licensed. How funcking stupid is that?

    No explanation of why we can’t do it…guess we are supposed to relay on his vast knowledge obtained in getting that IR and philosophy degree, eh?

    No logical statements, no ethical or moral reasoning ….nope, just how dare we refute his argument.

  210. #215 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 10:53 am

    Becky,

    Nice to have you back….care to address my response?

    Since there is a little volume between your post and now, I’ll repost my comment.

    Becky,

    We do think about the practical issues involved, it is just that the practical issues are being abused in this case.

    The shirt was worn previously by the child…no issues were raised. The parents weren’t notified that their child was subject to discipline and yes being forced to turn a shirt inside out is discipline. Very mild but still discipline.

    Don’t you want to know when or if your child was being sent to the office, being forced to stand out due to an issue? Isn’t that a practical matter?

    Second, it really is a bogus argument. Teachers have problems with classroom management that are real issues. Cheating, theft, total lack of respect, foul language, uninvolved kids and parents.

    This t-shirt didn’t create any problems other then in the minds of a teacher or administrator. The class wasn’t disrupted by it, it wasn’t disrupted when the shirt was worn before. It doesn’t promote violence, it doesn’t promote a “culture of violence” unlike some music and or groups.

    So, what is the real practical problem with a child wearing a shirt that ask people to stick up for their rights?

    Maybe I answered my own question. Maybe the kids are being indoctrinated, forced to conform to standards that are antithetical to our constitutional rights?

  211. #216 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 10:53 am

    Agreed. Along with his Supreme Court packing scheme, he makes Bush look like a simple piker. Attempts at packing the Supreme Court, seemingly always backfires on the Fascists.

    My Sicilian granny absolutely detested the man. Figured him like any dictator of her times.

  212. #217 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 3, 2009 - 10:54 am

    Becky:

    So, using your grammar, an “assault weapon” is “a weapon used to commit assault.”

    That’s rather vague, isn’t it? I can show you case law of a beating with a toilet plunger.

    So what exactly do you mean?

  213. #218 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 11:07 am

    Do you guys have any intellectual substance?

    You cant just equate licensing of cars and guns beyond the thing being licensed. How funcking stupid is that?

    Cars and guns serve very different purposes.

    Exactly. That was the whole point. The whole “license guns like cars” argument is pure red herring. So why did you make it in the first place?

  214. #219 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 11:08 am

    I think this exchange reflects the abuse of shameless semantics and bad syllogisms (corrupt logic) all of which demonstrates how weak the argument for letting pretty much anyone arm themselves to the teeth.

    This is a public health issue because of the hundred thousand preventable injuries and deaths each year in America because of guns.

    If you are willing to put your personal fears above the public good, then just say it.

  215. #220 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 11:10 am

    I expect the definition of assault weapon to change.

    The Gun Grabbers have an irrational fear akin to Conservative Christians’ irrational fear of Homosexuality.

    The gun-grabbers were screaming up and down about Glocks claiming they were invisible to airport metal detectors because they thought Glocks were plastic.

    I’d love to hear their screams if Metal Storm weapon technology ever reaches the private market.

  216. #221 by Becky on April 3, 2009 - 11:10 am

    MZW,

    I’m not defining any type of weapon, I’m just correcting Merlin’s incorrect argument.

    BobS,

    I’m only back momentarily. My argument is the same as to the t-shirt. Kids are difficult to control in a classroom. The school has a right to prohibit anything that disrupts the ability to teach and learn. You can argue all you want about whether or not that t-shirt promotes violence, but I think we can all agree, it definitely can provoke a reaction. Give the school a break on this one. If the dad likes his kid to wear that shirt, let him do it outside of school.

    I wonder how the kid’s mom feels about it. Notice a lack of female voice in this thread except for the guys speaking on behalf of their helpless wives?

  217. #222 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 11:11 am

    Nonsense.

    Law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms(non specific) under the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Upheld by review of the Supreme Court.

    All the rest of your arguments are simple wishful thinking.

  218. #223 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 11:16 am

    “I wonder how the kid’s mom feels about it. Notice a lack of female voice in this thread except for the guys speaking on behalf of their helpless wives”?

    So not only are you wrong Becky, but an assumptive bigot as well.

    Thanks for that. Perhaps you should carry around a fire extinguisher as well to prevent self immolation.

  219. #224 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 11:27 am

    Cliff,

    Your words are coming back to haunt you

    This is a public health issue because of the hundred thousand preventable injuries and deaths each year in America because of guns.

    United States – The death toll on our highways makes driving the number one cause of death and injury for young people ages 5 to 27. Highway crashes cause 94 percent of all transportation fatalities and 99 percent of all transportation injuries, yet traffic safety programs receive only one percent of the funding of the U.S. DOT budget. The staggering loss of life and the incidence of life-threatening injuries occurring each year is best described as a public health crisis. According to a WHO report, “The Injury Pyramid,” for every motor vehicle injury resulting in death in the US, 13 people sustain injuries severe enough to require hospitalization.

    In the US DOT publication “The Economic Costs Of Motor Vehicle Crashes,” NHTSA investigator Lawrence J. Blincoe reports that in 1994, motor vehicle crashes accounted for 40,676 fatalites, and 4,100,000 injuries (of which 533,000 or 13% were serious). The total lifetime cost to the US economy for automobile accidents that occured in 1994 was $150.5 billion. The 1996 NHTSA report “1996 Traffic Safety Facts” (pdf) came up with similar though somewhat improved statistics: 41,907 fatalities and 3,511,000 injuries, 456,430 of them serious. The 1997 NHTSA report “Traffic Safety Facts 1997″ reports 41,967 fatalities and 3,399,000 injuries, 441,870 of them serious. The 1998 NHTSA report “Traffic Safety Facts 1998 Annual Report” reports 41,471 fatalities and 3,192,000 injuries, 414,960 of them serious.

    This is a public health issue because of the hundred thousand preventable injuries and deaths each year in America because of guns.

    More deaths due to traffic accidents then firearms, more injuries then firearms….and yet we can’t ban cars because they have a purpose other then “killing” people, right?

    Firearms, as you have repeatedly stated have a sporting purpose in which you engage. So by your own logic, since firearms and in particular handguns, have another purpose, we shouldn’t ban them.

    As far as the licensing, I think Mr. Lawdog addressed that adequately.

    If you are willing to put your personal fears above the public good, then just say it.

    Cliff Says:
    February 16th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    What about my right? Don’t I have the right to be able to enjoy my National Parks GUN FREE?…

    The benefit to me is that my stress level is lower if I believe there aren’t a bunch of loaded weapons around.

    Isn’t that your fear talking? Since evidence has been presented showing the law abiding nature of those who hold concealed carry license, it can’t be anything else but fear.

    You don’t have a right to put your stress levels above our rights or public good.

  220. #225 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 11:30 am

    Despite any “grammatical” arguments, it would appear that “assault weapon” means simply a semi-automatic (meaning one pull of the trigger leads to one round discharged) rifle firing a cartridge of moderate power (near the low end for center fire rifle cartridges) that has cosmetic features that make hoplophobes we themselves.

    Moderate power you ask?

    Item Energy ft-lbs
    AR15 (M16/M4 lookalike) 1320
    Man running 1325
    AK47 lookalike 1500
    .220 Swift 1750
    .30-30 hunting round 1900
    .308 Winchester 2650
    12 ga shotgun (slug) 2700
    .30-06 Springfield 2900
    Toyota Prius at 30 MPH 83174

    You actually have to look pretty hard to find a centerfire rifle cartridge less powerful than the so called “assault weapons” rounds.

  221. #226 by cav on April 3, 2009 - 11:32 am

    OK, Cliff, when you finally decide to turn over the keys, I’ll be there.

  222. #227 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 3, 2009 - 11:33 am

    Author: Cliff
    Comment:
    I think this exchange reflects the abuse of shameless semantics and bad syllogisms (corrupt logic)
    ~~~~~

    But enough about your debating skills, Cliff.

    ~~~~~
    If you are willing to put your personal fears above the public good, then just say it.

    ~~~~~~

    But you’re asking US to do exactly that. YOU are the one who mentioned being afraid of people carrying weapons to defend themselves…weapons, which, I showed you with government figures is a non-issue.

    Need the number for that psychologist, Cliff?

    You have still FAILED to provide ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL other than “Cliff shits his pants at the thought of guns, though claims to have a gun himself, and thereby is entitled to dictate policy to everyone else.”

    Ask yourself this simple question:

    “When my child goes outside, I am most afraid of

    A: Them being hit by a car, or

    2) Some deranged lunatic with a concealed weapon shooting them.”

    You’ve also failed to present any evidence that stopping CCW will reduce crime, that removing “assault weapons” will reduce crime (Hint: the AW Ban had NO EFFECT AT ALL on crime, per the Department of Justice. CCW rates are increasing, crime is decreasing).

    Fail, fail, fail.

    I question whether you have a degree in anything. You’re a frightened little man stomping feet and whining because he can’t have his way.

    Incidentally, my daughter chose this shirt: http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh119/mzmadmike/Shirts/IMG_0917.jpg Which is related to this comic strip http://www.SchlockMercenary.com which is written and sketched by an Orem based Mormon.

    She wears it often and has no trouble at school. They’re also aware that she shoots, fights sword and shield and longbow at re-enactments, and has the occasional movie or modeling gig. They’re supportive of it.

    I guess it depends on whether the school administrators are rational human beings or paranoids in need of therapy.

    And Becky, I can reply because I work at home–successful, internationally published writer. My “helpless wife” is on active duty. Combat photographer, PA, Personnel and Exec to the post commander at an urban combat training site. Whoops, did that just bust a stereotype? How exactly should a “woman’s” voice differ, in a rational debate?

    • #228 by Becky on April 3, 2009 - 11:38 am

      MZW,

      Is your wife unable to use a computer? The silence from women, helpless or otherwise, on this thread is deafening.

  223. #229 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 11:40 am

    Becky,

    Come on, you really are reaching, aren’t you?

    Kids are difficult to control in a classroom. The school has a right to prohibit anything that disrupts the ability to teach and learn

    Anything? So, if someone has an unusual natural eye color that has kids staring, the kid with the unusual eyes can be prohibited?

    You can argue all you want about whether or not that t-shirt promotes violence, but I think we can all agree, it definitely can provoke a reaction

    Now you go from disrupting the ability to teach and learn to talking about provoking a reaction. Of course, provoking a reaction on our Constitutionally protect rights can’t be a good thing for the school, could it?

    How about someone’s unusual opinion or stance on an issue…like “gay rights” or “amnesty for illegal aliens”. T-shirts promoting have been protected by free speech, as well as they should be.

    And here is another point…the shirt did not cause any disruption. NOT ONE BIT. The administration pulled the kid out of class for no reason other then the shirt itself. There was no discussion in class, there were no alarmed kids, there was NO disruption in class. And again, this was at least the 2nd time the shirt was worn to school. NO DISRUPTION.

    If the dad likes his kid to wear that shirt, let him do it outside of school.

    And when schools start punishing people for comments they make outside of school?

  224. #230 by Michael Z. Williamson on April 3, 2009 - 11:45 am

    Becky: She’s on duty, and government computers don’t access blogs.

    However, I dropped her an email. If she has time this weekend, in and around her classwork, physical training and family, I’m sure she’ll give it all the attention she feels it deserves.

    Sorry if that’s not the answer you wanted.

    Here’s one of her professional photos, though: http://www.mutc.in.ng.mil/Portals/1/20090305_A_S4000_016_web.jpg SGT Omar Cox demonstrates the proper technique for “Breaking and Raking” a window. (U.S. Army Photo by SPC Gail Sanders)

  225. #231 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 11:46 am

    Do you think he would give up his SUV Cav?

    That if he does still own drips oil as old as it is. Gets about 20 mpg. That is being generous.

    Produces masses of carbon, twice as much as an economy car.

    That he has used quite frivolously to take 2 mile trips to the liquor store. 600 mile round trips to recreate. That he uses daily.

    Assault rifles of small caliber (AR-15 .223) are by definition “maimers”. Though they can easily kill, they more often wound, leaving ones comrades to evacuate the wounded person. The dead do not need immediate evacuation.

    Given the misfortune of being shot, would you rather be shot by an AR-15 assault rifle, or .30-06 hunting rifle that is semi auto or bolt action(a brutal hammer)? Having hunted with the .30-06 for large game, a human shot with it can die from the shock of the trauma of the rounds energy even if struck in an appendage.

    It is a far more dangerous and lethal weapon, and looks like just an innocent old hunting rifle.

  226. #232 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 11:46 am

    think this exchange reflects the abuse of shameless semantics and bad syllogisms (corrupt logic) all of which demonstrates how weak the argument for letting pretty much anyone arm themselves to the teeth.

    This is a public health issue because of the hundred thousand preventable injuries and deaths each year in America because of guns.

    If you are willing to put your personal fears above the public good, then just say it.

    The “shameless semantics” is entirely on your side of the argument.

    The “hundred thousand preventable injuries and deaths each year in America because of guns” is a lie.
    Figures from 2007 (latest year for which complete statistics are available:
    Accidental firearms deaths: 1150
    Medical complications: 3000
    Choking: 3200
    Drowning: 3500
    Fire: 3700
    Poisoning: 9500
    Car Crash: 44,000
    Even intentional deaths from firearms (of which many would, even if one could magically make all guns disappear, would still occur even with a change in method)
    Do not come close to your numbers. And those numbers have been falling for at least 15 years.

    And the one putting personal fears above the public good is YOU.

  227. #233 by Jaktens Tid on April 3, 2009 - 11:49 am

    Shane, how can guns be a “replacement manhood”?

    Are women who use guns secretly desiring to be men? Perhaps you’ve got some projection issues, regarding your own physical insecurities.

  228. #234 by Becky on April 3, 2009 - 11:51 am

    Today’s shooting rampage.

  229. #235 by Owen N on April 3, 2009 - 11:59 am

    If only the people inside the building had been carrying weapons as per the 2nd amendment.

  230. #236 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 12:00 pm

    Today’s shooting rampage.

    And like the vast majority of mass shootings it happened guess where: in a “gun-free zone” (either because local laws make it next to or outright impossible for individuals to be armed or because guns are explicitly prohibited at the location).

    When was the last time you saw a “shooting rampage” at a gun range? All those guns, loaded, with people actually shooting them yet it’s safer than most high school sports.

    Why is that, do you suppose?

  231. #237 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 12:00 pm

    Becky,

    And how many people died today because someone drove drunk and killed someone?

    16,005 people were killed in the United States in alcohol-related* motor vehicle traffic crashes (BAC of .01 or higher).

    That averages out to be 43 people a day. Are you going to outlaw cars because someone broke the law? Outlaw alcohol because someone broke the law?
    We tried that and it didn’t work.

    PEOPLE BREAK THE LAW, that is no reason to remove a right, or property from everyone else because someone broke the law.

    We’ve graduated from grade school where the punishment was “because someone can’t stop talking, no one gets recess”.

  232. #238 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 12:26 pm

    Statistics tell a very different story than what the Hoplophobes say.

  233. #239 by cav on April 3, 2009 - 1:34 pm

    Mori, I was referring to the Blog Keys, I believe Cliff has been skooled!

  234. #240 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 1:41 pm

    Oooops. Another Shooting Spree. That’s 5 for 5 this week including the ones that you don’t know about.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/03/reports-4-shot-hostages-t_n_182889.html

    How many dead? Anyone know?

  235. #241 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 1:41 pm

    He is too wasted to give them up. Proactive approaches must be taken to keep him from further harming himself.

    The “distributor rotor” has to be removed while he is not looking. Then he can run his starter all day, the rig won’t run, then he, and the general public will be safe from his intoxicated rantings.

    We’ll tell him and give him back his essential parts when he sobers up.

  236. #242 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 1:42 pm

    Perhaps you guys can appreciate that this guy did not use a hammer or a car.

    Why don’t you tell us all about the type of gun and ammo he chose?

  237. #243 by cav on April 3, 2009 - 1:43 pm

    Ooops, is right. This is not good.

  238. #244 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 1:49 pm

    Makes you wonder, all lone nutters supposedly. All either mentally, or legally, not qualified to own weapons.

    Without a doubt it is the best argument for allowing the law abiding public to absolutely demand their 2nd amendment rights to lethal self defense without exception be upheld with weapons of their choosing.

    Cliff, do you advocate the Stalinist house to house search and confiscation in another violation of a constitutional right to solve this problem? What else are you proposing? It is the only method that will actually work. (laugh)

    I figure that just might get a little messy.

  239. #245 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 2:21 pm

    Oooops. Another Shooting Spree. That’s 5 for 5 this week including the ones that you don’t know about.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/03/reports-4-shot-hostages-t_n_182889.html

    How many dead? Anyone know?

    And another “gun free zone.” See how safe it was.

    Still waiting for someone to point out the last mass shooting at a gun range.

  240. #246 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 2:29 pm

    Seems he shot up the resident alien to citizen swearing in ceremony.

    Apparently he was frustrated by the legal process and decided to kill someone. If you have ever gone through the legal process you might wonder why it hasn’t happened sooner. Every time you pick up a piece of paper it is 300 bucks. Then there are all the shots, history tests, etc, swearing, on and on. Scrutiny. Takes years. Unless you win the lottery.

    He would have been better off going to the home depot and shooting up the illegal day laborers, except they aren’t there anymore, because the Home Depot closed down and there are no more houses to build.

    So much easier to hop the border, create an illegal identity, fake up some SS numbers, never pay taxes, and work for someone that hires illegal aliens than become a legal citizen. Maybe anyone that does it legally is crazy by definition.

  241. #247 by Bob S. on April 3, 2009 - 2:40 pm

    Cliff

    Perhaps you guys can appreciate that this guy did not use a hammer or a car.

    Yes, Cliff we realize that this person decided to break the law.

    We realize that he chose to misuse a tool protected by a fundamental right.

    We realize that it is a tragedy every time something like this happens.

    What you don’t realize is that with freedom comes risk. What you don’t realize that with rights comes responsibilities and no one could force this person to do the responsible thing.

    It appears you have even stopped advocating for “sensible gun control” (as if all the current laws weren’t sensible) and are advocating for a complete ban..again.

    The only way to stop something from happening is to completely ban something, right?

    How well did that work out for Prohibition? How well is it working out for the War on (Some) Drugs?

    The building was a firearm prohibited area…how well did that work out?

    As tragic as this and every other shooting is, it is not sufficient to require people to give up their right to keep and bear arms.

  242. #248 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 2:45 pm

    Still waiting for someone to point out the last mass shooting at a gun range.

    Clever….and Cold.

    Anger is an emotion with motivates SOME people to do sick things. Not unlike a suicide bomber. No EXACTLY like a suicide bomber.

    Willing to die to make a point get revenge whatever.

    Which gets me thinking…Why is it that these mass shootings tend to be kill between 6 and a dozen people.

    What would be the best weapon (and ammo) to use to maximize the impact of one’s vengeance? I mean the most blood, badly injured and dead.

    Assuming a well-trained 9 year old is packing and happens to be in the same room as the crazy guy, among say 50 people.

    Crazy guys opens with automatic fire. How long before the 9 year old (or the ninety-year-old) gets him.

    Is it better to spray the room with bullets or aim at each victim?

    Just curious.

  243. #249 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 2:50 pm

    Considering that Cliff has uttered death threats upon Glenn Beck and has threatened violence on more than one occasion, perhaps we should consider hoisting him upon him upon his own petard, so to speak, and petition that Cliff’s right to lethal self defense be revoked.

    He is clearly a nutter. Though hardly a “lone” in review of this blog.

    Or should we risk waiting for his to act upon his threats?

    Isn’t uttering death threats a felony? Let’s revoke Cliff’s 2nd amendment right. He deserves it, and it is more than clear he doesn’t want it!!

  244. #250 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 3:02 pm

    Link: 3.11.2009 11:20 a.m. : The news agencies increase the death toll to 10.

    11:51 a.m. : For the first time, it is reported that the presumed killer is a 17-year-old, former pupil at the Albertville Secondary School. The police maintain a low profile. “We still have to verify the facts,” says a police spokesman.

    So the news quickly moves throughout school system nationwide (in the US). Suddenly playground taunts between 9 year old boys takes on a new pall. One kid pretends he is Tim K. So a few other kids start bragging about how their Dads have guns and so in so is gonna bring it to school and shut up so in so and do some ‘stuff’.

    Bully kids comes to school the next day wearing the NRA shirt with lots’o guns (see top post)

    Should the principle…

    A. Make the kid change his shirt?

    B. Allow kids to pack in class so long as the parents teach their kids gun safety?

    C. Make the teachers start packing (if so what).

    D. Other

    C. Other

  245. #251 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 3:03 pm

    Snarky, the true sign of a Philosopher. I didn’t know there was a Snarky Logic 101.

  246. #252 by Julie Cochrane on April 3, 2009 - 3:11 pm

    *sigh*

    Yes, I’m a chick. Yes, I shoot. Yes, I think the Supreme Court made a good start in Heller. I was a gun rights activist for five years. I got tired of anti-gun people because they were all either closet pacifists or ignorant and unwilling to actually research the best arguments supporting both sides.

    Stephen Halbrook’s “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” is a good starting point for self-education. How many of the anti-gunners here will read it? I’d guess zero.

    That said, this is actually a first amendment issue. Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door despite the school being in loco parentis, schools cannot ban speech just because they disapprove of the content–the speech actually has to cause a disruption among the students, or be likely to.

    The assumption that the dad dressed the kid in the t-shirt is patronizing as shit. Kids aren’t property, they’re people. The kid had a shirt. The kid wore the shirt. Very likely the kid picked which of his shirts he wanted to wear that day out of the dresser or the laundry. Parents are generally too busy to personally dress a nine year old boy, and nine year old boys are famous for being…brash.

    It was the kid’s speech, it caused no noticeable disruption among the other students, it did not advocate anyone doing anything illegal, the administration hated it politically.

    The administration acted like the same brown shirts that seem to be running half the schools in the country, despite all the various lawsuits the schools are losing based on first amendment cases very similar to this one.

    Even if I didn’t like what the kid’s shirt said, I’d defend to the death his right to say it. Everybody likes the first amendment until their own ox is gored.

    • #253 by Becky on April 3, 2009 - 3:25 pm

      At last, another female. Even though we are not in agreement, I’m glad to at least hear another female voice in the discussion.

      Julie, schools can and do have dress codes for all kinds of types of dress. Kids who attend have no choice but to comply. Some schools even require uniforms. Show me where this has been found to be a violation of a child’s free speech.

      And parents are held accountable for their children’s behavior all the time, even legally. It’s not patronizing to assume a parent knows and approves of what the child is wearing to school. Kids might be people, but they are little people and they have parents to guide them to do appropriate things.

      I keep hearing that the shirt caused no disruption at the school. Can someone point me to the source of this information?

  247. #254 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 3:12 pm

    What are you doing Glenn? I am a very understanding (or your situation) man and I would hate to see you get in trouble.

    Some of the things you saying about me really are in the aggregate, beginning to cross the line. Really.

  248. #255 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 3:25 pm

    Clever….and Cold.

    And yet, strangely enough, or perhaps not so strangely, you have no answer.

    Anger is an emotion with motivates SOME people to do sick things. Not unlike a suicide bomber. No EXACTLY like a suicide bomber.

    Willing to die to make a point get revenge whatever.

    And yet you want to strip the rights from everyone else because of what some people do. Some people. Like the ones in Mumbai where guns for private citizens are essentially unavailable. Somehow, however, that didn’t stop them from getting them.

    And funny you should mention suicide bombers. Would you feel better if these people blew up a roomful of people rather than shooting? If you don’t have the materials in your own home to make enough explosives to do at least as much damage as one of these shootings, fifteen minutes at the local hardware store would fix that.

    If someone intends to take out a roomful, or building full, of people and is willing to die to do it, then you can’t stop them by any “gun control.” At least with a gunman there’s a chance the targets can defend themselves–that is, if they aren’t disarmed by people like you.

    Which gets me thinking…Why is it that these mass shootings tend to be kill between 6 and a dozen people.

    Fairly standard distribution. No great mystery. Higher victim numbers are simply rarer than lower. Less then about 4-6 and it’s not called a “mass shooting.” By the time you get up to a dozen then the events become so rare that even media hype cannot make them seem commonplace. Thus your “tend to be” is an artifact of the way the information is reported.

    What would be the best weapon (and ammo) to use to maximize the impact of one’s vengeance? I mean the most blood, badly injured and dead.

    Well, looking historically at mass murders, the most effective “weapons” have been gasoline (example, night club arson), box cutters (9/11), fertilizer and fuel oil (Oklahoma City), poison and brainwashing (Jim Jones), machetes (Rwanda) and so on. Firearms are fairly far down the list.

    When the victims are disarmed it doesn’t really matter much what the mass murderer uses.

    Assuming a well-trained 9 year old is packing and happens to be in the same room as the crazy guy, among say 50 people.

    Crazy guys opens with automatic fire. How long before the 9 year old (or the ninety-year-old) gets him.

    Where exactly did the crazy guy get an automatic weapon? You do know the difference between automatic (M-16 and actual AK47) and semi-automatic (AR15, Ruger 10/22, various “lookalikes” of military arms, and so forth) don’t you? While the media hypes “automatic weapons” what are actually used are semi-automatic weapons where a single bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger. Just like in granddaddy’s old hunting rifle.

    Which brings us back to when was the last mass shooting at a gun range?

    To a lesser extent we have the Colorado Springs church shooting. Two were killed. While any innocent death is tragic, it could have been another Columbine or Virginia Tech except for armed “volunteer securtiy” present who stopped the gunman.

    Recent studies have shown that the trend for these “mass shooters” is that they tend to commit suicide as soon as armed resistance shows up. So the sooner one gets someone armed, who is willing to resist them, the fewer innocents get killed and injured. Since the police cannot be everywhere, it lies with the militia, as it was originally conceived and as it is codified in the US code to provide that armed resistance.

    Is it better to spray the room with bullets or aim at each victim?

    Just curious.

    Anyone with military experience knows that aimed fire is far more effective than “sprayed” automatic fire. Use of automatic fire in a military context is for special cases more intended to “keep their heads down” than to actually inflict casualties.

    Incidentally, you might want to look at when the last time a legally purchases fully automatic weapon was used in a crime. The only case I have been able to find was not a civilian owned machine gun, but an issue weapon used by a LEO to kill his family.

  249. #256 by jmbrowning on April 3, 2009 - 3:26 pm

    Do you think that the kid would have had to turn his shirt inside out if it said:

    CHOICE

    ??

    Clearly – it would have”“advertise[d] any product or service not permitted to minors by law.”

    Unless, of course, 9 year olds can get legal abortions, no?

    It’s a 1A issue.

  250. #257 by jmbrowning on April 3, 2009 - 3:29 pm

    Julie, schools can and do have dress codes for all kinds of types of dress. Kids who attend have no choice but to comply. Some schools even require uniforms. Show me where this has been found to be a violation of a child’s free speech.

    Here you go….

    NAPA, CA – A California state judge has blocked a middle school from enforcing an overly strict dress code that got a student punished for wearing Winnie-the-Pooh socks. The court ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California against the Napa Valley Unified School District and Redwood Middle School.

    “Just in time for the Fourth of July, this decision reaffirms important free speech rights of California’s public school students,” said ACLU of Northern California staff attorney Julia Harumi Mass.

  251. #258 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 3:33 pm

    Cliff you said them and they lie in print, do you need reminding? Shall we dig ‘em up? Who can get in trouble for what you have left here on your own blog as a permanent record, as you are so fond of saying?

    Can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

    Anonymity has its benefits.

    Glen has nothing to do with it dude. This is coming from others. The plan is to reveal you and yours, you have bullied enough, so best just shut up.

  252. #259 by Becky on April 3, 2009 - 3:34 pm

    JMB,

    Without a doubt a shirt that said Choice would not be allowed. Thanks for the link. I note the judge’s ruling did not bar the school entirely from having a dress code.

    In yesterday’s decision, Judge Guadagni cited the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Morse v. Frederick as upholding the well-settled principle that student expression is protected as long as it does not “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.”

  253. #260 by Julie Cochrane on April 3, 2009 - 3:36 pm

    This, by the way, is why even though I understand the arguments in favor of them, the whole notion of government established, government run schools makes me uneasy. A faction of government doesn’t like a point of view. That faction of government takes it on itself to indoctrinate the youths in its point of view and to suppress the hated ideas.

    It’s dangerous to let governments–any portion or faction of them–do that. That’s the same reason we don’t let teachers read the Bible every morning to children and lead them in prayer before starting school and eating lunch.

    It’s odd to me that people who recognize the dangers of governments promoting one religion over another in schools–who acknowledge the power of government to manipulate the opinions and beliefs of impressionable children by what is taught or suppressed in schools–conveniently get amnesia when the government is using the schools to promote ideas they like and/or suppress ideas they don’t.

    Actually, it’s not odd. Hypocrisy is an essential flaw of human nature. It’s simply sad.

    The price of freedom is allowing other people to do things you don’t like.

  254. #261 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 3:39 pm

    JMB,

    Without a doubt a shirt that said Choice would not be allowed. Thanks for the link. I note the judge’s ruling did not bar the school entirely from having a dress code.

    In yesterday’s decision, Judge Guadagni cited the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Morse v. Frederick as upholding the well-settled principle that student expression is protected as long as it does not “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.”

    So are saying is that if the school administrators raise a stink (which is what happened here), then it’s okay because the school administrators raising a stink “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school”?

    How very Newspeak.

  255. #262 by Julie Cochrane on April 3, 2009 - 3:44 pm

    Again, having the government establish and run schools is just asking for this kind of mess. What a scam. The government taxes people to take away the money they would use to pay for private school tuition, economically coercing them to place their children in public school, and then pretends it’s doing parents and voters this big huge service by “providing” education—after government’s the one that took it away in the first place.

    Vouchers are a solution to impoverished parents being unable to afford tuition, but once again, the devil is in the details.

    The point is not whether the parents knew of the child’s speech. The point is that it was the *child’s* speech, not the parents’. As for asking people to prove there was no disruption or disturbance, nice try, but the burden of proof is on the people complaining about the speech. Besides which, the school would have shouted it from the rooftops if they’d had anything remotely like a disturbance to fig-leaf their bad behavior.

  256. #263 by Julie Cochrane on April 3, 2009 - 3:46 pm

    I have to take off now and go have a life (it’s Friday evening, what *are* you people doing online?), so I won’t be staying in the discussion, but someone commented on the absence of females. I came. I expounded. I left. Have a good weekend.

  257. #264 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 3:49 pm

    Tough being public figure, but apparently a lightning rod is what you want to be. No one wants sympathy, they are simply defending their constitutional rights from your apparent madness. That you leave under your own name as a permanent record.

  258. #265 by Karen Ahle on April 3, 2009 - 3:56 pm

    It seems to me that there are a couple of different issues here to unpack:
    1. Do children have First Amendment rights in public schools?
    2. Were those rights, if they exist, infringed by preventing the child from wearing clothing advocating firearm possession?

    As to (1), it has been fairly well established in case law that children do have first amendment rights in school, but that they can be restricted if that self-expression would substantially disrupt school operation or restrict the rights of others.

    As to (2), there have already been several court cases deciding in favor of students wearing clothing that the school administration considered disruptive. The earliest I could readily find is “Tinker v. des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist.” (1969), regarding students wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the wearing of armbands in this case was not tied to any disorderly conduct by the participants and thus that it was “closely akin to ‘pure speech,’” which is protected by the First Amendment. The record reflected that the students simply wore the arm bands to school in protest, but still attended classes without any interference with work and or discipline. The Court held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights” at the schoolhouse door. Thus, the Court found that the school could not deny the students’ form of expression and held that the students’ First Amendment rights were violated and reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court.

    An even more relevant case is that of “Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board” (2004). A 13-year-old student wore an NRA t-shirt advertising NRA Shooting Sports Camp, which featured three cartoon silhouettes holding and pointing firearms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down the portion of the dress code which prohibits “messages on clothing, jewelry, and personal belongings that relate to . . . weapons.” They ruled against it because it was too broad and was not necessary to prevent disruption at school.

    If the child was wearing a t-shirt that was actively disruptive or made a true threat against someone, rather than merely depicting firearms, the court would probably rule otherwise.

  259. #266 by Karen Ahle on April 3, 2009 - 3:58 pm

    I should probably add that I am no kind of lawyer nor do I play one on TV; I’m just a dumb engineer with a knack for Googling.

  260. #267 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 4:09 pm

    I’m surprised that Julie equates school policy with the government.

    School boards are elected democratically and hence the authority is derived from civilians with little or no accountability to state or local government so it is disingenuous to say their agenda is derived from ‘government’

    I think Julie lacks an adequate understanding of public school governance. Not to mention she also seems to have an antagonistic (us vs them) perspective on government.

    This is a democracy. Julie by virtue of her citizenship and right to vote IS the government as in by the people…which makes her protests hypocritical.

  261. #268 by Becky on April 3, 2009 - 4:11 pm

    Cold,

    I was just quoting the judge. It would be up to the administration to make their judgment in any given case, and then if the parents disagreed, they could take it to the appropriate forum.

  262. #269 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 4:12 pm

    A t-Shirt promoting choice is not the same as a t-shirt promoting guns.

    No child will be made to feel unsafe by a pro-choice t-shirt. You people are such hypocrites, it sno wonder the divorce rate and domestic violence among gun owners is so high.

  263. #270 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 4:27 pm

    Keep on posting dumb stuff, you are getting rattled huh? When Tommy’s little sister is as yet unborn in Mama’s womb, and the child understands what is to occur, this could easily develop angst in a child just seeing the T shirt with the advocating of the act on it.

    Same point you make about the gun T shirt.

    Would it be OK to wear a T shirt espousing abortion with the tools for the job on it? You know the dilation and curetage tools, the scrapers and such. After all both gun rights, and abortion rights are guaranteed under US law.

  264. #271 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 4:32 pm

    A t-Shirt promoting choice is not the same as a t-shirt promoting guns.

    No child will be made to feel unsafe by a pro-choice t-shirt. You people are such hypocrites, it sno wonder the divorce rate and domestic violence among gun owners is so high.

    Cite. Or are you just making up your data again.

    And here we have the fallacy of special pleading. YOU think abortion is okay, so a “choice” shirt is okay, but YOU don’t think gun ownership/carrying is okay, so you object to the shirt.

    Your posts are not about the subject, they are about you.

  265. #272 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 4:34 pm

    Would it be OK to wear a T shirt espousing abortion?

    NO, absolutely not. But it would be more likely worn by the child of a right-wing evangelist’s kid.

  266. #273 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 4:47 pm

    I think the whole problem here is the image of a gun. I think I’m gonna print up shirts with this Thomas Jefferson quote that I have left for Cliff on another post. If you’d like a shirt say “I”.


    God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
    The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
    wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
    they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
    it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
    And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not
    warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
    resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
    to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
    in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
    time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    It is its natural manure.”

  267. #274 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 5:20 pm

    Everybody vote! The gun grabbers are outnumbered by more than 20 to 1.

  268. #275 by Cliff on April 3, 2009 - 5:23 pm

    The Founding Fathers who authored the Second Amendment owned other human beings who were not included by that very Amendment. In fact they were talking about State militia, not individuals.

    At the time, there existed no gun that could spray 60 rounds in 15 seconds for the price of a old used buggy.

    To suggest that their intent was to subordinate public safety over the de-facto gun rights you have today would be a terrible distortion of reality.

    You guys lost the last 2 elections for good reason and if you don’t back off you will find your circle jerk has become a circular firing squad not unlike the one that is destroying the republican party as I write this.

  269. #276 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 5:27 pm

    Cliff wrote, for the permanent record;

    “No child will be made to feel unsafe by a pro-choice t-shirt”.

    Then this moments later to my question;

    Would it be OK to wear a T shirt espousing abortion?

    “NO, absolutely not. But it would be more likely worn by the child of a right-wing evangelist’s kid”.

    Rattled I say!!

  270. #277 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 5:34 pm

    1.6 million votes in an ad hoc poll in the largest distributed and circulated newspaper in the United States.

    You are quite wrong Cliff. If the founding fathers had machine guns they most certainly would have killed englishmen with them, and cherished the fact that they had them to keep them free of tyrants.

    They had seen the remarkable development of guns in accuracy, range, and speed of reload. Why the hell do you think American craftsmen continued to work on guns and evolve them without restriction?

    Simply inane this path you are on.

    As it was American weapons technology evolved to have such things, and

  271. #278 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 5:37 pm

    State militias? Absolutely untrue. The entire army of New Hampshire led by John Stark had no controls over it by Washington or any other person of governmental organization. It came and went as it pleased, and the Continentals were glad to have them.

    The man in charge of that free and utterly independent militia was Brigadeer general John Stark. He was never, and did refuse to be commisioned in the continental army. Washington knowing his need, took Stark’s skills, and his men, as they came. Learn some history.

  272. #279 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 5:40 pm

    The edit feature?

  273. #280 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 5:44 pm

    The Founding Fathers who authored the Second Amendment owned other human beings who were not included by that very Amendment. In fact they were talking about State militia, not individuals.

    You keep making that claim. Can you find any wrintings in from the founders that support that claim? I bet you can’t. The whole “militia interpretation” is a modern invention.

    At the time, there existed no gun that could spray 60 rounds in 15 seconds for the price of a old used buggy.

    Google “Grapeshot” “Puckle gun,” and “volley gun” for starters. Privately owned arms of the day included crew served weapons. The ability to put a lot of lead downrange in a short period of time was not unknown. Furthermore, further developments in firearms came quite fast. Pepperbox handguns, revolvers, etc., Nobody saw the need to amend the Constitution to clarify that they were not covered by the Constitution and nobody saw the need for that abomination of “interpreting” the Constitution to something other than its plain words.

    Oh, you are aware, are you not, that private individuals could and did own armed ships fully capable of laying waste to a city of the time?

    The “they only meant muskets and muzzleloading rifles” argument fails. These were highly intelligent and educated men of their day. If they had intended that narrow an interpretation they would have said so explicitly. They used the word “arms” because of its very generalness.

    And they used the word “people” rather than “states” because they meant “people” not “states.”

    Oh, you are aware also, are you not, that the Constitution explicitly forbids the States from raising “private armies” except under very specific situations authorized by the federal government. So why would an Amendment in a “bill of rights” be necessary to “protect” the right to do what the Federal government authorizes them to do?

    To suggest that their intent was to subordinate public safety over the de-facto gun rights you have today would be a terrible distortion of reality.

    Fallacy of begging the question. An armed citizenry is not “subordinating” public safety. It’s the cornerstone of it. If you’d read what they actually wrote, they were pretty clear that the militia was, at heart, the whole of the people. And in a free society it is the people who ensure their own safety.

    You guys lost the last 2 elections for good reason and if you don’t back off you will find your circle jerk has become a circular firing squad not unlike the one that is destroying the republican party as I write this.

  274. #281 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 5:46 pm

    Cliff

    You are categorically wrong on this, the Supreme Court has dismantled that argument in Heller. Read the Milita Acts of 1792:

    “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”

    The Militia constitutes the entire body of free-men. Not the men employed by the States or the Federal Government. The Phrase ‘Of the People’ means an individual right.

    This is a quote from District of Columbia v. Heller:

    t]he 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.”[17]

    A few quotes from the Framers and Founding Fathers:

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

    The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46

    - James Madison

    “[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

    - Thomas Paine

    “The great object is, that every man be armed.”

    - Patrick Henry

    “While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.”

    - Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

    “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent teh people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions.”

    - Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

    “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” —

    “… whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”

    - Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

    The Founding Fathers were a moral if not religious people. They were by and large, classic liberals meaning they trusted the people to make the right decisions. They uniformly knew that governments are dangerous to the goals of the people.

  275. #282 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 5:48 pm

    They were not talking about a state militia. This proves the idiocy of cliff.


    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.

    It says the PEOPLE, not the militia. The PEOPLE had just got done fighting a war with a tyranical state MILITIA, thus they wanted to ensure future generations had the same rights to defend themselves as the PEOPLE against the a government MILITIA. I think the quote from Thomas Jefferson proves exactly what they meant. Besides it is how it is written. When they say the PEOPLE that is what they mean. Where else in all our revered early documents do the founding fathers happen to screw up the wording, as you claim they did? I mean according to Cliff, they didn’t really mean what they wrote.

    Besides all that, Cliff, how do you expect us to take your argument seriously when you try to discredit the founding fathers by saying that they also owned people, so they weren’t right about everything? Then you say they meant what they wrote to be interpretted differently than how it actually reads. If you’ve already discredited the founding fathers, what’s the point in explaning what you believe they really meant? I mean, according to you they’re not credible right?

  276. #283 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 5:54 pm

    At least we all can see now clearly the dress that FASCISM and TYRANNY wears!

    “Live free or die, there are evils worse than death”. John Stark.

  277. #284 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 6:06 pm

    Egil, thanks for all that. It’s interesting to read what they defined as a militia.

    Also, the District of Columbia vs. Heller is the most relevent referance you could have used here, and I’m glad you brought it up.

    Cliff, do you understand what the supreme court said in that case? They had the ability to overturn the second amendment if they thought you were correct on the wording, but they didn’t. To walk your simple mind through it, the Supreme Court recently came to the conclusion that the second amendment did in fact gaurantee the right to bear arms, thus overturning what had technically been an unlawful law banning firearms is Washington DC.

    Cliff, do you really want to argue with the Supreme Court?

  278. #285 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 6:15 pm

    Yes, very good job Egil and CIADB.

    Jealously guard our liberties and rights. Give those that would take them, no quarter. Not even an inch.

    VERY intersting and concise. Cliff really has no simple idea what he is talking about.

    He does not want to argue with the Supreme Court, I imagine he would like to pack it with those that have no historiacal context knowledge, or understanding that these basic rights guaranteed in our Constitution take precedence over peoples fears.

    He then offers himself, and others like him, as the usurper of our liberties and rights.

  279. #286 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 6:15 pm

    More quotes on RKBA, some from foreign nationals:

    A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer’s hand. – Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC – 65AD.

    Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. – Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

    OMG! Ghandi hated the fact that the British took Indian Arms! Ghandi can’t be wrong can he?

    Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out … People who object to weapons aren’t abolishing violence, they’re begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically right. Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. – L. Neil Smith (from The Probability Broach)

    This guy is one hundred percent right. God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal. Any form of Democracy, indeed a Republic, thrives when the people are truly equal.

    The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. – Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese Shogun, August 29, 1558

    A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercise I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks. – Thomas Jefferson

    You know, they guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the third POTUS.

    Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins. – Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, whose testimony convicted John Gotti

    A criminal joking about Gun Control! He proves what we ‘gun nutters’ are saying all along, you’ll be doing the criminal a favor.

    An armed society is a polite society. – Robert A. Heinlein

    Probably the best science fiction author chuckles at the thought.

    This country was founded by religious nuts with guns. – P.J. O’Rourke

    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. – Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

    Criminals obey “gun control” laws in the same manner politicians follow their oaths of office. – Anonymous

    And guns can be used to enact term limits, of course politicians wanna get rid of guns.

    I can go on. Suffice to say that if Ghandi hated it, it must be a bad idea.

  280. #287 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 6:19 pm

    As repetitive as all this has become, I will have to say these last few posts by you 2 have been the most revealing and consice destruction of the gun grabbing cults delusions to date.

    Thank you, I can now enjoy my weekend.

  281. #288 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 6:20 pm

    I just want to say that Cliff has inspired me to go out and buy my first hand gun!

    That’s right Cliff, I don’t even own a gun, and I still defend the rights of those who do, thanks to you I’ve been reminded that I should take advantage of my rights, and to think I’ve been living all this time without exericising my most precious right.

    Thank you Cliff! I will take my rights as an American citizen for granted no longer.

    I’m thinking of getting a 9mm, any suggestions, or should I go with something else?

  282. #289 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 6:26 pm

    .40 ends the threat pretty well. 10mm.

  283. #290 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 6:29 pm

    We should recruit Cliff, he is doing the work for us. Never know, he may be just using reverse psychology to further the creation of a legally fully armed populace.

  284. #291 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 6:33 pm

    .40 sounds like fun then.

  285. #292 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 6:38 pm

    Replaced the .357 magnum service revolver, I believe, and was rated as the weapon most capable, and practical for making a human instantly cease and desist from their nefarious “doings”.

    It is what most cops are carrying.

  286. #293 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 6:41 pm

    However, more people are defended and stopped, killed outright, by a simple .22 calber pistol, more than any other gun.

    Cheap, and cheap to shoot. Hardcores call it only a back up, but a very accurate and manageable weapon.

  287. #294 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 6:49 pm

    Most capable, and practical for making a human cease and desist from their nefarious “doings” huh? lol… That’s the one then.

    Cliff, I know you’ll be reading this, notice that we are law abiding citizens here, the gun I buy will never be used on another human being unless my own life, or freedoms are being threatened. So hopefully, that means I’ll never have to use it outside of the range. Of course, if you have your way and a government official knocks on my door to take away my right to bear, it’s nice to know the gun he’s coming for has the ability to make him cease and desist his evil doings.

  288. #295 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 6:54 pm

    A .22 seems like childs play, but it would be cheap to shoot.

  289. #296 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 6:56 pm

    Instantly.

  290. #297 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 6:57 pm

    .

  291. #298 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 7:02 pm

    Ruger Mark III,

    Browning Buckmaster

    Sig Hammerli Trailside all.22 all around 350-500 dollars, all very good.

  292. #299 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 3, 2009 - 7:05 pm

    Alright, I’m driving down to bass pro!

  293. #300 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 7:07 pm

    Awesome! Cliff makes another sale!!

  294. #301 by ColdServings on April 3, 2009 - 7:12 pm

    Well, you know the “gun salesman of the year” title has to go to Barack Obama. A lot of Obama voters getting a serious case of “buyer’s remorse” and hedging against an expected gun ban (with, I presume, the hope that existing guns will be “grandfathered” as they were with the original AWB and they’re trying to get them while they’re still getable).

    Cliff, however, may be making a strong running for second place.

  295. #302 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 7:19 pm

    Buy them now, and trade ‘em away. Give them away as presents, that way they won’t be around if they come looking, at your house.

    Maybe they can replace diamonds as a testament for the love you feel for a person.
    Diamonds may be forever, but when faced by a criminal crazed thug, you ‘aint!!

  296. #303 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 7:41 pm

    .357 Sig was designed by Sig Sauer to replicate the terminal balistics of the .357 Magnum and is finding a lot of users in the Law Enforcement arena. Basically it is a .40 caliber casing necked down to 9mm. It is capable of penetrating a barrier and still retain lethal energy which 9mm and .45 ACP are incapable of doing. It is probable that full metal jackets will penetrate Level IIA armor (and it was not designed for this purpoes.

    You really cannot go wrong with it. Sig Sauer produce handguns in that caliber as does Glock and Smith and Wesson.

    But you can’t go wrong with .40 SW. If you really want a smoker handgun cartridge for a semi-loading platform (erroneously called automatics) the 7.62 Tokarev is a real doozy, it overpenetrates and is capable of defeating a lot of military grade body armor.

  297. #304 by Moribund Republic on April 3, 2009 - 7:58 pm

    The Sig .357 semi loader and the Tokarov, are like semi auto hand rifles.

    If you are any good, a Ruger .357 magnum revolver will penetrate 70′s American auto steel and keep on going all the way through. 6 chances. A good friend has the 8 3/8 inch barrel Ruger .357 magnum, and it is a hand cannon, and very accurate, even at silly ranges not expected of pistols.

    He hunts and kills deer with it. Mulies.Using the 125 grain rounds, or the 155′s. The smaller round is very fast. Hand rifle.

    Trust the Russians to build a gun that can get ‘er dun. Like to try that. What does the cartridge look like?

  298. #305 by Egil on April 3, 2009 - 8:19 pm

    The 7.62 Tokarev? Looks like a .357 Magnum necked down to .30 inch. Case length for the Tokarev is about 8mm shorter but overall the Tokarev is only 3mm shorter.

    85 grain FMJ traveling at 1700 FPS, about 550 foot pounds of energyout of a 120mm length barrel. Russians used it in the PPSh-41.

  299. #306 by BlkKtty on April 3, 2009 - 8:56 pm

    I am the wife of Michael Z. Williamson referenced in the above blog. I am neither helpless, nor needing defended. That is because I can shoot a gun. And after I run out of ammo, I can bludgeon someone to death with it. If someone threatens me or anyone I care about, I intend to see that they are unable to do so again. I prefer nonviolent means – I have a dislike of cleaning blood out of the carpet and brains off of the walls. However, I will use the means I deem necessary. As for the attention this issue deserves; this will be my only post. I have more things to do that watch people douse themselves with metaphorical gasoline and run around hoping to catch someone else on fire. People who are too scared to discuss the issue rationaly and listen to facts are too scared to listen or be rational. I have a life. I suggest that some of the people on this forum need to get one themselves. And yes Virgina, I really do exist.

  300. #307 by Re-emerging Free Republic on April 3, 2009 - 8:57 pm

    Thanks, high penetration obviously, how it defeats the armor. This funny, we have turned Cliff’s tripe of a blog thread into a technical gun blog.

    The Ruger I mentioned actually amazes me. I offered to buy it, but what would you do if you owned it?

    Keep it up, it is a great idea to have it started no matter the thread topic, just start up. (laugh)

  301. #308 by Re-emerging Free Republic on April 3, 2009 - 8:58 pm

    Meaning there was no way he’s selling it.

  302. #309 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 4, 2009 - 3:48 am

    BlkKtty, we live in a progressive society. Why should you always be the one to do the housework? I say you and your husband split the work. If you shoot and kill, or bludgeon someone to death in your house, let your husband clean the blood and brains from the carpet and wall.

    Just an opinion.

  303. #310 by Weer'd Beard on April 4, 2009 - 5:55 am

    I’d rather go rug shopping and repaint a wall, than attend a funeral…or be the centerpiece of one.

    Do what you will, that’s the beauty of living in a free country. You can have the right to life, free speech, and right to bear arms….but all of those rights also confer the right to do none of those things.

    BTW, IMHO .357 Sig has all the advantages of running 9mm +P ammo through your gun, with the disadvantage of lowing magazine capacity, having a case that’s harder to reload, and being more expensive to buy.

    If you want .357 Magnum performance in a semi-auto, your only real bet is 10mm Auto, as .357 Sig won’t give you the bullet weight, or muzzle velocity of most defensive .357 Magnum loads.

    There are a TON of 9mm Luger +P loads that do EXACTLY what .357 Sig will, and you’ll have more in the mag, and cheaper target ammo on the market. And if you reload ammo, you won’t have to worry about trimming the case necks.

    Still in the end penetration isn’t the end-all-be-all of terminal ballistics. Obviously if a round under penetrates it won’t do much. But over penetration means there is ballistic energy that wasn’t transferred to your target, as well as the added worry about where the bullet will go after exiting your target. As well as the extra worry about penetrating walls and doors ect.

    IMHO if you want a 0.355″ bullet from a semi-auto platform, 9×19 mm (9mm Luger/parabellum) is probably your best choice.

  304. #311 by Iwannaknow on April 4, 2009 - 6:43 am

    Folks like Mr. Lyin shouldn’t have access to a computer. It’s like putting a gun in the hands of an untrained individual. I can see him wearing a T-shirt with a message about protecting the 1st amendment. I’d make him turn it inside-out so he wouldn’t be promoting anti-social behavior. Twit.

  305. #312 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 6:45 am

    Someone pls tell Blkktty we are trying to keep this blog PG.

    If someone threatens me or anyone I care about, I intend to see that they are unable to do so again. I prefer nonviolent means – I have a dislike of cleaning blood out of the carpet and brains off of the walls. However, I will use the means I deem necessary.

    I can’t imagine what a romantic night out with hubby (ColdServing) must be like. Do you both pack, or just big daddy for the extra paternalistic effect.

    I can’t help but wonder what the effect on the kids is growing up in a household where the main adrenalin high comes from discussing hypothetical attacks.

    What if you get to the end of your life and no one ever threatens you or your kids. Would you be disappointed? Would you have any regrets having lived your life in a defensive crouch?

  306. #313 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 7:28 am

    I think you guys are trying to hurt my feelings on purpose. And you are ganging up on me.

    The shooters (Columbine) had been bullied and were now turning the tables on the bullies – permanently.

    “Studies show that 70 percent of school shooters have reported being bullied themselves,”

    Listen, I don’t want to ruin the party, but I must tell you my position on gun control is not as radical as you appear to think.

    What I and President Obama (The Black African Prince in the White House) would actually like to see, is for all you responsible, passionate, law-abiding, piece-packing-people (PPPs) to arm yourselves to the teeth fully before we implement new really strict gun laws.

    We should require vigorous annual gun registration and safety checks. Every registered is physically inspected and confirmed by serial number, each year (just like a car).

    If a gun goes missing, all your guns are confiscated and there is an investigation to determine what happened to the gun and you must satisfy a magistrate that you really are a responsible gun owner before you get your guns back.

    At the same time, the government subsidizes a gun buy back (and amnesty) program run through licensed gun dealers. Over time, illegal guns would trickle back into the system. Most criminals and drug addicts are desperate for cash at some point and will turn them in for cash, no questions asked.

    The next thing you know, people are stealing unregistered and illegal guns just for the cash. Pretty soon, the supply of illegal guns begins shrinking and their value go up and up to the point where mere possession of an illegal gun implies you are a serious criminal with bad intentions.

    You guys always say, the criminals will get guns no matter what. Well maybe not. If an illegal gun costs $500 – $5000 bucks, you might find criminals trying work without a gun. And the ones that are out there are carefully hidden away from the other criminals who REALLY want to steal them.

    You’d have criminals using knives to steal guns.

    Seriously, if you are willing to come on this blog and use your real name and hold yourself out as a responsible gun owner, I prefer you DO have the guns.

    Its the people like JD Berger and Bob S, who are afraid to reveal themselves publicly that scare me. What else are they hiding?

  307. #314 by cav on April 4, 2009 - 7:39 am

    Listen Cliff, you know very well that they only take out Al Queda sleeper agents, good citizens have nothing to fear.

  308. #315 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 7:46 am

    You see people, thanks to the NRA and your freaky obsession with this radical interpretation of the right to bear, YOU are responsible for stuff like this.…and the cops know it.

  309. #316 by Re-emerging Free Republic on April 4, 2009 - 8:35 am

    Let’s just ignore Cliff on his own blog and talk ballistics.

    Let’s get peoples opinion on what they believe the best back up pistol is.

    Let’s talk about the virtues of 12 gauge slugs, vs. double ought buckshot for self defense.

    Let’s just talk about anything but what Cliff wants to talk about.

    Let’s do what he has attempted to do and failed in the past. Lets take over his blog and use it for our purposes. Doesn’t matter what the topic is.

    Let’s just talk about guns and the 2nd amendment personal right to bear arms.

  310. #317 by Re-emerging Free Republic on April 4, 2009 - 8:38 am

    Christ Cliff, ypou shouldn’t ask what other people are hiding when your own life’s past is full of corruption.

    You really don’t want to go there. As it is your credibility is totally shot, except with the sycophants you cater to.

  311. #318 by ColdServings on April 4, 2009 - 8:51 am

    I think you guys are trying to hurt my feelings on purpose. And you are ganging up on me.

    You use the word “hypocrisy” a lot. Now, you see, the above line, THAT’s hypocrisy. Project much?

    Listen, I don’t want to ruin the party, but I must tell you my position on gun control is not as radical as you appear to think.

    Keep telling yourself that. You might convince yourself. You might even convince your “fellow travelers.” Don’t expect to convince anyone who’s not already a raging hoplophobe.

    What I and President Obama (The Black African Prince in the White House) would actually like to see, is for all you responsible, passionate, law-abiding, piece-packing-people (PPPs) to arm yourselves to the teeth fully before we implement new really strict gun laws.

    Why is it always about race with you? Racist much?

    We should require vigorous annual gun registration and safety checks. Every registered is physically inspected and confirmed by serial number, each year (just like a car).

    The arrogance of that statement, considering the way you just got hammered on the “license guns like cars” nonsense just uptopic is truly remarkable.

    Tell me, what do you use to wipe the spittle off your monitor? Windex wipes?

    If a gun goes missing, all your guns are confiscated and there is an investigation to determine what happened to the gun and you must satisfy a magistrate that you really are a responsible gun owner before you get your guns back.

    Just like cars, huh? How about we confiscate all your computers until you satisfy a magistrate that you really are a responsible user of the first amendment.

    But thank you for admitting that you really are a raving loon.

    At the same time, the government subsidizes a gun buy back (and amnesty) program run through licensed gun dealers. Over time, illegal guns would trickle back into the system. Most criminals and drug addicts are desperate for cash at some point and will turn them in for cash, no questions asked.

    Ah, yes, the government run gun fencing and evidence disposal program.

    Funny you should mention drug addicts. Unlike guns, drugs are consumable. That means that constant new supplies are required to keep up with the illegal demand. Yet complete bans, various attempts at interdiction, etc., haven’t appreciably slowed the influx. Guns are steel and plastic. Unlike drugs there are no telltale chemical traces that can be sniffed out by dogs and the like.

    So how exactly do you intend to keep criminals from running guns just like they now smuggle drugs?

    Also, guns really aren’t that hard to make. Any fairly decent home machine shop can make guns entirely adequate to criminal needs. Are you going to license machine shops as well? Hand tools? You know, don’t you, that that’s exactly what they use in Pakistan to make everything from knockoff 1911′s to actual full-auto AK47′s. Hand tools.

    The next thing you know, people are stealing unregistered and illegal guns just for the cash. Pretty soon, the supply of illegal guns begins shrinking and their value go up and up to the point where mere possession of an illegal gun implies you are a serious criminal with bad intentions.

    Ri-i-i-i-i- ght. You know the parable of the fish don’t you? They can “turn in” a gun to get some modest amount of money or they can use it to rob someone–conveniently disarmed because of folk like you.

    Sure. And maybe little green gun leprechauns will magically make these evil guns all vanish.

    You guys always say, the criminals will get guns no matter what. Well maybe not. If an illegal gun costs $500 – $5000 bucks, you might find criminals trying work without a gun. And the ones that are out there are carefully hidden away from the other criminals who REALLY want to steal them.

    You have no idea what illegal guns cost, do you? Knock a zero off those numbers.

    You’d have criminals using knives to steal guns.

    You just make this ship up, don’t you? No need to bother connecting it with any reality, just make it up.

    Seriously, if you are willing to come on this blog and use your real name and hold yourself out as a responsible gun owner, I prefer you DO have the guns.

    Here’s one for you: How do I know that the name you claim IS your real name? BTW, simply follow the link on my name and you’ll get to my webcomic. And there, right up at the top, is my name. See how hard that was.

    But that’s beside the point. Whether someone uses a “handle” on the internet is utterly irrelevant. It’s a smokescreen, particularly since I haven’t seen you cut anyone who does use their real name, who disagrees with you, any slack.

    Its the people like JD Berger and Bob S, who are afraid to reveal themselves publicly that scare me. What else are they hiding?

    Ah, and the paranoia rears its ugly head once again. Really, get help. You can live a much happier life if you learn to deal with these fears and paranoia.

  312. #319 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 8:52 am

    Yeah, you do that Glenn (Moribund, Re-emerging Jerk, etc.). Did it ever occur to you that your accusations carry no weight because I do not moderate you because I have nothing to hide?

    And your accusations are never backed up with anything?

    Why don’t you tell the people what you mean when you say my “life’s past is full of corruption.”

    Hows the kids?

  313. #320 by ColdServings on April 4, 2009 - 8:54 am

    You see people, thanks to the NRA and your freaky obsession with this radical interpretation of the right to bear, YOU are responsible for stuff like this.…and the cops know it.

    Ah, yes, the old “blame everybody but the actual criminal” approach.

    Well, whatever works for you.

  314. #321 by ColdServings on April 4, 2009 - 9:01 am

    Yeah, you do that Glenn (Moribund, Re-emerging Jerk, etc.). Did it ever occur to you that your accusations carry no weight because I do not moderate you because I have nothing to hide?

    I’m sure that must be it.

    And your accusations are never backed up with anything?

    Oh, that one’s rich. And you have the gall to accuse others of hypocrisy.

    Why don’t you tell the people what you mean when you say my “life’s past is full of corruption.”

    So, who are you really? Can you actually prove that you are “Cliff Lyons” with the degrees you’ve claimed. After all, anyone can claim to be anyone on the Internet. There’s no guarantee that the “real name” you post is actually yours.

    Hows the kids?

    Is this like in the movies where the “heavy” shows someone the picture of their family with the implication that if they could take a picture of them….

    You know, it’s pretty clear why people like you are so anti-gun. You are so incapable of controlling your own rage and emotions that you simply project your own uncontrollable anger onto others. You expect everyone to have as little self control as you do and decide policy should be based on that.

  315. #322 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 9:06 am

    Ok Cold, So you tell me…

    So how exactly do you intend to keep criminals from running guns just like they now smuggle drugs?

    Or is your answer to just let the the gun runners thrive and let everybody arm up?

  316. #323 by the pistolero on April 4, 2009 - 9:17 am

    Cry me a frockin’ river. For a group of people who fancy themselves as paragons of tolerance you leftists come off as supremely, appallingly bigoted assclowns.

  317. #324 by Egil on April 4, 2009 - 9:24 am

    The 2nd Amendment reserves the right of the individual to be armed. The Founding Fathers would be unswayed in any argument. The private ownership of firearms was of great import to our Independence.

    Their own words in correspondance and in the Federalist Papers (these explain the meaning and reason for various parts of the Constitution) back up the assertion that the RKBA is an individual right. Furthermore, these same Founding Fathers considered the Militia to be the people, not the standing army, not the National Guard.

    They’d not be afraid of someone walking down the street with an AR-15 slung over their shoulder because they were not afraid of someone walking down the street with a musket or kentucky rifle slung over their shoulder, or a brace of pistols on their belt.

    It helped that they didn’t have TV pumping out violent movies and TV Shows daily. Or Video Games that amount to murder simulators. We had ownership of firearms from the very beginning, rapid fire weapons have been around since the Civil War. This violence is a very new thing, hence Guns can not be the cause else we’d see similar violence in the past which we don’t.

    We are seeing this violence not because of Guns, but because we have gotten away from the ideal of the Republic that the Founding Fathers insituted.

  318. #325 by James Farmer on April 4, 2009 - 9:32 am

    BlkKtty says:

    I am neither helpless, nor needing defended.

    What troubles me most is the fact that gun-nuts without even a grade school education are out there carrying, just waiting for the chance to become heroes.

  319. #326 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 10:20 am

    You guys would do yourselves a favor by at least faking some sort of interest in curbing gun violence. Otherwise, you end up looking like all you care about is your little personal right.

    You are just like the Anti-Choice crowd. Bitch and moan about abortion but don’t raise a finger to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    I have yet to see any proposed solutions to the rampant gun violence in that plagues this country and law enforcement (besides more guns).

  320. #327 by Jaktens Tid on April 4, 2009 - 11:46 am

    Actually, I will do my part to curb gun violence by teaching my friends how to use firearms, by teaching my future children how to use firearms, and to learn how to defend myself with deadly force so that I’m not just going to become another unarmed victim in a “gun-free zone” (read: a statistic). Through my own choice to legally defend myself in public with a concealed firearm, I may very well save the lives of others, rather than become another number on the nightly news.

  321. #328 by Jaktens Tid on April 4, 2009 - 11:49 am

    What troubles me most is the fact that gun-nuts without even a grade school education are out there carrying, just waiting for the chance to become heroes.

    As opposed to the “enlightened” progressives with their degrees in Womyns’ Studies and Communications and Philosophy (like everyone’s good buddy Cliff) who will simply get gunned down in the event of a shooting if they can’t run away or be saved by police in time?

  322. #329 by Jaktens Tid on April 4, 2009 - 11:50 am

    Cry me a frockin’ river. For a group of people who fancy themselves as paragons of tolerance you leftists come off as supremely, appallingly bigoted assclowns.

    You’re mostly correct. They ARE tolerant, but only if you agree with them.

  323. #330 by Jaktens Tid on April 4, 2009 - 11:56 am

    You see people, thanks to the NRA and your freaky obsession with this radical interpretation of the right to bear, YOU are responsible for stuff like this.…and the cops know it.

    #1: nobody else squeezed the trigger, except for that man

    #2: it wasn’t the NRA who issued lots of statements about reinstating the useless Assault Weapons Ban – that was the Obama administration

    Cliff, your disconnect with reality is actually quite intriguing. Your abject stupidity speaks volumes about the U of VT.

    Jaktens Tid’s Fun Fact #445: Did you know that Vermont is the only state that does not require a permit for its residents to carry a concealed weapon? All those “unqualified” people, carrying their guns around! It’s a wonder you were never shot in a parking-lot argument or in the grocery store – just look at that sky-high violent crime rate!

  324. #331 by Weer'd Beard on April 4, 2009 - 12:39 pm

    Actually Alaska doesn’t either, and much of Montana (outside the major urban areas) no permit is needed either.

    Alaska HAS a permit you can ask for just to make it easier to to apply for a CCW permit in the lower 48.

    Also another fun fact that the fine state of Utah does not force students and faculty in state universities to disarm just because they have entered a state campus.

    How many school shootings have there been?

  325. #332 by Moribund Republic on April 4, 2009 - 12:50 pm

    In defense of Vermont, it has the lowest gun crime rate, not just in the United States per capita, but in North America. Including all of Canada.

    Contrast that to Mexico where personal gun ownership is illegal, that has a gun murder rate far greater than our own, and has an off the chart murder rate commited by weapons other than gun.

    Venezuela the Fascist Communist paradise has a murder rate 10 times that of the United States. Look it up.

    Yes, little old Republic of Vermont, will try anything to see if it will work, uses its Yankee common sense, and has no intention of changing it gun laws. It cannot, it is written not only into the Federal constitution, but in its own.

    The law abiding have no restrictions….just like the criminals. This issue is so done.

    Let’s talk about ballistics, and how we can get a gun in every hand of any law abiding American that wants one.

    Cliff is no Vermonter, he is what is known as a flatlander, conehead, douchebag. 70% of the student body when he went there was not from Vermont. Probably higher now. Speaks volumes.

    UVM has its merits, please advise that Cliff is just a poli sci major, or philosophy, which for all intents and purposes are gut majors, for intellectually vapid students. Cliff majored in skiing, and other extracurricular activities.

    If gun goes off near Cliff in exercise the personal right to bear arms, a constitutionally protected right, does he hear it?

    Pretty obvious he is deaf to the sounds of Freedom.

  326. #333 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 1:06 pm

    Weer’d,

    How many Shooting on the U of Utah campus were their before the very wrong court decision to allow kids to pack?

    You sound like Bush claiming that because there have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 911 that torture is therefore justified.

    We call that a canard or hogwarsh.

  327. #334 by Weer'd Beard on April 4, 2009 - 1:19 pm

    Or maybe you’re agreeing with me that guns aren’t an important factor for violent crime.

    Hell even you say:
    “If an illegal gun costs $500 – $5000 bucks, you might find criminals trying work without a gun.”

    So take away a criminal’s gun and you still have a criminal. Of course to do this you propose disarming the good guys.

    The bad guys spend lots of time fighting, while I’d much rather do more peaceful things with my time (I know you like to threaten and bully, but I guess you really aren’t a good guy anyway) .

    So what you propose is for us to go back to the wonders of the dark ages.

    That is if you ignore the truth, that Canada and Australia saw when they proposed their registration system. About 50% just didn’t register their guns, and the police couldn’t do shit about it.

    Call it what you will, Cliffy, but I suspect your side doesn’t have one leg to stand.

    Don’t worry, I think it’s hilarious!

  328. #335 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 1:25 pm

    Cute website JerkTen’s Tid. Are you a Viking Girl or a Viking boy. And whats with the Star Wars obsession?

    Swords were good enough for the Vikings. They were ‘Real’ men after all.

    I wonder what they would think of one of their groupies running his mouth off about guns and how tough he is.

  329. #336 by Egil on April 4, 2009 - 1:50 pm

    Still resorting to Ad Hominem Fallacy. You really think Medieval nobles wanted to get rid of longbows and crossbows because they thought they were unmanly? That is BS, a crossbowman or a longbowman can kill a rich noble on his horse and in armor with much less training and cost. They wanted to disarm the populace for the same reason Liberals do, they are a threat to them. The Chinese and Japanese of the feudal periods did the same which is why unarmed fighting systems developed, they had no choice but to fight with their body.

    Oh, and it is kind of strange that Guns are thought of as unmanly where as Dueling with them was thought to be honorable.

    There is no reason to deny these tools to law-abiding citizens other than to disarm them. It will not prevent street crime and its effect on crime in general will be miniscule.

    We can’t even keep people from crossing the border illegally, you think we can really keep guns from coming overseas? Think that and I got beach front property for you in Colorado and I’ll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge free of charge.

  330. #337 by Egil on April 4, 2009 - 2:00 pm

    They got reason to deny the people the right to keep and bear arms.

    That Right gives the common man the most uncommon of power and authority. Power and Authority once reserved for Kings and Popes. When the people have the means to dissolve the Government and erect new safeguards of their Liberty and Security enshrined as a Natural if not a God given right it indicates the full measure the liberty and the dignity of the human individual and how far we have come from the dark days of Despotism.

    Liberals do not like the doctrine of Natural Rights. That is why they have waged their assault on Religion (the corner stone of the theory of Natural Rights). It means that Liberals do not have the power that they seek.

  331. #338 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 4, 2009 - 2:01 pm


    You see people, thanks to the NRA and your freaky obsession with this radical interpretation of the right to bear, YOU are responsible for stuff like this.…and the cops know it.

    Radical interpretation of the right to bear? Did you even read the posts Egil, and myself left on here yesterday. I think we provided some pretty hard evidence that you are the one with the radical inertpetation of the right to bear.

    I read that story this morning before you posted the link. It is a terrible thing that happened in pittsburg. Three cops are now dead. I bet their colleagues however, still believe in the right to bear, and a criminal doing something terrible isn’t going to make them give up that right, but that’s just how see them looking at it. I won’t actually put words in thier mouth like you just tried to do, and don’t dare try to put something like this on me, you freaking creep! Because I believe in freedom I am responsible for a criminal murding three cops? Tell me how exactly, you ignorant shithead. Still, morons like you hope for these things to happen to push your agenda.

    You say your idea’s on gun control are not that radical, but they really are, and I don’t believe they will ever solve the problem of criminals obtaining guns by illegal means.

    It’s like the story you wrote about the new law in Utah, blaming a man shooting a sawed off shotgun through the window of that fast food chain, on the fact that it is legal in the state for him to ride around with a loaded weapon in the car. The funny thing is Cliff, that while you must have seen yourself constructing the best argument ever, you failed to realize how flawed your logic is. The man was in possesion of an illegal firearm, so it had nothing to do with law you were speaking of. It is illegal to be found in possesion of the gun he used. Still you try and tie the story to a law you dislike and blame the law. You really can’t get much dumber.

    If you find a way to keep guns out the hand of criminals without taking away the rights of U.S. citizens, then I’d love to hear it. I don’t like the idea of the kind of gun registry you speak of, because it gives the government to much power. If you read the posts I put up yesterday, you’d realize the biggest reason the founding fathers wrote that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, was to protect us against our government.

  332. #339 by ColdServings on April 4, 2009 - 2:02 pm

    Ok Cold, So you tell me…

    So how exactly do you intend to keep criminals from running guns just like they now smuggle drugs?

    Or is your answer to just let the the gun runners thrive and let everybody arm up?

    You see, I don’t claim to have an answer to how to stop them, which is fortunate since there really isn’t one.

    You CAN’T stop the criminals from getting guns if they want them. It can’t be done, any more than anyone’s had any success stopping the drug trade.

    All you can do is decide whether their victims will be unarmed and helpless or not.

    You may not like that answer, but reality is remarkably unconcerned with whether you like it or not. Arguing based on what you wish to be rather than what is is yet another logical fallacy. Oh, and trying to reject an argument because you don’t like where it leads is yet another–this one “argument from consequences” a special case of “appeal to emotion.”

    One would think that someone with a philosophy degree would be more careful about avoiding these basic logical fallacies. Tell the truth: your entire profile, including the philosophy degree, are pure fiction, right? That’s why you get such a bee in your bonnet about people using handles or anything other than your full name–they remind you of your own insecurities.

    Project much?

  333. #340 by ColdServings on April 4, 2009 - 2:06 pm

    BlkKtty says:

    I am neither helpless, nor needing defended.

    What troubles me most is the fact that gun-nuts without even a grade school education are out there carrying, just waiting for the chance to become heroes.

    Elitist much? It’s amazing how the left, which portrays itself as the defender of the “common person” proves to be full of holier-than-thou elitists. What hypocrites.

  334. #341 by ColdServings on April 4, 2009 - 2:12 pm

    You guys would do yourselves a favor by at least faking some sort of interest in curbing gun violence. Otherwise, you end up looking like all you care about is your little personal right.

    You are just like the Anti-Choice crowd. Bitch and moan about abortion but don’t raise a finger to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    I have yet to see any proposed solutions to the rampant gun violence in that plagues this country and law enforcement (besides more guns).

    You won’t see much as long as you keep your eyes closed. Also, that you repeat lies about what other people do (your middle paragraph above) ad nauseum doesn’t make them true.

    The problem isn’t “gun violence” in this country. It’s “violence.” Period. The most effective solution demonstrated so far is actually pretty simple: commit a violent crime and go to prison for a long time indeed.

    Deal with the “violence” issue and the “gun violence” issue goes away along with it (at least as far as any such issues go away–unlike most liberals I have no expectations of perfection, to expect, let alone insist on, perfection is to be perpetually disappointed).

    But you are not interested in what anyone else proposes as a solution. You are only interested in YOUR solution and automatically reject, without hearing, any alternatives.

  335. #342 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 4, 2009 - 2:14 pm


    Swords were good enough for the Vikings. They were ‘Real’ men after all.

    I wonder what they would think of one of their groupies running his mouth off about guns and how tough he is.

    Cliff, you ignorant twat, do you realize that these “real men” were murderous plundering criminals? Do you really think that they would have stuck with thier swords if thier opposition,(the good guys) had modern guns? I’m sure these “real men” would have used firearms if they had been available.

    I mean damn Cliff, how are you so ignorant?

  336. #343 by ColdServings on April 4, 2009 - 2:16 pm

    Weer’d,

    How many Shooting on the U of Utah campus were their before the very wrong court decision to allow kids to pack?

    You sound like Bush claiming that because there have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 911 that torture is therefore justified.

    We call that a canard or hogwarsh.

    You want to discuss shootings vs. people being allowed to carry? Fine, let’s go there. Let’s look at the history of mass shootings:

    Incidents where shooter(s) knew that no law abiding citizens carried handguns:
    Date Location City State Number killed
    Aug 66 University of Texas Austin TX 15
    Oct 91 Luby’s Cafeteria Killeen TX 23
    Arp 99 Columbine Littleton CO 12
    Mar 05 Red Lake high school Red Lake MN 7
    Jan 06 Post office Goleta CA 7
    Apr 07 Virginia Tech Blacksburg VA 33
    Dec 07 Shopping Mall Omaha NE 8
    Feb 08 Clothing store Chicago IL 5
    Feb 08 Northern Illinois U DeKalb IL 5
    Total killed: 115

    Incidents where the shooter(s) had cause to believe that law abiding citizens carrying handguns was highly unlikely.
    Date Location City State Number killed
    Jul 83 Law office San Francisco CA 8
    Jul 84 McDonalds San Diego CA 21
    Feb 88 Laboratory Sunnyvale CA 7
    Dec 93 LIRR Long Island NY 6
    Mar 06 Party Seattle Wa 6
    Total killed: 48

    Note: In both California and New York handgun permits are possible, but nearly impossible for “ordinary” folk to get, thus a criminal runs little risk of running into an armed citizen. Although Washington was a “Shall Issue” state at the time of this last shooting the shooter attended the party for 3 hours and could well have assessed the likelihood whether any of the other people were armed.

    Incidents where the shooter(s) ran the risk of running into individuals carrying concealed handguns
    Date Location City State Number killed
    Feb 83 Wah Mee club Seattle WA 14
    Dec 07 Church Colorado Springs CO 4
    Total Killed: 18

    Note that the Wah Mee Club involved three shooters and was an organized crime “hit.” This may actually belong int he previous section (had cause to believe….) The Church shooting, it is important to note, was actually stopped by a person on the scene with a handgun.

    Summary:
    No chance of armed citizens: 118 dead.
    Armed citizens highly unlikely: 48 dead
    Armed citizens more likely: 18 dead.

    Looked at another way:
    Rights of citizens to have the tools to defend themselves severely restricted: 166 dead.
    Citizens able to have tools to defend themselves if they wish (“shall issue”): 18 dead

    Conclusion: having armed citizens saves lives.

  337. #344 by ColdServings on April 4, 2009 - 2:19 pm

    Cute website JerkTen’s Tid. Are you a Viking Girl or a Viking boy. And whats with the Star Wars obsession?

    Swords were good enough for the Vikings. They were ‘Real’ men after all.

    I wonder what they would think of one of their groupies running his mouth off about guns and how tough he is.

    And once again invective and homophobia must stand in as a substitute for reasoned discourse. You really are a one trick pony.

  338. #345 by Karen Ahle on April 4, 2009 - 2:37 pm

    And once again invective and homophobia must stand in as a substitute for reasoned discourse. You really are a one trick pony.

    It’s not really surprising Cold — there are a significant minority of “progressives” (actually fauxgressives) who ooze sympathy towards women and minorities in public, then when angered begin spewing unoriginal diatribes featuring rampant homophobia and misogyny. I have to wonder what Cliff thinks is so terrible about being a woman that it is his idea of high insult. I’m rather fond of being one, myself.

    Ok Girls (forgive me Becky),

    I guess without real fire power, you guys are farting in your panties.

    Do you guys like all get your periods all at the same time (excepting Bob of course who is past menopause?)

    Viking, I hope your little girl grows up to be a big lovable gay woman who packs whenever she goes home for thanksgiving even though Dad is and angry old white guy.

    Are you a Viking Girl or a Viking boy.

    Along with calling MZW “Michelle” and “Williamshe”… Maybe a girl stole his lunch money in grade school.

  339. #346 by Becky on April 4, 2009 - 3:04 pm

    Hi Karen,

    Let me reassure you, even feminists like me have learned not to take such talk too seriously. As we all know, there is nothing worse to a manly man than to be called a girl. Sometimes people use those expressions for effect in testosterone-charged situations, not to put down women. I’ve been around enough years to know misogyny when I see it–this is not it. Let’s admit it, Karen, you and I can also dish it out to the boys when we want to, right?

    Cliff,

    Congratulations on keeping a whole possee of gun owners with their fingers on the keyboard and not on the trigger for days now. Nice work!

  340. #347 by Karen Ahle on April 4, 2009 - 4:08 pm

    Actually no Becky, I don’t accuse people of being female when I wish to insult them, since I don’t consider it one. Same with accusing people of being gay.

    Funny you should mention keeping gun owners with their fingers on the keyboard and not the trigger; I’m actually on my way out the door to my local range to shoot, then heading over to my boyfriend’s to figure out what we want to cook together for dinner. Peace!

  341. #348 by Bob S. on April 4, 2009 - 4:10 pm

    Becky,

    Congratulations on keeping a whole possee of gun owners with their fingers on the keyboard and not on the trigger for days now. Nice work!

    Once again you show how wrong a liberal on this board can be. Most gunnies can answer this inane argument in our sleep by now.

    This is the 15th or 16th time Cliff has trotted out this same stale, trite, tired argument. Each time he has resoundingly failed.
    Failed to show a moral reason for disarming people.
    Failed to show how any changes in the current laws would stop a criminal.
    Failed to show how any law would stop a criminal
    Failed to show how the “sensible” gun control laws have made a difference in crime.
    Failed to show any intelligence in the debate, often resorting to the name calling you pointed out (notice how one sided it usually is?)

    Since most of the gunnies can answer this so easily, I’m sure many have been to the range practicing while maintaining the argument. I was busy last night and this morning so my range time is scheduled for tomorrow.

    Thanks for reminding to get ready to night.

    Folks, how about chiming in here with what you’ve taken to the range.

    For me, tomorrow will have a Ruger GP-100, a semi -auto 22, a 22 revolver, and my new carry piece Taurus Millenium Pro PT145. It is going to be a good day :)

    • #349 by Becky on April 4, 2009 - 4:17 pm

      Damn, Bob, you guys are sometimes just too easy.

      Karen, peace. And I mean that.

  342. #350 by Beastmaster on April 4, 2009 - 4:42 pm

    Congratulations on keeping a whole possee of gun owners with their fingers on the keyboard and not on the trigger for days now. Nice work!

    Hmm. I have a Blackberry – so hitting the range and watching the commentary on this blog isn’t an impossibility.

    ‘Scuse me – I’m gonna go fling some lead downrange. I await with drooling eagerness when this blog commentary will contain some intelligent information from the left. I’m sure I’ll run out of drool.

  343. #351 by Becky on April 4, 2009 - 4:46 pm

    Beastmaster, et al,

    You are further proof of my belief that conservatives have no sense of humor. It was a little joke! :-)

  344. #352 by Bob S. on April 4, 2009 - 4:56 pm

    Becky,

    We understand that and are showing your “humor” is – pardon the pun going to backfire.

    Your poor attempt at trying to portray “through” humor that gun owners are single minded just isn’t going to work.

    Beastmaster, willing to share what you are using to chuck that lead?

    Let’s turn OneUtah into a great hang out for the pro-rights crowd.

  345. #353 by james farmer on April 4, 2009 - 5:05 pm

    Bob:

    It is the freak show gun owners that are single minded.

  346. #354 by Bob S. on April 4, 2009 - 5:09 pm

    James,

    Thanks for proving the point and showing that Cliff isn’t the only one on the board that has to resort to name calling and ad-hominen attacks.

    Keep up the good work. It really shows people which side has the facts and which side has to resort to childish tactics.

  347. #355 by Beastmaster on April 4, 2009 - 5:10 pm

    Bob – a variety of things….

    A basic LMT M4, an AR short barreled Pistol, .22LR conversions for both so I can fling lots of inexpensive lead downrange, and some Kimber 1911′s….

    Gotta love the Blackberry world! ;) Instant feedback and response when I want to!

  348. #356 by Karen Ahle on April 4, 2009 - 5:34 pm

    Wow, I’m jealous. I’ve only got my H&K P2000 in .40 S&W.

    I’ve been dodging the work Blackberry for a couple years… my personal LG Voyager has an unlimited data plan. If I take a Crackberry, I have to answer it. I have more of an excuse not to answer the personal cell if they call it.

    • #357 by Becky on April 4, 2009 - 5:54 pm

      My goodness, boys and girls, put down those guns and go find someone to snuggle up with. It’s Saturday night! Nuff shootin’. Time for some lovin’.

  349. #358 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 6:14 pm

    Amen Sister Becky.

    There’s been enough anger and violence (all with guns) for one day.

  350. #359 by Beastmaster on April 4, 2009 - 6:18 pm

    # Cliff Says:
    April 4th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Amen Sister Becky.

    There’s been enough anger and violence (all with guns) for one day.

    Really?

    Please, if you don’t mind – Indulge my curiosity then.

    Name me one person on this blog entry who has gotten angry? Or did violence against someone else?

  351. #360 by Weer'd Beard on April 4, 2009 - 6:29 pm

    “Name me one person on this blog entry who has gotten angry? Or did violence against someone else?”

    Cliff!

    What do I win?

  352. #361 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 4, 2009 - 6:31 pm

    Cliff has gotten angry. In fact that’s what he’s all about. Just read anything he has ever written on this site, every time he types an article or responds to a thread, you detect the hate that consumes him.

  353. #362 by cgnnightmare on April 4, 2009 - 6:35 pm

    Cliff

    This week my boy was issued an apology by the school administration…

  354. #363 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 4, 2009 - 6:44 pm

    Becky, I thought we had made amends? To see you stereotyping people into groups, and then isulting them, even with humor(sarcasm, remember how we talked about that?), well it’s just sad. I thought maybe you had learned something. You claim to be a liberal, and I thought an important liberal idea, was to not stereotype, but maybe I’m wrong.

    Anyway, it doesn’t matter. I think the fact that you and Cliff claim to be leftist, or liberals, just proves how stupid you are. I haven’t heard any of the pro gun people claim to be conservative, even though some probably do claim to be.

    The point is, anyone who professes to be a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or a Republican, is an idiot. In my humble opinion.

    Why you ask? It’s because anyone who would make up thier mind on an issue, before hearing the issue is an idiot, and that type of thing happens a lot when align yourself with a party. I think it’s best consider each issue and then decide. I wonder if you or Cliff have thought of that? I doubt it. You see I actually agree liberal ideas on some issues, and conservative ideas on others. I think it’s good to find that balance. Maybe you should try Becky, and you too Cliff.

  355. #364 by Egil on April 4, 2009 - 8:03 pm

    It always amazes me that the Make Love Not War crowd looks incapable of making either.

    Oh, and I went to the range. Put a box through my evil black Sig at 3, 7, 15 and 25 yards with good groupings. Then I shot 20 bucks worth from my evil black shotgun. There was probably 10 other people shooting evil handguns and evil long rifles, one guy had an evil black AR-15 with an evil pistol fore-grip, evil tactical light, evil red-dot scope and an evil tactical stock and an Evil AK-74. Amazingly no one snapped and shot people though several people were shooting at man silhouettes.

  356. #365 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 8:13 pm

    So Egil. Sounds like guns are good for TWO things; getting off and killing people (in self-defense of course, even though thats like less than 1% percent of death by gun).

    Totally cool.

  357. #366 by Becky on April 4, 2009 - 9:11 pm

    So terribly sad. One more use of guns today.

    GRAHAM — A 35-year-old man apparently shot and killed his five children in a mobile-home park in the Graham area of Pierce County, then drove to Auburn and killed himself, the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office said today.

    Did you all snuggle up with your steel tonight? Cold comfort.

  358. #367 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 9:27 pm

    The tragedy of too many easy guns.

    Innocent lives lost.

    So many. So innocent.

  359. #368 by Onyxhawke on April 4, 2009 - 10:13 pm

    Wow, I have 2 blackberrys, and more guns than that. Do i have a split personality or is someone not quite capable of beating a jar of mayonnaise at a game of chess?

  360. #369 by Egil on April 4, 2009 - 10:45 pm

    Cliff

    I understand why my country has gone to hell. All I gotta do is talk to infantile childish idiots like you. Under your line of reasoning we should outlaw all sports and art as they have zero utilitarian value. Perhaps we should outlaw dancing because it leads to immoral behavior. How about prohibit alcohol, maybe it will work out better.

    We have refuted every single argument you have mustered and now you resort to arguing childish things. I expected far better from anyone trained in such a noble endeavour as Philosophy, you failed my expectations and I cannot fathom how the head of the Philosophy Department could give you any sanction to claim a degree in Philosophy, you have shown no ability let alone any knowlede.

    Yes, Guns are ostensibly designed to kill. There is no other invention in modern use that has that as its sole value except nuclear weapons. Yet, you do not argue that guns should be taken out of the use of the military and Law Enforcement who have sanction to kill written in the Law. Both the Military and LEO can kill and it’ll be legal, beyond what would be legal for a civilian (namely because those in power also hold the means to justify the actions after the fact). I can only summarize that you are an advocate of a form Despotism who wishes to lock the People under the Tyranny of the State for their own good. I always knew Liberalism equals Fascism!

    The believe that people by nature are immoral or incapable of self-government, a belief inherent in your arguments, goes counter to the founding of the Republic. Moreover, the belief of people’s natural immorality or incapability of self-governance is contradictory to the philosophy of a Republic or a Democracy of any form in general. The Ancient Greeks didn’t believe it, the Romans didn’t believe it and certainly not the Founding Fathers who were men of the Enlightenment, a philosophy that also did not accept that man is by nature immoral or incapable of self-governance.

    Your ideology is more inline with Fascists, Marxists, Fundamentalist Christians, Salafist Muslims, and a whole host of others who believed that Man can be perfected, or that man is immoral by nature or that man is incapable of self-governance. All of these ideologies at their base believe they have a Right whether it be by merit or Divine Providence to govern and that the people should submit to their Rule. And if they will not go willingly than force is applicable.

    I also detect a great deal of irrational fear in you. Another reason that no one should ever allow anyone like you a shot at a position of power. Paranoia strikes deep. Tell me, do you think everyone with a gun is going to kill people?

  361. #370 by Cliff on April 4, 2009 - 11:06 pm

    I think many people with guns shouldn’t have them.

  362. #371 by Jaktens Tid on April 4, 2009 - 11:50 pm

    even feminists like me

    So, as a feminist, you want women to be safe when they’re out and about during the day, right?

    So, naturally, you would want them to have an effective means of self-defense at their disposal at all times, right?

    Would I be incorrect in assuming that you would want to see more women earn their concealed-carry permits?

  363. #372 by Jaktens Tid on April 4, 2009 - 11:51 pm

    I think many people with guns shouldn’t have them.

    I think a lot of people with blogs shouldn’t have them. Too many idiots running around with unsafe blogs, spouting off whatever nonsense comes to mind.

    Won’t somebody think of the children?

  364. #373 by Jaktens Tid on April 4, 2009 - 11:55 pm

    Jaktens Tid’s Fun Fact #446:

    Governments with guns have killed far more people during the 20th century than private citizens, yet Cliffy et. al are A-OK with their own government’s armed state.

    Then again, the logic of the disarmament crowd is such that “someone else will be there to protect me so that I don’t have to”, so they rationalize an armed government and armed police in the face of disarmed citizens.

  365. #374 by Egil on April 5, 2009 - 1:11 am

    Jatkens

    Isn’t it ironic, gun grabbers arguing the thing that historically has been de facto the worst criminal in the world, the state and arguing against what could’ve stopped the state from carrying out their crimes, the armed populace.

    Look at the Warsaw Ghetto and armed Jews. Look up the Bielski partisans.

    Of course gun grabbers are nearly universally state worshippers so of course they’d want a disarmed populace, it makes it easier for them to rule.

  366. #375 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 5:20 am

    So terribly sad. One more use of guns today.

    GRAHAM — A 35-year-old man apparently shot and killed his five children in a mobile-home park in the Graham area of Pierce County, then drove to Auburn and killed himself, the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office said today.

    Did you all snuggle up with your steel tonight? Cold comfort.

    And when that woman drowned her children, did you call for the banning of bathtubs?

    Once again, how about blaming the criminals, not the inanimate objects?

  367. #376 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 5:25 am

    The tragedy of too many easy guns.

    Innocent lives lost.

    So many. So innocent.

    Would you have preferred if he had beaten them to death with a club? If he had drowned them? If he had chopped them up with knives? All of those have happened and point out the great fallacy of using this kind of case–the assumption that if it weren’t for guns those children would still be alive, as if there is no other way that someone intent on murder could kill children.

    But blaming the guns rather than the criminal fits your agenda so that’s what you do and ignore that of all classes of murder in the world, the murder of children is the least likely to be affected by the presence or absence of firearms.

    Did you know that one of the reasons Japans homicide rate is so low–and it’s “suicide” rate is so high–that someone killing his family then himself is counted not as, say, three murders and one suicide, but as four suicides. Of course they almost never use guns for that but they’re just as dead.

    • #377 by Becky on April 5, 2009 - 6:14 am

      I wonder why gun owners can’t seem to simply talk about guns in their own right, but need to bring up everything from cars to bathtubs in order to defend guns. No doubt hoping we’ll forget that those other things have a primary peaceful purpose while guns have just one deadly purpose.

      And since this is Sunday, let me pose the question: What would Jesus shoot?

  368. #378 by Onyxhawke on April 5, 2009 - 6:55 am

    What would Jesus shoot?

    Better questions is: Who wouldn’t Judas shoot?

  369. #379 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 7:29 am

    I wonder why gun owners can’t seem to simply talk about guns in their own right, but need to bring up everything from cars to bathtubs in order to defend guns. No doubt hoping we’ll forget that those other things have a primary peaceful purpose while guns have just one deadly purpose.

    And since this is Sunday, let me pose the question: What would Jesus shoot?

    I wonder why the anti-gunners can’t stick to their position of blaming the object more generally? After all, if it’s the gun that’s at fault when a criminal shoots someone, then why isn’t it the bathtub at fault when a deranged mother drowns her kids? It’s the fallacy of special pleading.

    And the hypocrisy of the claim of criticizing comparisons with cars when it’s the anti-freedom people who are always coming up with the “license guns like cars” male cow manure is truly staggering.

    As for that nonsense of “just one deadly purpose” that was nonsense the first time it was claimed and it’s nonsense now. The vast majority of uses of guns are not deadly, not even injurious. And even if we exclude sporting uses (but why should we? After all, a club has a singular deadly purpose of bashing in brains–unless, of course, it’s being used to hit a ball of some sort–sauce for the goose once again), even using the Department of Justice’s own figures, figures produced from a survey that has several reasons to produce lowball numbers, still shows that guns are used at least three times as often to stop or prevent violence as to perpetuate it.

    Oh, and what would Jesus shoot? Personally, probably nothing as that was not his mission. His purpose, according to the Bible, was expressly to be martyred as a sinless sacrifice for sin. (There’s the whole question of why we should be impressed that God sent “his only begotten son” to “save” us from sin, when the only reason we need to be saved is because of rules that God made in the first place. And therein lies the heart of why I’m an Agnostic, not a Christian.) However, as to what he would council his followers? I refer you to Luke 22 verse 36: “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Note that a sword was the best personal weapon of the day. It was the primary killing weapon of the Legions and the top-dog in personal defense weapon for those who could afford one (they were not cheap).

    Yes, I am aware of the “he who lives by the sword…” quote, but not that Jesus did not tell Peter to get rid of the sword. Also note that Jesus’ purpose was to be taken and sacrificed. His being “rescued” by his disciples was no part of that plan. So for that situation, resistance was contrary to his goals. For other situations, his advice was to have the best personal weapon then available.

    Now, he didn’t tell them to go out and buy a Glock 40, or a 1911, or a CZ 75B, but that advice would have been of remarkably little use to his disciples now wouldn’t it, seeing as how those things were close to a couple of thousand years away from being invented yet.

    In much the same way, the Founding Fathers did not say “Muskets” or even “Muzzleloading Rifles” in the 2nd Amendment. They used the much more general term “arms” since, being highly intelligent and educated individuals, as well as children of the Enlightenment, they knew that technology marches on. They had seen some important developments in weapons happening and had no reason to believe those developments would cease (including several forms of repeating firearms). And James Madison, to name just one, lived to see the invention of Samuel Colt’s revolver. (BTW, did you know that early revolvers had interchangeable cylinders–much like modern semi-automatic handguns have interchangeable magazines and people often carried extra cylinders for much the same reason: quick reloading at need.) Had they wanted to limit the right of the people to then current weapons they would have said so. They had no compunction against being specific in other areas.

  370. #380 by Weer'd Beard on April 5, 2009 - 7:42 am

    “I wonder why the anti-gunners can’t stick to their position of blaming the object more generally?”

    Easy because they want to KEEP THEIR booze, cars, knives, tall buildings ect ect.

    I’m not sure if Cliff is pulling our legs about owning guns, still this is the neat part. Liberals don’t want to ban things THEY own.

    So people who own no guns are cool with banning all guns (this goes double for people like our president or Rosie O’Donnell who can outsource their protective firearms to “Professionals”)

    Meanwhile we’ll find lots of anti-gun people in the Field and Stream crowd. They like to talk about banning “Assault Weapons” and handguns, because their Browning O/U and their Weatherby Vanguard need to be protected, meanwhile my carry 1911, and my home defense carbine should be taken away.

  371. #381 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 7:47 am

    Here’s the deal. I’ll go up against all of you at the same time. You all get your weapon of choice, anything deadly EXCEPT a gun.

    I get the gun, you guys get your pick; bathtub, car, hammer, knife, plastic bag, plane, electrical outlet, rocks, pesticides, dirty water/air, cigarettes, angry wife etc.

    You’re all dead. Still wanna play this game?

    This is hilarious. The hypocrisy runneth over. I can see how one might TRY to make the argument once (if ban guns then why not ban all inanimate objects that kill).

    But to do it over and over. Do you people really think anyone that argument seriously?

    btw: Douchbag, I love you man!

  372. #382 by Becky on April 5, 2009 - 7:49 am

    No-one here has said they want to ban guns.

  373. #383 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 7:57 am

    Here’s the deal. I’ll go up against all of you at the same time. You all get your weapon of choice, anything deadly EXCEPT a gun.

    I get the gun, you guys get your pick; bathtub, car, hammer, knife, plastic bag, plane, electrical outlet, rocks, pesticides, dirty water/air, cigarettes, angry wife etc.

    You’re all dead. Still wanna play this game?

    I’ll take your challenge with the following proviso: I get to pick the time and place and do not have to tell you in advance.

    Still want to play?

    BTW, your glorification of the abilities of firearms goes a long way to put the lie to your claims of being a “marksman.” Tell the truth: you’ve only seen firearms in movies, right? You’ve never actually handled one.

    This is hilarious. The hypocrisy runneth over. I can see how one might TRY to make the argument once (if ban guns then why not ban all inanimate objects that kill).

    Well, yeah, your hypocrisy is truly a thing to behold.

    But to do it over and over. Do you people really think anyone that argument seriously?

    Blaming the inanimate object? Well, you obviously take it seriously. Of course, that says more about you than about the merits (or lack thereof) of the argument.

  374. #384 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 7:58 am

    Becky,

    No-one here has said they want to ban guns.

    Short attention spans R us? From Cliff:

    You just want your guns and I want to take them away.

  375. #385 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 8:06 am

    No Deal Cold,

    This is a straight up fight with notice of time and place. We can sell tickets.

    You can choose your own mascot and stage name. Coldserving is stupid. Why don’t you pick the bathtub and use Drain Hole Mega Monster?

    Or just BE the hammer?

    I’ll be Mega Death Hippie Monster.

  376. #386 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 8:13 am

    ColdSlush,

    I did write:

    You just want your guns and I want to take them away.

    To whom was I speaking when wrote that?

    Becky is right. I have never said I want to ban all guns. Your inability to comprehend the finer points of my argument should concern all those under your protection.

    Civilian gun play is not the same as war battles my little soldier. What are you about 5’8″ with a shaved head? Sorry that was uncalled for. Please accept my apology?

  377. #387 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 8:14 am

    No Deal Cold,

    This is a straight up fight with notice of time and place. We can sell tickets.

    You can choose your own mascot and stage name. Coldserving is stupid. Why don’t you pick the bathtub and use Drain Hole Mega Monster?

    Or just BE the hammer?

    I’ll be Mega Death Hippie Monster.

    Got it. You only want to play when you get to stack the deck.

    The problem is that your “game” doesn’t really match what really happens when it comes to criminal misuse of weapons, including firearms. The criminal gets to choose when and where and against whom and does not knowingly give advance warning to the victim. The best that the putative victim can hope for is to have some means of evening the odds by having something to reduce the effect of size, strength, and advance preparation. Something like firearms.

    Deny the putative victim that and all those others become almost automatic wins.

    Thank you for proving my point.

  378. #388 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 8:26 am

    He listen Cold. You can’t change the rules. Rules are rules and I make ‘em.

    Seriously my twisted friend, you are embarking on an argument in which you would like to argue that my gun is insufficient against a criminal with a plan.

    Lets jump forward then.

    What the hell good is a gun?

  379. #389 by Coasty on April 5, 2009 - 9:06 am

    I am going to answer the question of Definition of an assault weapon since I got caught in it originally.
    In the Late 1960′s the US government decided it needed an assault weapon for certain troops to use in the final assault of fortifications and certain other targets. The definition of the new Assault Weapon as given to the developers was as follows:
    The rifle must be light in weight, have a small very fast round that was also light in weight, have a selector switch for safe, single shot(semi-automatic), and full automatic. The ammunition must be enough smaller that the current M-14 round to allow a minimum of 150% of current basic combat load then 80 rounds. This will allow sufficient additional ammo for the occasional use of the rifle in full automatic mode.

    That is the definition of an assault rifle and what got us the never sufficiently cursed mouse round. The M-16 was supposed to be issued only to scouts, the Paratroops, and Marine Amphibious units. Then the Logistics got involved and claimed that it would make logistical support too complex and everyone got stuck with the M-16-A1, when first issued they were junk and could not stand up to field use. I carried one as a Coast Guard Boarding Officer for exactly 4 times until I convinced the Captain that the darn thing would not shoot after the salt water spray hit it. From then on I got to carry a Mossberg 500 12 ga shotgun.

    Any person who try’s to label any rifle an assault rifle which does not meet the above definition is an uneducated fool who will not admit that there is a definition.

  380. #390 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 9:31 am

    He listen Cold. You can’t change the rules. Rules are rules and I make ‘em.

    Seriously my twisted friend, you are embarking on an argument in which you would like to argue that my gun is insufficient against a criminal with a plan.

    Lets jump forward then.

    What the hell good is a gun?

    You get to make the rules? Arrogant much?

    Also, reading comprehension not your strong point either, I take it. Or did you just ignore that “The best that the putative victim can hope for is to have some means of evening the odds by having something to reduce the effect of size, strength, and advance preparation. Something like firearms.” Right there in the text you were supposedly responding to.

    Firearms are not a panacea. Nobody, except in hoplophobe strawmen, has ever claimed otherwise. They are simply a better “leveler” than anything else out there. Since the criminals are going to have the advantage of choosing time and place and against whom they make their attacks they are going to have an initial advantage. You obviously consider those advantages telling since you are unwilling to play under those rules.

    The best that the putative victims can hope for is something to counter that advantage. The goal isn’t to have something that always “wins” (since that’s impossible anyway) but something that adds sufficient doubt into the mind of the criminal that they decide “not today” or “not this time” often enough that they eventually decide on a new line of “work.” And armed citizens have proven to be highly effective in accomplishing that.

    Will they always succeed? Of course not. Only a fool expects perfection (and only an even greater fool uses the lack of perfection as an argument against it). But they succeed often enough that the criminals are already finding it in their interest to avoid places where they’re likely to run into armed resistance and head to places where their victims are nice and helplessly disarmed. That’s why the vast majority of mass shootings–or mass murders in general–happen in “gun free zones.”

  381. #391 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 9:48 am

    Cold,

    This is not about reading comprehension, it is about attention deficit.

    The point of the hypothetical is to help you understand how fucking stupid is your argument that bathtubs, knives and cars are the same as guns.

    This is not about victim strategy unless you are talking about seat belts.

    Follow?

    The ultimate arrogance of your argument is that ANYONE should have to think about defending themselves in a civilized society.

    Clearly, you are willing to accept a lower standard of society and civilization.

  382. #392 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 9:56 am

    Cold, If you seriously want to engage in a useful conversation, you can start by explaining why bathtubs and cars are not the same.

    Really, you should be begging forgiveness for that argument. Unless you are willing to argue that the word ‘arms’ in 2a includes common furniture, appliances, and other household items.

    Can you not see the glaring hypocrisy of your argument?

    I guess maybe not.

  383. #393 by Damned Yankee on April 5, 2009 - 10:02 am

    Becky, are you serious?

    I’ve gone to the range while taking a break reading this ludicrous thread. Really, no congratulations are in order. It’s unlikely that anyone who takes their responsibilities as a gun owner seriously would let Cliff’s twittering interfere with their training schedule.

    This thread has merely supported our conviction that you gun freaks don’t have any practical knowledge of the subject at hand, and that your arguments are illogical. Prohibitionism is an illiberal position; and it is offensive as well as disingenuous to claim to be a liberal and support draconian prohibitionist practices. Please, use correct labels. “Authoritarian” and “hoplophobe” are both excellent and accurate terms for describing your position. “Liberal” is inaccurate enough to be offensive.

    Also, ignoring denigrating practices of others is foolish. Cliff clearly demonstrates that he thinks you are an inferior when he presents your gender as a basis for insult. Similarly, that’s true when he uses homosexuality as an insult. It’s pathetic, and no more sensible than shouting “nigger” at people who support fair taxation practices; and I find it just as offensive. To be explicit, when Cliff denigrates the men opposed to him by calling them women, he also communicates that all women are inferior. Except maybe you? Don’t believe it for a second. You’re being called either a dumb slut or a girl who knows her place every time he implies that all women are inferior to men. I surely don’t understand why you think it’s OK to let someone imply you’re inferior, and continue to support their bigoted ramblings. Michael was certainly magnanimous in agreeing to ask his wife to comment here. I’d get an earful from my wife just for asking her to lower herself to respond to a misogynist idiot like Cliff.

    If you didn’t notice, Karen is not expressing sisterly solidarity. She’s pointing out that Cliff’s behavior is objectionable.

  384. #394 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 10:16 am

    In the scenario you describe, the criminal has both motivation and intent, both of which are substantive measures of a crime in our judicial system.

    The means relates to the weapon in injury cases, but equally important and sometimes MORE important is motive and intent.

    Therefore, we must consider those things equally when discussing the problem and its solution.

    If somebody wants to to you harm, there is a motive. If you can reduce or eliminate the motive, you don’t need a physical defense.

    When you ignore this fact when making the argument for the right of self-defense, you reduce your argument to the tiniest fraction of circumstances in which self-defense is appropriate.

    In the vast majority of criminal murder cases, the victim knew the perp and therefore had many other considerations besides self-defense at the moment of truth.

    Example: You owe me money. I sneak into your driveway at night to steal your F-150 Extra Duty Diesel truck.

    If you have reason to believe I will shoot you if you try to stop me, you have many many other options to avoid getting killed without having to kill me.

    In other words, self-defense is a big subject that cannot be reduced to gun play and circumstantial advantage

    …unless of course you think you are living in an unreasonable dysfunctional society.

    The simple fact is, intelligent gun control will have a measurable positive effect on on public health without materially disadvataging anybody with a legitimate need for self-defense.

    The ONLY reason you object to intelligent gun control is because you have in effect, sworn an oath to the NRA to never ever budge the subject.

    The cost to society of your loyalty is unacceptably high an unforgivably selfish and ignorant.

  385. #395 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 10:23 am

    Cold,

    This is not about reading comprehension, it is about attention deficit.

    The point of the hypothetical is to help you understand how fucking stupid is your argument that bathtubs, knives and cars are the same as guns.

    So is a person killed with a bathtub, knife, or car any less dead than one killed by a criminal using a gun?

    And you fail to consider how many lives are saved by the use of any of the above. Bathtub? Sure, there’s the hygene aspect, but that could be dealt with through alternate means that avoid the risk of some deranged person drowning her children

    Knives? Well, in the hands of surgeons, they are lifesaving in the form of scalpels but no private individual has need of them. And if they can prove an actual need, they should be able to demonstrate that need to the government and get a proper license.

    Cars? Now that one’s truly horrifying. Cars kill far more people than guns do in this country and there is no justification for private ownership whatsoever. Ban cars completely. Let people use public transportation. No public transportation going where you want to go, when you want to go there? Too bad. Suck it up just like you expect me to suck up that there’s never a cop around when I need one.

    Your attempts at insult don’t change anything: that you are engaging in the fallacy of special pleading.

    So who are you really? If you actually have a philosophy degree where you absent the day they explained that logical fallacies are things you are supposed to AVOID in discourse, not a list of tactics to use?

    This is not about victim strategy unless you are talking about seat belts.

    Non sequitor. But you knew that, right? After all, you are supposed to have a philosophy degree. Even introductory courses on the subject discuss logical fallacies and why they should be avoided.

    Follow?

    Better than you do apparently.

    The ultimate arrogance of your argument is that ANYONE should have to think about defending themselves in a civilized society.

    And what color is the sky on your planet? Here, on Earth, where the skies are (usually) blue, there exists not one society anywhere where no one is every placed in a situation where they have to defend themselves. No where is there a society so perfect that no one is ever faced with violence initiated by others.

    This is where you’re going to bring up the police being there to “protect” us. That fails on several grounds: first is the expectation that someone else has to put himself in harms way to protect you. That is ultimate arrogance right there: that you’re worth defending, but only if it’s a hired hand who has to take the risk and responsibility of actually doing the protection. But then, it’s not that way. The courts have already weighed in that the police have no responsibility to protect you, me, or any other individual, if for no other reason than that it’s an impossible task. The police cannot be there every time when needed. In fact, it’s almost certain that if one is ever faced with being the victim of a violent felony (as, about 1 person in three will face sometime during their life) that a police officer won’t be there. The reason for that is pretty easy to see–if a police officer were there, most criminals wouldn’t choose that time and place to initiate their crime. There’s a reason that “there’s never a cop around when you need one” is a truism.

    Can you name one society on this planet–anywhere–where the police have an actual legal responsibility to protect individuals. Note that platitudes written on the sides of police cars (“to protect and serve”) don’t count. Actual responsibility comes with liability, with consequences, for failure to fulfill that responsibility. So, where is it that the police will face penalties for failing to defend some private individual, or where there is absolutly no violent crime so that no one ever needs defense? Come on, one place. Since that’s the standard of “civilization” that you are using, it must exist somewhere.

    Clearly, you are willing to accept a lower standard of society and civilization.

    That I am unwilling to substitute fantasy and pipe dreams for reality? Absolutely.

    It’s easy to imagine “happy world” where no one ever needs to defend him or her self. However, expecting that “happy world” to have a connection to reality is delusional at best.

  386. #396 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 10:25 am

    Cold, If you seriously want to engage in a useful conversation, you can start by explaining why bathtubs and cars are not the same.

    Sure, right after you tell me how dead by gun is “more dead” than dead by being drowned by one’s mother.

    Really, you should be begging forgiveness for that argument. Unless you are willing to argue that the word ‘arms’ in 2a includes common furniture, appliances, and other household items.

    Non sequitor

    Can you not see the glaring hypocrisy of your argument?

    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    I guess maybe not.

  387. #397 by Egil on April 5, 2009 - 10:27 am

    See, this is where you guys fail utterly.

    You state that nothing prevents me from slapping a magazine into an assault rifle and going on a shooting rampage, therefore I shouldn’t have an assault rifle.

    By that same argument, nothing prevents my sister from drowning her own son if she desired. Nothing prevents my brother from plowing his Ford F-150 through a school playground. Nothing prevents me from going on a killing rampage with my swords. Therefore my sister shouldn’t have a bathtub, my brother shouldn’t have a Ford F-150 and I shouldn’t own the swords that I do.

    Also, by that same argument, Military and LEO’s shouldn’t have firearms as nothing prevents them from killing either. There have been numerous examples of Military and law enforcement personel taking their service weapons and killing innocent people with them (there was a shooting at Fort Bragg several years ago). And these guys have lawful sanction to do so, citizens do not.

    Now, arguing it is unnecessary in civilization is a double-edge sword. Because in a good civilization, Law Enforcement wouldn’t be driving around with a small arsenal in the car and there’d be no need for a military. So again, we should disarm law enforcement and the military (I am actually in favor of getting rid of the standing army).

    But none of you advocate this because you understand that it is pipe-dream. What is ironic though is you are arguing for a paradigm that historically has been the worst victimizer the world has seen, the State. The great attrocities were not performed by individuals, they were performed by states, governments and political parties. This paradigm you argue for of armed law enforcement and military is a shoddy paradigm more apt to oppress the people than protect and defend their liberty and security.

    You can give a moral person a 100 kiloton nuclear bomb and you will not have to worry about him detonating it because his is moral. But you argue that that nuclear weapon will somehow corrupt the person, giving a weapon human properties.

    So, my definition of the gun-grabbers is cryptofascist mystics. It Fits.

  388. #398 by Bob S. on April 5, 2009 - 10:35 am

    Cliff,

    In the vast majority of criminal murder cases, the victim knew the perp and therefore had many other considerations besides self-defense at the moment of truth.

    Example: You owe me money. I sneak into your driveway at night to steal your F-150 Extra Duty Diesel truck.

    If you have reason to believe I will shoot you if you try to stop me, you have many many other options to avoid getting killed without having to kill me

    Are you seriously arguing that the VICTIM of a crime has to take precautions to avoid killing the CRIMINAL?

    Where is the CRIMINAL’S responsibility to avoid actions that could possible lead to his/her death?

    That is the more important argument. If a criminal knows that stealing my truck might lead to him/her loosing his/her life, shouldn’t they avoid stealing my truck?

    You are trying to give free reign to criminals and bullies (maybe there is a hint to an ulterior motive– you display bullying tactics here often) instead of empowering the PEOPLE to stop and prevent crimes.

  389. #399 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 10:41 am

    In the scenario you describe, the criminal has both motivation and intent, both of which are substantive measures of a crime in our judicial system.

    The means relates to the weapon in injury cases, but equally important and sometimes MORE important is motive and intent.

    Therefore, we must consider those things equally when discussing the problem and its solution.

    If somebody wants to to you harm, there is a motive. If you can reduce or eliminate the motive, you don’t need a physical defense.

    So basically you are proposing that somehow we can create a “crime free” society–one devoid of violent crime.

    Please point me to one place, any place, where that has been accomplished. Otherwise, well, come on, you’re supposed to have a degree in philosophy, you KNOW that logical fallacy that is.

    When you ignore this fact when making the argument for the right of self-defense, you reduce your argument to the tiniest fraction of circumstances in which self-defense is appropriate.

    I’m sure it would comfort the victims to know, as they lay bleeding out on the street, that they represent the “tiniest fraction of circumstances.”

    In the vast majority of criminal murder cases, the victim knew the perp and therefore had many other considerations besides self-defense at the moment of truth.

    “Killer known to the victim” includes many things. Also murder is only one of, indeed the smallest portion of, violent felonies where one faces the risk of serious injury or death.

    Example: You owe me money. I sneak into your driveway at night to steal your F-150 Extra Duty Diesel truck.

    If you have reason to believe I will shoot you if you try to stop me, you have many many other options to avoid getting killed without having to kill me.

    The “sequitor” doesn’t get more “non” than the above.

    In other words, self-defense is a big subject that cannot be reduced to gun play and circumstantial advantage

    I’m sure that that will be very comforting to the next stalker victim.

    Tell you what, you show me a society actually working where self-defense against violent crime is no longer ever necessary and then we can start talking about the price that comes with such a society. The closest that I am aware of would be Japan, but that’s already been shown uptopic to have a price attached which leads to more (of a “do it yourself nature”) violent death than in the US. But I suppose being pulped by a 200+ MPH bullet train is better than a lethal gunshot wound.

    …unless of course you think you are living in an unreasonable dysfunctional society.

    So show me the society which ISN’T “unreasonably dysfunctional.” Show me a real-world example that’s not a pure creation of imagination. Oh, and make sure it’s one that has a good track record of not turning seriously dark. After all, I’m sure a person as “reasonable” as you would not want to make any irrevocable steps that might turn around to bite us in a generation or two.

    Until then you are using something that doesn’t exist as an argument. Arguing based on how you wish things were rather than how they actually are is about as arrogant as it gets–as well as being delusional.

    The simple fact is, intelligent gun control will have a measurable positive effect on on public health without materially disadvataging anybody with a legitimate need for self-defense.

    The ONLY reason you object to intelligent gun control is because you have in effect, sworn an oath to the NRA to never ever budge the subject.

    The cost to society of your loyalty is unacceptably high an unforgivably selfish and ignorant.

  390. #400 by Damned Yankee on April 5, 2009 - 10:43 am

    Cliff says:
    “Here’s the deal. I’ll go up against all of you at the same time. You all get your weapon of choice, anything deadly EXCEPT a gun.
    I get the gun, you guys get your pick; bathtub, car, hammer, knife, plastic bag, plane, electrical outlet, rocks, pesticides, dirty water/air, cigarettes, angry wife etc.
    You’re all dead. Still wanna play this game?”

    There’s one word that describes the above: Stupid.

    The idea is ridiculous, and the utterer is clearly ignorant and immature and is probably stupid

    Anything but a gun? How ridiculous. I can think of several weapons which trump guns without exposing the user to hostile gunfire without employing other defensive technologies. Someone employing a gun with hostile intent doesn’t guarantee they’ll even hurt their intended victim. A gun isn’t a magic death ray despite your fantasies to the contrary.

  391. #401 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 10:53 am

    There’s a very simple solution for a criminal who doesn’t want to risk being killed in self defense: don’t commit violent felonies, don’t make forcible entry into people’s dwellings and/or curtilage and/or occupied motor vehicles (depending on if the local laws include some form of “Castle Doctrine” and what exactly it says if one engages in it).

    One might argue that Breaking and Entering doesn’t justify a “death penalty.” Maybe not if it gets to trial. However, there is a concept of law of “willfully accepted risks.” An example of that is in contact sports. A person playing football might, in the course of the game, be fatally injured. In such an event, neither the team for which he played nor the individuals on the other team whose actions may have led to the injury are legally responsible for the death–either criminally or civilly–UNLESS there can be demonstrated specific negligence (safety gear that violates standards set for such things, players deliberately violating the rules in ways that led to the injury, that sort of thing). The fact that accidents can happen that can kill is one of the risks one assumes when choosing to play football.

    And before Cliff or Becky get their knickers in an uproar, I am not comparing Football to lethal self defense but simply using it as an example of the legal principle. When one willingly engages in an activity that has known risks, one assumes the responsibility for those risks to oneself. Committing crimes, particularly violent felonies, is one of those activities. The criminal gets to choose whether to commit the crime. The victims or putative victims generally do not. thus, the responsibility lies with the ones who have the choice–the criminals.

  392. #402 by Becky on April 5, 2009 - 10:55 am

    Damned Yankee,

    I”m rarely serious. I was teasing all the gunnies who have devoted considerable time supporting our little blog here. We do thank you all.

    And as to the girls and women references, since when did you conservatives start complaining about political correctness? I thought you all wanted us to lighten up and learn to laugh at ourselves. You needn’t worry on my behalf, Yankee. If I see real misogyny, I’m perfectly capable of addressing it.

  393. #403 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 11:06 am

    The simple fact is, intelligent gun control will have a measurable positive effect on on public health without materially disadvataging anybody with a legitimate need for self-defense.

    The ONLY reason you object to intelligent gun control is because you have in effect, sworn an oath to the NRA to never ever budge the subject.

    The cost to society of your loyalty is unacceptably high an unforgivably selfish and ignorant.

    Missed a bit in getting the block quotes straight in the previous message.

    The “intelligent gun control will” argument is nothing more than an assumption. Assumes facts not in evidence. Evidence of any form of gun control actually reducing crime or risks to individuals in a society is mighty thin. Yes, there are societies that have strong gun control and have low crime. There are societies that have strong gun control and high crime. However when you look at time-sequences–societies that had weak or no gun control and then implemented gun control, the trend has been either little to no effect (at best) to crime increasing.

    When one starts looking for where the change is gun control and only gun control it rapidly becomes clear than any correlation is the other way–more gun control leads to more crime and violence. And that has certainly been the experience in the US. Crime in DC was on a downward trend when DC instituted its handgun ban. Crime then started going up. (Those aren’t my figures, nor are they NRA figures. They are DOJ figures.) Nationwide crime was on a downward trend when the Clinton administration signed the Brady Bill into law and the original AWB. That trend was not changed by either of those bills becoming law (since most criminals obtain their guns through illegal sources and since so-called “assault weapons” are used in only a tiny percentage of crimes regardless of what CNN and 60 minutes claims, this was hardly surprising) The continuing downward trend did, however, track very will with the increasing number of states that went “Shall Issue.”

    Again, despite your frothing at the mouth over the NRA, these are all DOJ statistics, obtained from official DOJ sources, not from the NRA or any other such organization. Your attempt at Poisoning the Well (another logical fallacy) fails.

    The “cost” to society of my position is lower crime and safer citizens, oh, and individual Freedom, something you seem to care very little about.

  394. #404 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 11:14 am

    Damned Yankee,

    I”m rarely serious. I was teasing all the gunnies who have devoted considerable time supporting our little blog here. We do thank you all.

    And as to the girls and women references, since when did you conservatives start complaining about political correctness? I thought you all wanted us to lighten up and learn to laugh at ourselves. You needn’t worry on my behalf, Yankee. If I see real misogyny, I’m perfectly capable of addressing it.

    And here it’s all in perspective. From where I sit, we’ve had a very effective time showing how completely empty the anti-gunners are when it comes to logic and reason.

    As for “amount of time,” what makes you think it takes very much? In one example above, it took me a minute to look up when the first Colt revolver patents was issued and another minute to look up the lifespans of a couple of the Founding Fathers (started with Thomas Jefferson, next checked James Madison. Saw that Madison lived long enough for my point and stopped there). The rest was information I already knew well enough to type off the cuff–total time spent, including writing the response? About 5 minutes. And that was one of the longer ones.

    Besides, watching the anti-freedom folk run around in circles, bury themselves under logical fallacies, and generally squawk like a bantam rooster full of their own self importance has been much more entertaining than anything on the boob tube.

    That’s right. You folk fall under “entertainment” in my categorization scheme. What? You didn’t think that anything said on this blog is actually important in the grand scheme of things did you?

  395. #405 by Becky on April 5, 2009 - 11:42 am

    Ok, Cold, you got me there. I can be as serious as the next guy/girl. But I have no illusions about changing some very entrenched minds here. Sometimes I just sit here and read all these repetitious comments,the passion, and sometimes the out and out banality, and I just shake my head. And I feel we occasionally need to all step back and take a deep breath.

    Not that I expect that to happen here. Not for one second. So let me just step out of the way here, and you can fire away.

    (Your earlier comment, Cold, took us to over 400 on this thread. I think someone should have tooted some horns and thrown confetti.)

  396. #406 by Jaktens Tid on April 5, 2009 - 12:24 pm

    # Becky
    But I have no illusions about changing some very entrenched minds here.

    Yeah, sorry for taking our Constitution to heart. Inconvenient, I know.

  397. #407 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 12:31 pm

    “Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

    As for “entrenched minds” have you considered the ones (Cliff’s comes to minds) who seem to think that invective and insult are an entirely adequate response to actual facts and figures. Look again at where these “mass shootings” mostly happen (list given uptopic) and who is saying that creating more of the places where they happen most is a good thing and tell me again who has an “entrenched mind.”

  398. #408 by Sean G. on April 5, 2009 - 12:36 pm

    “Here’s the deal. I’ll go up against all of you at the same time. You all get your weapon of choice, anything deadly EXCEPT a gun.

    I get the gun, you guys get your pick; bathtub, car, hammer, knife, plastic bag, plane, electrical outlet, rocks, pesticides, dirty water/air, cigarettes, angry wife etc.

    You’re all dead. Still wanna play this game?”

    Sigh..Cliff you really ARE a fool. I know and talk to most of these people and know that they are proficient in all sorts of self defense and weapons besides guns. While you’re busy putting a shot into one, one of the others will most likely put an arrow through your skull. Or quite possibly a well balanced blade through your throat..[no changing the rules again..you said any weapon they care to choose except a gun] You see like some here have tried to tell you..shooting is a social sport..it’s also very much a zen exercise. I personally find it a very relaxing way to spend the day..standing behind a firing line and shootin the breeze in between live fire periods.

    You would be surprised to hear this Cliff..but even after all the stupid crap you’ve spouted I don’t hate you, more like I pity you.

  399. #409 by Egil on April 5, 2009 - 12:46 pm

    Guns are evil, so let us only allow trained, hired and lawful killers (Military and law enforcement) arms. The only proper way to keep the peace is give guns to trained killers!

    Nevermind that the Military and the Police are under the control of the government and not the people. Government employs trained and lawful killers and you want only them to have guns?

    What the fuck is wrong with you? Why don’t you advocate giving child molesters their own children? Or hand out rape victims to rapists! Hey, hand out drugs to drug dealers and let them make money. It is what you are advocating for when you advocate allowing only hired killers guns. It is like giving chickens to Foxes. Fucking stupid. Ask the military if they’d kill American citizens if they are ordered to, their answer is yes.

    Under that line of reasoning, there is nothing wrong with Governments from having weapons. Hey, let us give North Korea and Iran a few hundred nuclear weapons, I mean, government is responsible!

    Fuck is wrong with you? Got instutitionalized by the Nanny States of New England?

  400. #410 by Sean G. on April 5, 2009 - 1:00 pm

    “Fuck is wrong with you? Got instutitionalized by the Nanny States of New England?”

    Now, now Egil. Such language. While I happen to agree with everything you said, is there some reason we can’t use a civilized tongue? Now be a civilized soul…and watch your goddamn mother fucking language. *grin*

  401. #411 by Karen Ahle on April 5, 2009 - 1:00 pm

    Ask the military if they’d kill American citizens if they are ordered to, their answer is yes.

    I beg your pardon, but I come from a military family — both parents, my brother and sister, my uncle, my grandfather, etc. are active or retired military members. If you asked most of the active duty people I know to shoot innocent American civilians, you would very shortly have a mutiny on your hands. There is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful… the definition of which would, naturally, have to be determined by the future court-martial.

  402. #412 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 5, 2009 - 3:57 pm


    The ultimate arrogance of your argument is that ANYONE should have to think about defending themselves in a civilized society.

    Clearly, you are willing to accept a lower standard of society and civilization.

    What? Are you serious, Cliff? Where are you living? I knew you were in your own little world, but I have to say that I’m shocked at this comment. I’d love to live in a society where nobody has to EVER consider defending themselves, but we don’t live there. The fact is people do have to defend themselves from time to time. It’s not so much that we are willing to accept this standard of society, but rather, we are forced to accept it, because it’s the very nature of the world around us. I would love for everyone to live non-violent life styles. You and I seem to agree on that, with exeption of you calling for the hangings of certain people. It would be wonderfull if people would stop victimizing each other. It would be fantastic if the human race stopped living in violence and chaos, but it’s not gonna happen. By calling for the death of a TV show host, you have proven that even the idealogical have morbid thoughts of harming others. We are simply an imperfect species.

  403. #413 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 5, 2009 - 4:23 pm

    I am glad you wanted to bring social aspects into the debate, Cliff. You see, there have been a lot of mass murders lately, most of which have been carried out with guns. I fail to see how legislation would have stopped very much of it, in fact I don’t think it would have stopped any of it at all.

    Our efforts should be focused on solving the social problems that breed violence, not a tool that is sometimes the chosen tool of the disenchanted.

    You have been great at trying to pass along the news anytime a gun has been used in these recent murders, but you don’t ever post anything about the other murders, where a gun was not used, and still multiple people lost thier lives.

    We need to pull together as a society to do everything we can do to fix this economy. We need to be more caring and helpfull neighbors and friends to those who have lost thier jobs, due to increasingly high number of layoffs.

    If you look at each of the recent murders, that you have so repititiously informed us of, you’ll see that most are linked to the same thing. The loss of a job, and someones inability to cope, with thier own bleak situation.

    We need to work to solve problems such as poverty. We need to be looking into the causes of violent behavior, and doing everything we can to prevent such behavior.

    BTW, Cliff, I knew you’d warm up to me.

  404. #414 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 5:19 pm

    Cold Cold Cold,

    In response to my statement:

    When you ignore this fact when making the argument for the right of self-defense, you reduce your argument to the tiniest fraction of circumstances in which self-defense is appropriate.

    You said:

    I’m sure it would comfort the victims to know, as they lay bleeding out on the street, that they represent the “tiniest fraction of circumstances.”

    The point is that good policy cannot be dictated by the rare to never circumstance.

    Yeah, people will die who might have been saved had a gun law not been so restrictive, but more people dies because they aren’t. Nobody disputes that.

    So it comes down to how many more innocent lives are lost for the protection of your rights than would be lost under more restrictive guns laws.

    I think if we accept the challenge, we can dramatically reduce the availability of guns in the US and the pure number of human shooting events without you having to give up much of anything.

    i.e You keep your guns.

  405. #415 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 5:22 pm

    Douchebag,

    Legislation doesn’t reduce the availability of guns. Good, broad, integrated gun policy does.

  406. #416 by Onyxhawke on April 5, 2009 - 5:39 pm

    Becky,

    You never answered my question.

  407. #417 by Bob S. on April 5, 2009 - 6:31 pm

    Cliff,

    See you are wrong again:

    Yeah, people will die who might have been saved had a gun law not been so restrictive, but more people dies because they aren’t. Nobody disputes that.

    I dispute it. I challenge you to find documented, peer reviewed evidence from credentialed professionals in the proper field. I believe that is your requirement, isn’t it?

    So, let see some evidence that less people will die if we implement restrictive gun laws.

  408. #418 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 6:32 pm

    Cold Cold Cold,

    In response to my statement:

    When you ignore this fact when making the argument for the right of self-defense, you reduce your argument to the tiniest fraction of circumstances in which self-defense is appropriate.

    You said:

    I’m sure it would comfort the victims to know, as they lay bleeding out on the street, that they represent the “tiniest fraction of circumstances.”

    The point is that good policy cannot be dictated by the rare to never circumstance.

    Yeah, people will die who might have been saved had a gun law not been so restrictive, but more people dies because they aren’t. Nobody disputes that.

    I guess the DOJ is “nobody” then since from their own numbers more criminal acts of violence are stopped by handguns than are committed total, let alone with handguns.

    You keep eliding over that fact.

    So it comes down to how many more innocent lives are lost for the protection of your rights than would be lost under more restrictive guns laws.

    Fallacy of the false dilemma.

    Every time in this country that we get more restrictive gun laws, the result is either no change or increases in violent crime. Every time gun laws are changed to be less restrictive, the result is either no change or decreases in violent crime. The net result of more restrictive gun laws then is an increase in violent crime. The net result of less restrictive is less violent crime.

    Not only is there no evidence that more restrictive gun laws will lead to less violence, but that claim in fact flies in the face of the evidence in place.

    I think if we accept the challenge, we can dramatically reduce the availability of guns in the US and the pure number of human shooting events without you having to give up much of anything.

    Ri-i-i-i-i-ght. Like one is supposed to believe this from someone who has flat out stated “you want to keep your guns, I want to take them away.”

    So were you lying then or are you lying now?

    i.e You keep your guns.

    At least for the time being, I’m sure. Funny thing is, every time that gun owners have agreed to a “compromise” with folk like you the ink isn’t even dry on the signature on the legislation before your side is already talking about it being a “good first step” (one wonders how many “first steps” there can be).

    “Compromise” is not asking for a bunch, accepting a little, then asking for more later for the next round of “compromise.” If you want real compromise, then tell me what your side is willing to give up that it already has now: Brady Act (which has had no effect on crime anyway)? The no-new-fully-automatic-weapons proviso of GOPA ’86? Full Faith and Credit?

  409. #419 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 6:34 pm

    Bob, The State study that corelates number of guns to deaths. You know, the one that was published in a peer review journal from that ultra-liberal Harvard University.

    Not that it isn’t basic common sense.

    Fewer guns means fewer of the things that guns do right?

    Can’t shoot a gun that isn’t there.

    Got it?

    Try it again slowly, out loud if it helps.

  410. #420 by Cliff Lyon on April 5, 2009 - 6:46 pm

    Cold, This a flat out lie and you m’lady YOU KNOW IT. Shame on YOU!

    I guess the DOJ is “nobody” then since from their own numbers more criminal acts of violence are stopped by handguns than are committed total, let alone with handguns.

    Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie!

  411. #421 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 6:53 pm

    Douchebag,

    Legislation doesn’t reduce the availability of guns. Good, broad, integrated gun policy does.

    If by “good, broad, integrated gun policy” you mean “nothing” then your statement is true.

    Perhaps you can point me to any case where there was first a high “availability” and use of guns among criminals, then some “policy” was passed and that was followed by a “availability” and use being low.

    The “usual suspects” that are cited are places where there never was a large criminal use of guns. “Gun control” in Great Britain is a recent innovation yet even before that the criminal use of guns was low–and violent crime has been rising ever since the British Parliament, in it’s remarkable “wisdom” (quotes to indicate irony) decided that the best way of dealing with criminal misuse of firearms was to disarm their victims. Japan? We’ve already discussed that. Germany? The “allus in ordnung” meme is a deep seated one in Germany and has been for centuries. And that cultural tendency toward submission to authority has its darker side as well–as two World Wars attests.

    Your claims of what can be accomplished by “good, broad, integrated, gun policy” amounts to no more than wishful thinking and fails completely when compared to the real world. You might as well wish for a pony while you’re at it.

  412. #422 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 7:06 pm

    Cold, This a flat out lie and you m’lady YOU KNOW IT. Shame on YOU!

    I guess the DOJ is “nobody” then since from their own numbers more criminal acts of violence are stopped by handguns than are committed total, let alone with handguns.

    Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie! Lie lie lie!

    I would suggest you check with the numbers on gun defenses from the DOJ’s NCVS, a survey taken by the Office of the Census, on behalf of the Department of Justice, during the Clinton administration–one you cannot possibly dismiss as “NRA Propaganda”.

    Average annual number of violent crimes with handguns (1987-1991): 667,000
    Average annual number of defenses with a gun (same period): 699,900

    And this is with the various factors which make the NCVS survey a “lowball” estimate (including, but not limited to, that it was a survey of crime VICTIMS–the “V” in NCVS–and so does not include any crimes not reported because they were prevented, nor does it include anyone who doesn’t want to admit to officers of the US government, so identified when they took the survey, that they used a firearm for fear that such admission might lead to legal trouble). That’s 32,900 more defenses with a gun than crimes committed with one.

    Now, I will admit that I didn’t specify “felonies” in the above, as I usually do, which limits assault to felony “aggravated assault” rather than misdemeanor simple assault, nor do I include pure “malum prohibitum” things like “possession of an unlicensed handgun” since mere possession is not a threat to anyone. I’m more intereted in “malum in se”–things that are bad from their nature rather than simply because someone passed a rule against them. Most of these “malum prohibitum” items represent laws that shouldn’t be on the books anyway.

    You can always tell when you’re making up your “evidence” and basically lying through your teeth–it’s when you fall into the misogyny and/or homophobia and name calling.

    Sorry, Mr. Lyons but the liar here is you.

  413. #423 by Onyxhawke on April 5, 2009 - 7:07 pm

    Cliff,

    No, Cold isn’t lying. John Stossell did a report on this about 2 or three years ago. I think there was a similar report from the CDC as well.

  414. #424 by Bob S. on April 5, 2009 - 7:12 pm

    Cliff,

    Do you know the difference between “correlation” and “causation”?

  415. #425 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 7:29 pm

    Yes Bob,

    Statistical Correlation must be at the foundation of any argument for “causation”.

  416. #426 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 7:31 pm

    Cliff,

    No, Cold isn’t lying. John Stossell did a report on this about 2 or three years ago. I think there was a similar report from the CDC as well.

    The NCVS study, which I am using here, is the one that reports the lowest number of gun defenses out of all the studies I have seen (15 as ofthe last time I looked into this). Hence “lowball” result.

    This study only reports “gun defenses” based on crime victims (that “V” again), who volunteered to self-identified agents of the Federal Government collecting information for the Department of Justice that they used a gun (not asked specifically about guns, just if they did anything to defend themselves) to defend themselves in the crime of which they were a victim.

    If anyone thinks that something like that isn’t going to severely underestimate the actual number of gun defenses, they really need to make a strong reality check.

    And yet, even with that, the number of gun defenses still outnumbers the number of gun crimes.

    Oh, and those same DOJ statistics show that one’s best chances to avoid injury is to resist the criminal (giving the lie to claims that it’s best to “give him what he wants”), and that the more effective a tool of resistance one has, the less likely and less severe injury one is likely to sustain.

    So, I prefer that my wife be standing with a smoking gun in her hand and a dead rapist at her feet rather than lying dead in an alley with her pantyhose wrapped around her neck and the rapist’s semen dribbling down her leg.

    Perhaps some folk here feel otherwise, but I’ll thank them not to make that decision for my wife.

  417. #427 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 7:33 pm

    Hey what do you guys think about what Tim DeChristopher did?

    He is a serious outdoorsman. Highly supportive of ATV and hunting rights.

  418. #428 by Bob S. on April 5, 2009 - 7:34 pm

    Cliff,

    Then you wouldn’t mind quoting the relevant sections of that study that shows that causation, right?

    In the mean time….I found an ad for you

  419. #429 by ColdServings on April 5, 2009 - 7:48 pm

    In follow up to that, here’s another useful ad. For folk who think that “gun free” is the way to go, you too can create your own “Gun free zone.”

  420. #430 by Egil on April 5, 2009 - 7:51 pm

    Do not forget that during the Clinton Administration many states passed Shall Issue handgun carry permits. The majority of states have these laws and 35 states have reciprocity agreements in some form or another.

    There was also a survey in the 80s of criminals and it too shows that armed people is a great crime deterrent, possibly a greater deterrant than Police.

  421. #431 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 7:59 pm

    No Bob,

    The thesis of the study did not go to causation. Its pure statistics. It confirmed a correlation.

    That’s how social progress happens at the highest level. Experts in research and statistics do that.

    Experts in heath and social sciences use those data to contribute more science up to policy makers.

    You will rarely find a causal thesis in statistical research. Thats a sure sign of propaganda.

    Thats why Lott cannot be taken seriously, or 99% of the stuff Alan Korwin publishes.

    Its all crap far below the high standards of academic peer review that produce the kind of medical science for instance that will extend your life some day.

  422. #432 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 8:07 pm

    Egil,

    Of course “armed people is a great crime deterrent,”.

    Smart Gun Policy should never preclude the assumption that anyone could be armed at anytime and anywhere except on private property where prohibited.

  423. #433 by Beastmaster on April 5, 2009 - 8:10 pm

    Thats why Lott cannot be taken seriously, or 99% of the stuff Alan Korwin publishes.

    Its all crap far below the high standards of academic peer review that produce the kind of medical science for instance that will extend your life some day.

    Hmm. Maybe I should invite Alan to discuss this on here too.

  424. #434 by Sean G. on April 5, 2009 - 8:23 pm

    Cliff,
    I can break it down for you..your problem. ANY inanimate object can be dangerous..IF[follow me for a sec] its used, driven, fired, thrown..WHATEVER, by a person with evil intents. The problem is person using it, NOT the inanimate object. A gun does not spontaneously grow legs and a brain, stand up, aim itself and pull its own trigger. A knife does not spontaneously levitate, orient itself and drive itself into a body. A bow does not spontaneously levitate itself and the arrow it fires into the air, take aim and release its arrow. How it’s used is chosen by the person with object in hand. Until you come to the startling revelation that a gun by in and of itself is inanimate object and not inherently evil , that it is the person using it, driving it, and actually blame criminals and not the human race as a whole, etc, well…*shrug*
    Hang on a sec..got a link that demonstrates this principle perfectly.

    http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&id=20090326/49cb0bd0_3421_1334520090326-674963081

    3x in 72hrs. boggles the mind doesn’t it? Is it the alcohols fault the woman has NO self respect, or self control? Would it have been the cars fault, had this unbelievably criminally stupid bitch killed someone? Nope. The intent is the person’s NOT the objects.
    She CHOSE to get drunk, she CHOSE to get behind the wheel of a 2000+lb rolling juggernaut. Its HER fault. Blame the criminal..not the object dude. By the same token don’t smear everyone on the planet with that criminal brushstroke. It won’t float because people aren’t cutout cookies we’re all different.

  425. #435 by Onyxhawke on April 5, 2009 - 8:46 pm

  426. #436 by Ipso Facto on April 5, 2009 - 8:53 pm

    I heard that there was a debate on this thread about assault weapons, so I thought I would check it out. It seems like kind of a mess over here, so I’ll just try to weigh in with some actual facts and data for anyone who is really interested in learning something about the subject. To start with, I actually tend to agree that the parent should not have sent his kid to school with the shirt to express his (the parent’s) political opinions, mainly because he is below the age of consent and it would be a concern for me that he is making his kid a billboard for his political beliefs. Why doesn’t he wear it to his office, instead of making his statement by proxy? With that said, it looks like there is a good bit of posturing and polarization here, notably by but not limited to the blogger here, about what is actually a pretty clear-cut issue with a fairly well defined set of facts and parameters, namely the role and (mis)use of assault weapons in the hands of civilians in the US. Some of those facts are as follows:

    Assault rifles are defined by Websters as:

    1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
    2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

    While Websters is not Janes Small Arms of the World, shooters probably have to work with the fact that the civilian world has expanded the technical definition of assault rifles beyond the original Sturmgewehr to one incorporating social and legal viewpoints not originally part of the definition. As to the first group, legally owned fully automatic weapons of all kinds (of which true assault rifles are a subset) have only been used to commit 2 murders since the 1934 National Firearms Act was passed. Since that time, they have been severely restricted (to Federal license holders) since by the McClure Volker Firearms Act since 1986, so for all intents and purposes they are a non-issue in the discussion here.

    As regards legally-owned semi-automatic firearms patterned after military counterparts, such rifles have been widely available since the first AR-15′s were offered to the civilian market in the 1960′s. In fact, civilian ownership and use of military semi-autos predates that considerably if one considers the large number of surplus M-1 Garands and Carbines transferred to civilans after WWII and Korea. If one’s objective is to attempt to determine the true negative social impact of such firearms in terms of violent crimes (murder, etc), all we have to do is check the readily available statistics compiled by the DOJ and Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    To start, the Department of Justice conducted a study in 1994 which concluded that these guns figured in somewhere between 2 and 8 percent of all gun-related crimes, and to my knowledge they have never broken out of the double digits in any study by any government entity. On that basis alone, they are far behind handguns, knives (or fists and feet for that matter) as a factor in criminal conduct. And whereas shootings involving such weapons are highly sensational, their role in the total number of deaths in the US is even more negligible. According to the Bureau for Justice Statistics, no more than .8% (that’s 8/10ths of 1%) of all homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers OF ALL KINDS. Ie, even this low total includes many bolt, pump and semi-auto action hunting rifles in 30-06, .308 and other dual-use calibers which are by no means fit even the broadest definition of “assault weapons”, so one can begin to see how negligible is the impact of these weapons on violent crime in the US. In fact, the number of persons killed with rifles of all types is less than 4% of US homicides, so opposing assault-type weapons on any kind of a statistical basis amounts to picking the nit off of a still smaller nit.

    In short, there is no empirical basis for singling out these firearms for condemnation as it relates to their impact on violent crime, at least according to the available US government statistics. Which probably goes a long way towards explaining the ad hominim attacks and other seemingly juvenile tactics the self-proclaimed “marksman” has been churning out on this thread. In my experience, that is usually what people do when they cannot win on the merits of the issue, and I can only hope he is better at addressing his targets on the range than he is on his little blog here. Good shooting all…

  427. #437 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 8:55 pm

    Sean G.,

    Thank you so much. I think I finally get it.

    You are saying the gun doesn’t shoot itself, the person does?

    Yes. The problem is the person, not the gun.

    So where do we go from here?

  428. #438 by Cliff on April 5, 2009 - 9:01 pm

    Thanks Ipso,

    Well argued points. I agree with all of them.

    There is no good statistical argument for restricting human assault weapons.

    But don’t you think, out of principle we could also raise the bar a bit for people who own them?

  429. #439 by Cliff is a douche bag!!!!!!!!!!!!! on April 6, 2009 - 2:36 am

    Cliff admits that the facts back Ipso’s arguments, then he still pushes for further gun control based on principle.

  430. #440 by Bob S. on April 6, 2009 - 5:45 am

    Cliff,

    Have you ever heard of the term “spurious correlation”?

    Probably not from your postings

    What Does Spurious Correlation Mean?
    A false presumption that two variables are correlated when in reality they are not. Spurious correlation is often a result of a third factor that is not apparent at the time of examination. Spurious comes from the Latin word spurious, which means illegitimate or false.

    Here is an example:

    What Does Skirt Length Theory Mean?
    The idea that skirt lengths are a predictor of the stock market direction. According to the theory, if skirts are short, it means the markets are going up. And if skirt are long, it means the markets are heading down.

    So, if according to you all we need to show is correlation, then shouldn’t we mandate short skirts and that would make the market rise? Of course not, there is no causation.

    Here is another one (sorry can’t embed the graph)

    The most arresting part of the article is the graph found in its abstract. No mention is made of it in the text, but none has to be. It’s a plot of the US highway fatality rate versus the tonnage of fresh lemons imported from Mexico, and I have to say, it’s a pretty darn straight line. I’ve seen a lot shakier plots used to justify some sweeping conclusions, and if those were justified, well, then I’m forced to conclude that Mexican lemons have improved highway safety a great deal. The vitamin C, maybe? The fragrance? Bioflavanoids?

    None of the above, of course. Correlation, tiresomely, once again refuses to imply causation, even when you ask it nicely

    The thesis of the study did not go to causation. Its pure statistics. It confirmed a correlation.

    Before you go telling everyone to give up their rights…based on a study that shows no scientific evidence of anything…shouldn’t you be presenting a little more in the way of evidence that your ideas would work?

    Show me that gun control laws have a causative relationship with less violence and I’ll support them.

    Until then I’ll keep my rights

  431. #441 by Cliff on April 6, 2009 - 10:13 am

    Bob S, Thanks so much on the primer on spurious correlations. But the study shows and exact correlation between legal gun ownership and all death by guns on a State by State basis.

    In others words if you were a betting man, the odds that a state with more legal gun ownership will also have more gun deaths (per/capita), the odds would be so high, no one would bet against it.

    That’s not very spurious. And since no one has challenged this study except Bob and Bob alone, I wonder which bet your fellow gun freaks would take?

    Gun ownership correlates to gun deaths

    States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

    Here is the peer reviewed analysis

    There are also earlier studies that show the same correlation as far back as the early 90s.

    I can’t wait to see how you explains away this one.

    Related story: In Harm’s Way: Guns and Kids (Post, May 30, 2006)
    Related graphic:
    Gun Ownership by State

    I think we are finally getting to the nub of the issue.

  432. #442 by Cliff on April 6, 2009 - 10:23 am

    But back to the point of the top post before we close out this thread.

    Mountain Pirate, the gun safety instructor from Maine said it best.

    This entire situation just completely blows my mind. Whether or not it was the father or the child that picked out the shirt, the fact that a shirt like this even comes in a size small enough for a 9 year old to wear is ridiculous. I firmly believe that assault weapons should not be available to any non military civilians. these weapons are specifically designed to wound and kill people, and while in some cases they are used in game hunting, are not designed for the sport. If people feel that they need a firearm for protection, get a shot gun, it’ll still get the job done.

    As a hunter safety instructor in Maine, i have certainly taught children this young proper firearm handling and shooting techniques, but for the purpose of hunting game, not people. Many children i teach are sent to the class by their parents, willingly, so that they can get their license and help to feed their family.

  433. #443 by Curious on April 6, 2009 - 10:34 am

    Mountain Pirate…

    I guess the kids out your way grow small.

    You’ve never seen a kid in a class that was the “gentle giant” and was growing larger and faster than the other children?

  434. #444 by ColdServings on April 6, 2009 - 10:35 am

    I suppose the idea that in areas where crime, particularly violent crime, are high, that people might actually seek the means to defend themselves. The “causal arrow” could easily point the other way.

    When you look at time series–where there is a change due to a law being passed, repealed, sunsetting, etc.–the general trend is quite clear: stronger “gun control,” leads to more violent crime while expanding the ability of ordinary citizens to be armed for their own defense leads to less. In the interest of full disclosure, in many cases the laws in question lead ot no detectable change. However, in a free country, the default needs to be for liberty unless there is a “strong societal interst” otherwise. And if there is not a dramatic, or even significant, or even detectable, reduction in violent crime from “gun control” then there is no such strong societal interest.

    As for your “gun safety instructor from Mainse said it best.” If that’s the “best” then it truly highlights how weak your case is. It’s so full of fallacies and inaccurate information as to be utterly ridiculous. Oh, and bias. Looking to a “hunter safety instructor” for information uses of guns other than hunting is like asking your dentist for information of brain surgery.

    BTW, I’m curious why you are so willing to accept Mountain Pirate’s word on this matter? You’ve been so sharply critical of people who disagree with you who happen to use an internet “handle” rather than their full real name. Why the double standard? Mind you, I’m not surprised at the double standard. I’m just curious as to how you will attempt to justify it.

  435. #445 by Bob S. on April 6, 2009 - 10:43 am

    Cliff,

    Once again, from your inability to provide a causative relationship, one can and should assume that such a relationship doesn’t exist.

    Correlation isn’t causation….that should be obvious.

    Do the states with higher gun ownership have other factors; higher crime, lower poverty levels, difference in population or race that also not only correlate with firearm related deaths but have a causative relationship?

    I take your refusal to answer as self – evident YES.

    Now, on to your “supporting evidence”

    From the first link:

    The Violence Policy Center in Washington used data from 2005 — the most recent available — from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    From your second link:

    In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine

    From your third link, the same study published:

    State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003

    Matthew MillerCorresponding, David Hemenway, Deborah Azraela,

    Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Available online 27 October 2006

    Wow, I am so impressed that you can find three sources of the same study online. That most have taken you hours to research.

    Maybe there have been people debunking Miller and Hemenway and Azreala

    Debunking Pseudoscience
    Statistical Malpractice — ‘Firearm Availability’ and Violence (Part I): Politics or Science?

    Here is a blogger who tears apart the study and shows how biased and incorrect is it.

    Buried within the study, Miller and Hemensay finally admit at their “study” doesn’t prove a causal relationship between homicide and guns in the home but that’s not what their press release says and it’s not how the liberal media is reporting the study results.

    Maybe, just maybe you might want to go back to school and re-learn your basic statistics.

    Or are you going to admit that you have an agenda here and won’t let facts stand in your way of trying to get rid of people’s rights?

  436. #446 by Cliff on April 6, 2009 - 10:59 am

    Cold, Thank you for the thoughtful effort to help me understand. It was however very confusing with several assumptions which are unsupported in any research I have seen.

    As for Mountain Pirate, he is right on and you know it. As a gun safety instructor in rural Maine, I believe he has more realistic understanding of guns and gun use in America than one might have as an old war dog.

    Did you ever see active duty? Kill anyone? Really, I need to know.

    tks
    Cliff

  437. #447 by Cliff on April 6, 2009 - 11:18 am

    Bob S,

    You missed a critical fact in Jeff Soyer’s refutation.

    He re-visits the data in his words, “Note that I exclude suicides and accidents.”

    How the hell is THAT relevant. The point of the study was to correlate all death by Gun (DBG) not the ever illusive unverifiable defensive gun uses.

    Therefore, he is no longer refuting the study, but just manipulating the data with the incoherence of a kindergarten coloring project.

    btw: The authors DO in fact “state that their “study” doesn’t prove a causal relationship between homicide and guns in the home.” But it is not a “finally admit” thing. As I explained to you before about the process of scientific research, it was not their intent.

    Appropriatly, Tim Lambert, a scientist provides us with what they ACTUALLY said.

    It is possible that a non-causal relationship explains our findings or that
    the association we observe might have arisen because individuals in states with historically high homicide rates acquired more guns (than did individuals in low-homicide states), as a defensive response to actual high homicide rates in their communities (i.e. ‘‘reverse causation’’).

    This broad notion of reverse causation, while consistent with our association between household firearms and firearm and overall homicide, does not explain why firearm ownership is not also significantly associated with rates of non-firearm homicide. Furthermore, rates of robbery and aggravated assault are not associated with household firearm prevalence, even after controlling for urbanization and resource deprivation (not shown).

    Since individuals who obtain firearms in an attempt to protect themselves from violence plausibly respond to non-fatal violence (which is far more common than fatal violence), the lack of association between firearm prevalence and non-lethal violent crime militates against reverse causation as an adequate explanation for our findings.

    The second link you provided is not about this study, its about another study that refers to the data and its not a very impressive website to say the least. The so called doctor who wrote does not seems to be a real doctor either.

    So congratulations, Bob. You’ve manged to produce 2 pedestrian bloggers who refute a Harvard peer reviewed study.

    If you can’t do better than that, please, PLEASE stop wasting my time.

  438. #448 by ColdServings on April 6, 2009 - 11:25 am

    Cold, Thank you for the thoughtful effort to help me understand. It was however very confusing with several assumptions which are unsupported in any research I have seen.

    Since you have refused to acknowledge repeated attempts to point you at actual factual information, what research “[you] have seen” says more about you than about the actual research in question.

    I’ve spent some time on the DOJ web site. I’ve looked at their own charts, graphs, and tables of crime rates. Violent crime rates have been falling since 1992. When you look at the point where the Brady Bill was signed into law and went into effect, there was no change in that trend. Ditto when the original AWB went into effect. You can see, however, that the trend tracks pretty well with increasing number of states going “Shall issue” on various forms of handgun license (some places, like Florida, have “concealed hangun license,” others, like Indiana, have a “License to Carry Handgun”–somewhat different implementations but basically allowing private individuals to carry handguns for personal defense).

    As for Mountain Pirate, he is right on and you know it. As a gun safety instructor in rural Maine, I believe he has more realistic understanding of guns and gun use in America than one might have as an old war dog.

    Have you ever attended a “hunter safety class”? What is covered there is very specific. BTW, the “classes” are available as a self-study online, with final “exam” also available online which is entirely valid in a number of states (don’t know about Maine specifically, not being from there. Since simply studying the materials is sufficient for a person to complete the course without the intervention of an instructor being an “instructor” doesn’t mean much at all. Nor does it have ANY bearing on the political and self defense aspects of gun ownership.

    That’s assuming, of course, that he acutally IS a “hunter safety instructor” and he’s not just making it up to inflate his “credentials.” BTW, I have access to people who teach the Utah concealed handgun license course. Oh, and my own background is such that in Florida, among other places, the course requirement is waived. I don’t bring up such “credentials” because they are irrelevant. They are the fallacy of “appeal to authority” which is a form of “argument ad hominem” (the position that an argument is valid or invalid because of who makes it rather than because of its logical and factual content.)

    Finally, the whole shirt question is, frankly, not about anything on a “factual” side. It’s not like 2+2=4 or the combustion of sodium in chlorine gas produces salt, or the quantization of phonons in atomic vibrations leads to certain characteristics in heat capacity of solids at low temperatures. It’s a matter of value judgments and opinions. All that your “is right on” means is that he agrees with you, neither more nor less.

    Did you ever see active duty? Kill anyone? Really, I need to know.

    tks
    Cliff

    No. You don’t need to know. You’re just making another effort at “argument ad hominem” which

  439. #449 by Cliff on April 6, 2009 - 11:37 am

    Cold, its funny. here I am arguing with Bob about the validity of pure scientific statistic which correlate EXACTLY to guns deaths by gun ownership obstensibly, holding causal evidence to the very highest standard…

    And here you are making the obstuse connections anyone can imagine,

    When you look at the point where the Brady Bill was signed into law and went into effect, there was no change in that trend. Ditto when the original AWB went into effect. You can see, however, that the trend tracks pretty well

    TRACKING Cold? Tracking? Talk about completely erroneous conclusions. I mane really Cold. Would you not be insulted if I asked you to accept my own conclusions just for the asking?

    Can we not hold ourselves to a higher standard of evidence and science?

    btw: You never link to your references so don’t sit there and tell me you’ve provide shit.

  440. #450 by jmbrowning on April 6, 2009 - 11:55 am

    From observation, it appears that Cliff makes assertions that are quickly debunked – and when he thinks people have forgotten the rhetorical and logical thrashing he trots out the same trope.

    We’ve seen the “Second Amendment applies to the National Guard” fallacy, the Hemenway study fallacy, the “England is better” fallacy, the “blood in the streets” fallacy, the “small penis” fallacy, the “racist” fallacy, the “fewer guns = fewer murders” fallacy…. brought up again and again.

    Yet strangely enough, Cliff repeats them again and again like a besotted idiot.

    He even has the audacity to call someone a liar?! (What was the name of the ATF agent you spoke to, Cliff?)

    When exposed as a statist tool, he quickly retreats into ad hominem attacks. He criticizes lifestyles, families, spouses, educational backgrounds (!?), sexual orientation…

    It’s no wonder that he was fired for having a big mouth.

  441. #451 by jdberger on April 6, 2009 - 12:01 pm

    In others words if you were a betting man, the odds that a state with more legal gun ownership will also have more gun deaths (per/capita), the odds would be so high, no one would bet against it.

    How does this explain the higher rate of gun homicides in Japan, Cliff?

    Japan is a good case in point as to why fewer guns make a difference. With a population of 128 million people, it is estimated that Japan has fewer than 400,000 legally owned guns resulting in a total of 22 gun murders in 2007 according to Japan’s National Police Agency.

    The United States on the other hand has a population of 306 million, 280 million guns and over 12,000 gun homicides each year. Even if, for arguments sake, we were to more than double Japan’s population to match the U.S. population, that would leave Japan with just over 50 gun homicides compared to America’s over 12,000 gun murders. It’s shameful.

    Well, here’s the math:

    IJapan has had 22 murders per 400,000 guns or 22/400,000. That works out to 5.5 murders per 100,000 guns (5.5/100,000).

    The US has 12,000 murders (roughly) per 280,000,000 guns or 12,000/280,000,000. that works out to 4.2 murders per 100,000 guns (4.2/100,000).

    You’re still an abusive drunken liar.

    Did you ever tell the judge that you owned firearms, Cliff?

  442. #452 by Richard Warnick on April 6, 2009 - 12:09 pm

    The family that shoots together …

    Mom kills son, then self at shooting range

    … dies together.

  443. #453 by Bob S. on April 6, 2009 - 12:09 pm

    Cliff,

    You are the biggest hypocrite on this board.

    You freely admit that the cited study does NOT show any causative relationship, but want to use it for furthering your people control efforts. ( I am starting to realize you aren’t really interested in gun control, but controlling the actions of people you disagree with)

    Then you turn around and jump on Cold for showing a correlation between shall issue permitting and decreasing crime trends for not showing a causative relationship.

    Things can have perfect correlation, such as the number of lemons imported and truck safety, without having the slightly causative relationship. Your linked studies PROVES absolutely NOTHING.

    Jeff Soyer, on the other hand, showed that the not only is there no causative relationship between homicide and gun ownership but there isn’t even any correlation.

    As much as I oppose and abhor suicide, I am surprised that you wouldn’t be “pro-choice” on that issue. Surely people should be allowed to decide when and where they die, what methods they use? (As long as the public isn’t put in jeopardy).

    So, add up all the factors and it comes to a conclusion you don’t care about gun control for the sake of criminal violence. You simply want to control the actions of people and how they live their lives.

  444. #454 by Cliff on April 6, 2009 - 12:28 pm

    a correlation between shall issue permitting and decreasing crime trends

    ???? Show me the study Bob, Cold?

  445. #455 by jdberger on April 6, 2009 - 12:31 pm

    They did, Cliff. A number of times.

    You that drunk already? It’s barely past noon.

  446. #456 by Bob S. on April 6, 2009 - 12:55 pm

    Cliff,

    Here is one:

    The Committee is aware of recent studies which indicate that laws which permit private citizens to carry concealed firearms act as a deterrent to crime. A well-known study regarding concealed carry laws and a correlational decrease in crime was published in the Journal of Legal Studies in 1997. The study, entitled `Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,’ was conducted by Professor John R. Lott, Jr. and Professor David B. Mustard from the University of Chicago, and indicated marked decreases in a wide range of violent crimes, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, in those states which passed concealed carry firearms laws. Specifically, the research indicated that, if states adopted concealed carry handgun laws in 1992, approximately 1500 murders and over 4000 rapes would have been avoided. The study also found that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also had the largest drops in violent crime. The Committee is aware that the University of Chicago study has been criticized, but Professors Lott and Mustard have made their findings available to all groups for review and duplication, and they remain committed to their conclusions.

    And you’ll scream about Lott being biased, but not about Hemenway and the Harvard study being funded by the Joyce Foundation….talk about bias.

  447. #457 by ColdServings on April 6, 2009 - 12:56 pm

    Cold, its funny. here I am arguing with Bob about the validity of pure scientific statistic which correlate EXACTLY to guns deaths by gun ownership obstensibly, holding causal evidence to the very highest standard…

    And here you are making the obstuse connections anyone can imagine,

    And yet they are beyond you, which I guess means that–by the standard you’ve set–you’re not anyone.

    When you look at the point where the Brady Bill was signed into law and went into effect, there was no change in that trend. Ditto when the original AWB went into effect. You can see, however, that the trend tracks pretty well

    TRACKING Cold? Tracking? Talk about completely erroneous conclusions.

    Well, yes, you might as well “talk about completely erroneous conclusions” since you make them all the time.

    I mane really Cold. Would you not be insulted if I asked you to accept my own conclusions just for the asking?

    So you don’t know where the DOJ web site is? You claimed you were familiar with all this information. So were you lying then or are you lying now?

    You can’t identify which states went “shall issue” when and compare those dates to the trend in overall violent crime provided on the DOJ web site?

    You can’t actually look for yourself, and instead have to rely on repeating the mantras of the Brady Bunch and their fellow travellers?

    Don’t bother answering. That’s a rhetorical question.

    Can we not hold ourselves to a higher standard of evidence and science?

    “evidence”? “science”? You don’t know the meaning of either of those words.

    btw: You never link to your references so don’t sit there and tell me you’ve provide shit.

    “Department of Justice” “National Crime Victimization Survey”

    http://www.doj.gov Was that so hard?

    Since you’ve been claiming that the numbers I drew from those sources are “lies” it’s a bit late to be claiming “not cited.” Either you know what the numbers are, in which case you are lying now, or you do not know what the numbers are, in which case you were lying when attempting to “call” me on them.

    So were you lying then or are you lying now?

  448. #458 by ColdServings on April 6, 2009 - 1:05 pm

    On the subject of Japan. There is far more difference between Japan and the US than just gun ownership. For one thing, Japan has a far more “group oriented” culture than that of the US. This difference has far more in the way of consequences than just violent crime. Remember that Japan is the nation that gave us the word “karoshi”.

    One of the consequences of Japan’s culture is that it has a much higher suicide rate than the US. In fact, the suicide rate is higher than the US’s suicide and homicide rates combined. Since suicide is a form a violent death, a Japanese person living in Japan is actually more likely to suffer a violent death than an American living in the US.

    Also, when you look at cross-cultural comparison and compare recent immigrants from countries like Japan, you find that their rate of violent crime in the US is about the same as it is among the folk back in their home country. The access to guns here didn’t suddenly turn these people into murderous criminals.

    BTW, as I’ve mentioned before, my wife is Japanese so I have a bit of “inside information” into the subject of Japan. Furthermore, she works at a Japanese automobile manufacturer in the US and, as you might imagine, there are a lot of Japanese people here on temporary work visas. There is a LOT of interest among the Japanese visitors in guns, going shooting, and so forth when they’re here–the allure of the different–so that should show how ridiculous are any claims that their low crime rates while in the US are some kind of holdover of anti-gun sentiment from Japan.

    In an attempt to make much out of these “correlations” folk like Cliff tend to ignore differences and ignore anything that doesn’t fit their agenda.

    For instance, where does DC fit in that correlation between gun ownership and “gun homicide”?

    BTW, suicide? If there’s one thing that is not affected in any measurable way by gun ownership it’s suicide. The only thing that availability of legally owned guns might affect is choice of means, not whether someone is suicidal or not. Using people’s personal emotional traumas that way, as a weapon to attempt to crush personal liberty, is truly despicable.

  449. #459 by Becky on April 6, 2009 - 1:06 pm

    Bob S,

    Isn’t your claim that a study is biased for no other reason than that it was funded by Joyce, a perfect example of what Cold refers to above as “argument ad hominem”? Doesn’t seem like enough of a reason to me.

  450. #460 by jdberger on April 6, 2009 - 1:38 pm

    It’s advocacy science, Becky. You should know better.

    Or are you going to start accepting all those Exxon funded studies that debunk global warming?

  451. #461 by Bob S. on April 6, 2009 - 1:41 pm

    Becky,

    Reading comprehension classes….check with your local community college.

    And you’ll scream about Lott being biased, but not about Hemenway and the Harvard study being funded by the Joyce Foundation….talk about bias.

    Show me exactly where in that statement, I claimed the Harvard study was biased for no other reason then it was funded by the Joyce Foundation.

    What I pointed out (I’ll try to use small words), is that Cliff (you know him, right?) often complains that the Lott study is not a valid (that means true) study because it was conducted by someone who believes in the right to keep and bear arms (that’s guns and such). At the same time, he says nothing about the Harvard study being funded by the Joyce foundation.

    I was talking about Cliff’s (you know him, right?) bias, not the STUDY’s bias.

    If you want to go into the critique of the Harvard study let me know. I think it’s been covered well enough for most people, but if you need help with the big words, just let me know. Always willing to help.

  452. #462 by Becky on April 6, 2009 - 1:43 pm

    Bob S,

    Try talking to me without condescending.

  453. #463 by Bob S. on April 6, 2009 - 1:56 pm

    Becky,

    Then stop being condescending to me. Read what I said and then reply appropriately.

    You jump in and out of the argument with comments that are misleading (deliberately perhaps?) and then not expect a sarcastic or humorous reply?

    You are the one has repeatedly told people to lighten up, to see things as a joke.

    Can’t take your own treatment?

    Now, do you want to talk about the study’s bias or Cliff Lyon’s bias?

  454. #464 by ColdServings on April 6, 2009 - 2:00 pm

    Bob S,

    Isn’t your claim that a study is biased for no other reason than that it was funded by Joyce, a perfect example of what Cold refers to above as “argument ad hominem”? Doesn’t seem like enough of a reason to me.

    There’s a difference between reporting someone’s arguments–ex. violent crime reached a peak in 1992 and has been falling since. This predates both the Brady Bill and the AWB which were signed into law in 1993, also violent crime has continued to fall even after the AWB sunsetted–versus reporting someone’s conclusions–ex. the fall in crime cannot be attributed to the AWB, the Brady Bill, or both.

    Logical fallacies apply to the arguments, not to the conclusions except that conclusions drawn from logical fallacies are, therefore fallacious (ex: the fact about when crime rates started to fall and did not again rise when the AWB sunsetted is on the NRA’s web site, therefore we will ignore them because the NRA is an advocacy gropu).

    When one is presented with conclusions, without being also given the supporting evidence and arguments against said conclusions following from the supporting evidence, then it is entirely proper to look at whether the source of that conclusion is biased. And yes, it is equally valid to object to someone saying “the NRA says gun control increases crime” since the NRA is an advocacy group and without the background information from which that conclusion is drawn it is impossible to tell whether their own position may have influenced their interpretation of data or whether they have used other logical fallacies in drawing that interpretation.

    The arguments stand on their own or not regardless of who makes them. The same cannot be said of conclusions that are presented without the supporting arguments.

    And when one, such as Cliff, objects to supposed biased sources when the sources are opposed to his position, but expects others to accept biased sources that agree with his position, the argument is doubly fallacious: adding special pleading to the mix.

  455. #465 by Cliff on April 6, 2009 - 2:41 pm

    I still have yet to see a properly referenced source with link.

    THIS http://www.doj.gov is NOT a referencc, it is a link to a gigantic website.

    Here ya go. Here’s a study that PROVES a correlations between CCP holders and domestic violence.

    In one town surveyed, ALL of the concealed carry permit holders had domestic assaults reduced to misdemeanors in order to qualify for the CCP. Link:

  456. #466 by Becky on April 6, 2009 - 2:47 pm

    Settle down boys, I don’t want to jump into your debate today. I’ve not even kept up except for a quick glance when I get a chance. This comment will have to be another hit and run as well.

    I’m just saying you should point out to us the specific flaws in the study rather than expect everyone to dismiss it out of hand as you do because of its funding. Yes, we all like to quote our favorite advocacy groups. A large part of the arguments on this thread could almost be copied and pasted from the NRA website

  457. #467 by Bob S. on April 6, 2009 - 2:59 pm

    Becky,

    You are being a hypocrite, saying one thing and doing another

    Settle down boys, I don’t want to jump into your debate today

    But you’ve done exactly that….so how is what you are doing NOT jumping into the debate?

    I’m just saying you should point out to us the specific flaws in the study rather than expect everyone to dismiss it out of hand as you do because of its funding

    Great advise to Cliff, do you think he’ll listen to you?

    Yes, we all like to quote our favorite advocacy groups.

    Yes, Cliff is also famous for this.
    Problem is for the pro-rights side many of us don’t quote our “advocacy” groups. We find the research and present it. The fact that other groups have the same information isn’t quoting them at all.

    I doubt that I’ve pulled more then half a dozen citations from any NRA site in the entire time I’ve been arguing here. That is going on nearly a year and half.

  458. #468 by jdberger on April 6, 2009 - 3:00 pm

    My new theory is that Cliffy – desperate for ratings (or recognition) makes these insipid gun control posts in the hopes that OneUtah will have a longer run than his political career…

    Notice, that it’s rare for any other kinds of posts to garner more than 20 comments. Most pull fewer than 5.

    But the gun control posts attract upwards of 80…each. It’s that Joyce money, isn’t it, Cliff? You’ve already done the math and figured how many bottles of Stoli you could buy with a “grant”, haven’t you?

    Anyway, for the new guys, Cold and WMZ and others….here’s a short list of the gun control topics Cliffy’s top posted in the last year or so…

    You’ll see that he offers the same vapid arguments again and again…..

    Guns Advocates Lie While People Die
    IF Gun Advocates Lie (or fib), People Die
    The Verdict is in: Alan Korwin Told a Lie on C-Span (and refuses to admit it)
    Sean Bell: Death By Many Handguns
    Hand Gun Owners Hate Family or Just Paranoid
    Gun Loving White Preacher Speaks to KKK (NRA)
    Pundits, Parrots and Credentials
    Round up the usual suspects… all eight million of them!
    Gun Lobby Trolls, Flag Waving Liars
    Can Gun Lobby Bribe Google?
    More Gun Lobby Propaganda De-Bunked
    Apologetics 101 By Billy (Bubba) Bob
    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    OneUtah.org Traffic Report BEFORE Paul Mero Became an Author
    OneUtah Purchases “Top Spot” on Major Blog
    Win an AR-15 Assault Rifle for Going to Church!
    The Ugly Truth About the Heller Decision
    Ze NRA, Our Men on ze Point, ze Minute Men
    Gun Lobby Stages Press Club Event: Buses in Bible Thumpers with Pimples
    America IS a Police State: Any questions?
    What President Obama Can Do to Reduce Gun Violence
    Middle Schooler Harassed Over McCain T-Shirt. GOOD!
    NRA/Gun Lobby Spanked Hard in 2008 Elections
    Gun Lobby Stops Public Lands and Wilderness Bill
    Rampage Nation: The press no longer cares about epic gun violence
    Heller Decision Has Zero Effect
    One Guy, One Gun, Four Dead Cops
    I’m Doing This. My First Concealed Carry Permit
    Parent Humiliates 9y/o Son: Uses Kid to Push Guns
    Another Day Another 2 (updated) Shooting Rampage(s)
    Lets Compare Guns. I’ll Shoot First

  459. #469 by Sean G. on April 6, 2009 - 3:31 pm

    “Sean G.,

    Thank you so much. I think I finally get it.

    You are saying the gun doesn’t shoot itself, the person does?

    Yes. The problem is the person, not the gun.

    So where do we go from here?”

    Cliff,

    Simple…make penalties for crimes harsher. There’s no reason to make the weapons harder to get or illegal. Take ‘Parole for Good Behavior’ out of the equation. The person gets sentenced and does their time. To use an old saw “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” Personally I’d like to bring back some of the old ways. Hard labor and chain gangs. Prison is supposed to be a punishment..not an all expenses paid vacation. They still get there 3 squares a day and a bed. I like the idea of a criminal working off his debt to society by ditchdigging, road repair and some construction. By the same token they pick up some simple skills that they can use to get a job when they get out. Thats assuming they want to be honest law abiding citizens
    Those who are ‘career’ criminals or what they call ‘habitual offenders, but which I just call punks don’t get to serve any time. Assuming they’re before a judge for the 3rd, 4th, or umpteenth million time..well depending on what they speciallize in..they can go in til they die with no parole or if their game is rape and homicide they can walk their butts to the execution chamber for an immediate first class ticket to non exsistance.

  460. #470 by ColdServings on April 6, 2009 - 3:36 pm

    I still have yet to see a properly referenced source with link.

    THIS http://www.doj.gov is NOT a referencc, it is a link to a gigantic website.

    Funny. It didn’t take me more than 5 minutes to find the information I wanted. All I needed was to know that the information was Department of Justice, and the particular study was the “National Crime Victim Survey.” Guess you didn’t learn how to do research in getting that philosophy degree.

    Here ya go. Here’s a study that PROVES a correlations between CCP holders and domestic violence.

    In one town surveyed, ALL of the concealed carry permit holders had domestic assaults reduced to misdemeanors in order to qualify for the CCP. Link:

    Does the word “cherry picking” mean anything to you? And, incidentally, Google has apparently never heard of this quote, even when I trim it down to a mere “had domestic assaults reduced to misdemeanors ”

    Oh, and the hypocrisy of your “en.wikipedia.org” right on the heals of complaining about my (admittedly snarky) http://www.doj.gov really beggars the imagination. Now, it so happens that under “gun politics” there is a “domestic violence” bit which cites the long-discredited Kellerman study. From the page itself we get:

    Instead, the association that Kellermann found between gun ownership and victimization merely reflected the widely accepted notion that people who live in more dangerous circumstances are more likely to be murdered, but also were more likely to have acquired guns for self-protection prior to their death

    BTW, since you have demonstrated that you cannot do research (thank you for giving me this opportunity to present that to the peanut gallery), here is one source (of many), and the numbers I have been using:

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
    (note that this is an official United States Department of Justice cite)

    Annual
    average,
    1992 1987-91
    ___________________

    Handgun crimes 930,700 667,000
    Homicide 13,200 10,600
    Rape 11,800 14,000
    Robbery 339,000 225,100
    Assault 566,800 417,300

    (Note that 1992 was the “high water mark”)

    Down under “Self Defense with Firearms” we have:
    Shot at victim 16.6%
    Didn’t shoot at victim 83.4%
    Average annual number 699,900

    Now, I will stipulate that I missed the “fast one” they pulled. They pulled the 1992 figures out of the “average” in the handgun crimes and left the 1992 figures in the “gun defenses average. When you include the 1992 figures in the total average, it gets bumped up to 710,950 which is higher than the reported defense numbers of this study. So instead of defense numbers being “higher” (based on this study) they are a bit lower but still about the same. My mistake.

    OTOH, that is before we account for the following:

    Study of crime VICTIMS. Those who stopped the crime at its inception and, therefore, were not victims, are therefore not counted.

    People administering the survey identified themselves as federal officers collecting data for the Department of Justice. This, by itself, is going to put many people off of giving frank answers due to fear that if they give the “wrong” answer they may face legal repercussions. Considering the stories going around of people being sued or charged for defending themselves, this, too, is going to cause people to not admit to having used a firearm–particularly in that majority of cases where the weapon is never fired.

    The people administering the survey didn’t specifically ask whether people used firearms, but if they did anythign to defend themselves. If someone is reluctant to present possibly incriminating information to federal officers, not being specifically asked is going to heighten that.

    It also doesn’t include “substitution” among criminals. Since criminals can pick the time, place, and victim, they are less hampered by whether or not they have a gun to hand. Many of the “violent crimes” would still happen even some magical anti-gun ray made guns go away. The same, however, is not true of the defender. The attacker can pick a defender who’s smaller and weaker, and therefore can be killed just as dead with a knife or a club or a piece of rope.

    The NCVS is the study that produces the lowest number of gun defenses in the US. Others go upward from there.

    The argument that gun ownership increases violence fails. In the worst case it’s a wash (where defenses and acts of violence are). However, once you account for the systematic biases built into the NCVS study, it becomes clear that firearms are not only used more in defense than in crime, but that the loss of legal ability to obtain and use firearms has far more of a negative impact on defensive uses than on criminal uses. Not only do the criminals still keep getting the guns they want (whereas the law abiding are, by definition, the ones who obey the laws) but they are the ones who would be less hampered by their loss. And this is exactly reflected in how crime rates change with time as firearms laws change.

  461. #471 by ColdServings on April 6, 2009 - 3:37 pm

    A large part of the arguments on this thread could almost be copied and pasted from the NRA website

    That’s funny. I could say the exact same thing about the other side, being copied and pasted from HCI or the Brady Bunch.

  462. #472 by Cliff on April 6, 2009 - 7:02 pm

    Thanks for your response Sean. Of course that raises the question of the cost to society to protect the rights you claim in 2a but for which you have almost ZERO results.

    Cold, Please identify one website with talking points for the pro gun control side.

    Eben if you could, the NRA argumaw student who has tried to defend your position using your method that is actually licensed to practice in any state.

    You guys spend more time telling us you are right than proving it under any acceptable standard of debate and argument.

  463. #473 by ColdServings on April 6, 2009 - 7:23 pm

    Thanks for your response Sean. Of course that raises the question of the cost to society to protect the rights you claim in 2a but for which you have almost ZERO results.

    And once again you just ignore any evidence that disagrees with your position and simply assert the truth (so claimed anyway) of your position.

    Cold, Please identify one website with talking points for the pro gun control side.

    I thought you claimed you were well aware of all the arguments? If that were actually true then you’d already be aware of:

    http://www.bradycampaign.org/
    http://www.vpc.org/
    http://www.gunguys.com/

    All highly partisan, highly biased, anti-gun sites. Yes, I know they say they want “reasonable gun control” but there is no upper limit on what they consider “reasonable.” Invariably in the past when they’ve gotten some “reasonable regulation” passed, the ink wasn’t even dry before they were talking about it as “a good first step.”

    Their dishonesty is underscored by the “gunguys” starting out pretending to be “moderates” on the subject before finally “outing” themselves (when the pretense had gotten two threadbare to support) as radical anti-gun people.

    Eben if you could, the NRA argumaw student who has tried to defend your position using your method that is actually licensed to practice in any state.

    Would you care to try the above sentence again in English

    You guys spend more time telling us you are right than proving it under any acceptable standard of debate and argument.

    That is truly rich coming from you.

    Here’s another reference for you:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

  464. #474 by jdberger on April 6, 2009 - 7:26 pm

    You guys spend more time telling us you are right than proving it under any acceptable standard of debate and argument.

    Wow. That’s a doozy of a post, Cliff. You owe me a new monitor for that one.

    Cold, Please identify one website with talking points for the pro gun control side.

    How about all the ones you link to in your top post, “Guns Advocates Lie While People Die”.

    Thanks for your response Sean. Of course that raises the question of the cost to society to protect the rights you claim in 2a but for which you have almost ZERO results.

    I wasn’t aware that there was a cost/benefit calculation when it came to civil rights. Can you please show me where that appears in the Constitution – or in the writings of the Enlightenment scholars that influenced it.

    C’mon, you’re a Philosophy major. You should be able to do this off the top of your head….

  465. #475 by ColdServings on April 6, 2009 - 7:36 pm

    Thanks for your response Sean. Of course that raises the question of the cost to society to protect the rights you claim in 2a but for which you have almost ZERO results.

    Don’t know much about the various crime control measures that have been tried in various jurisdictions and the effect they’ve had, have you?

    But it’s very interesting how you utterly avoid dealing with anything substantive and then turn around and pretent it doesn’t exist. How’s the fishing over there in Egypt? Have much problem with the crocs?

    Cold, Please identify one website with talking points for the pro gun control side.

    Well, you link to a lot of them yourself. Of course, being a rabid anti-freedom type yourself, you probably see them as “moderate” (which for most people generally means no more than agreeing with ones own position).

    But just so you know where we’re coming from, here are a few:

    http://www.bradycampaign.org (Incidentally, I have been through so many of these organizations that I had forgotten that the former HCI WAS the Brady Bunch)
    http://www.vpc.org
    http://www.gunguys.com
    http://www.huntersandshooters.com/

    The penultimate one of those is particularly interesting in that they pretended to be a “moderate” group before, when the pretense became too threadbare to be supported, “outed” as rabidly anti-gun.

    The final one continues that pretense however as a shill organization for the anti-Freedom movement.

    Eben if you could, the NRA argumaw student who has tried to defend your position using your method that is actually licensed to practice in any state.

    Care to try that sentence again in English?

    You guys spend more time telling us you are right than proving it under any acceptable standard of debate and argument.

    That is truly rich coming from you. Project much?

  466. #476 by Cliff on April 6, 2009 - 7:57 pm

    JD,

    The closest thing to a “cost/benefit calculation” in 2a is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

    But that’s not the point. Many of the rights protected by in the Bill of Rights implicitly benefit the ‘greater good.’

    I’m surprised you should ask.

    If there were no cost/benefit calculation in law, prisoners would be walking around with guns IN PRISON!

  467. #477 by jdberger on April 6, 2009 - 8:14 pm

    natural rights, not law, Cliff.

    Bzzzt. Please try again.

  468. #478 by Cliff on April 6, 2009 - 8:31 pm

    Sure JD, but natural law is by definition “selected for reproductive advantage.”

    Sometimes, natural laws are in conflict with other man-made rights and real ‘social goods.’

    This is as much an argument for, as against gun rights.

    The natural right of our original democracy was for instance, at the expense of the same natural rights of Blacks.

    We must admit that the rights you claim have a disproportionatley and unacceptably higher cost to society

    When YOUR natural right disproportionately disadvantages OTHER natural rights and a re-balancing must happen.

    That is beginning to happen now as we approach a one world society.

  469. #479 by L.Szigety on April 6, 2009 - 9:09 pm

    I certainly hope that the United States is not considering a move to emulate the Registration and Licensing system that we Canadians have been hoodwinked into adopting.

    It has portions of it’s bill that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms no less than 17 times, including the Right against Self-crimination, Right to Security of Person, Right against unreasonable search and seizure, Right to be considered equal before the law, and it even goes so far as to violate our right to carry arms suitable to our defense as protected by Sec.26 of the Charter.

    All at a mere cost of 2 billion dollars over 10 years of use, with a population of only 30 million. To which our Auditor General has already reported that this gun registry has provided no actual evidence of having been effective at stopping any crimes at all. We have requirements in place to screen new gun owners and to prevent the unstable from acquiring guns, yet it did nothing to stop Kimveer Gill from going on a shooting rampage at Dawson College. Add to that the absolute amazement when we read gun control types up here writing that we need to keep the gun registry because it somehow “prevents such future incidents from occurring”. Kimveer Gill was a licensed and registered gun owner who used his registered guns to shoot up Dawson College.

    Add to that the fact that Canadians(which are generally considered to be law abiding citizens) who own guns have only complied with the registry on the order of less than 30%.

    How do I know that less than 30% have registered their guns? Simple.

    Import/export stats show that in 1975 there were 18 million guns in the country…from that time until 2005 there were an additional 6 million net guns brought in. There are only 7 million guns registered in the system, which gives a percentage of 29.16% compliance.

    So 2 billion dollars spent on finding out that 7/10 gun owners do not trust their government…and that is in Canada. I would suspect that even less Americans trust their Government…so expect exorbitant costs due to an even larger population base, (as well as the obvious problem with the 10th amendment) and you can see the costs of such a federal program in the US going well over the 60-80 billion dollar mark…all for even less compliance than is shown here.

    Don’t forget that criminals are already in possession of firearms, and that any new law will have no effect on those guns due to the fact that our experience has shown that criminals neither get guns legally, nor get licenses, nor do they register their firearms.

    Such a law will have no net effect on crime in the US…not to mention the fact that it will be pushed with the mantra of attempting to remove guns from the mentally unstable.

    Once your guns are registered, expect them to be slowly whittled away at with subsequent bans and confiscations such as has been seen in the UK, Aussie and even here…where our very own ministers and officials have been pushing for outright bans on specific guns(handguns, “assault weapons” etc)…add to that the recent development with our own RCMP attempting to reclassify certain semiautomatic firearms without respect to the Parliament. As a point the Parliament is the only one who can make any new laws or regulations in respect to banning or reclassifying guns. Our very own National Police force attempting to circumvent the law…who saw that coming?

    If you as a Nation attempt to go the route that we went, then expect gun bans…expect exorbitant costs…expect reverse onus…expect being painted as a criminal…expect a police state.

    L.Szigety

  470. #480 by Jaktens Tid on April 6, 2009 - 10:11 pm

    Here ya go. Here’s a study that PROVES a correlations between CCP holders and domestic violence.

    All I see is a link to Wikipedia’s home page.

    Is that some of your top-notch scholarship at work? Boy, that philosophy degree really pays for itself.

  471. #481 by Cliff Lyon on April 7, 2009 - 7:03 am

    The link to the CCP and domestic assault study is for JD. He’ll know how to use it.

  472. #482 by Cliff on April 7, 2009 - 7:17 am

    Szigety,

    Can you provide a reference that

    “As a point the Parliament is the only one who can make any new laws or regulations in respect to banning or reclassifying guns. Our very own National Police force attempting to circumvent the law“?

    Or just tell us why the police are trying to circumnavigate the law.

    Thanks

    Cliff

  473. #483 by Cliff on April 7, 2009 - 8:07 am

    OK Cold, Lets see if I get this right.

    From http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

    Down under “Self Defense with Firearms” we have:

    Shot at victim 16.6%
    Didn’t shoot at victim 83.4%
    Average annual number 699,900

    This is 6 years? ’87 thru ’92?

    So whats this?

    “On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
    firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
    the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
    crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
    vehicle theft. (which includes police DGU’s according to the notes).

    Which is it 83,000 or 699,900?

    vs total crime at 1.3m million/year?

    Using the 83k 6% of crimes are prevented by a DGU vs over half using the 699k number.

    I just want to be clear how you interpret this data and what claim you are making and how it compares to Korwin’s claim of “hundreds of thousands of lives saved.”

  474. #484 by Bob S. on April 7, 2009 - 8:24 am

    Cliff,

    So let me see if I understand how the NCVS works

    From Wikipedia:

    NCVS surveys households randomly selected from a stratified multistage cluster sample, with the interviews administered by the United States Census Bureau.[2] This methodology has some disadvantages for surveying domestic violence crimes, since the entire selected household (above age 12) is interviewed instead of just one member selected.[2] The selected household remains in the survey sample for three years, with interviews con