Dead Kids at Sandy Hook Thanks to NRA/Gun Lobby Demonstrable Lies and Distortions

Thoroughly debunked years ago, the gun lobby’s favorite research – a 1995 study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that reported an astounding 2.5 million defense gun uses (DGU) each year in the United States. Yep, you read it right; 2.5 million DGUs PER YEAR!

The Kleck study claims that 2.5 million times per year, someone uses a gun to defend themselves. That’s more defensive gun uses than happened in WWII in Europe in 1944. The Kleck study is so flawed the only thing it measures is the wild imagination of gun owners.

As recently as this month, the NRA referenced Kleck’s deeply flawed and thoroughly refuted study AGAIN in their magazine, America’s 1st Freedom.

Bucky2Gun4250With the help of liars like Alan Korwin and others, the NRA continues to feed its readers demonstrable lies and distortions.

Here, for your reference, is a short list of the many peer reviewed, refereed, academic articles published that clearly refute Kleck’s astronomical claim.*

The ultimate proof the Kleck claim is bullshit, is the fact that despite spending 35 million dollars/year to deceive the public and threaten politicians, in fourteen years since the study, the gun lobby has funded numerous FAILED attempts to repeat Kleck’s study.

*It should be noted that Gary Kleck has refused to defend his study ever since it was published.

Note to readers: OneUtah is a leading publisher of accurate, trustworthy, legal and scientific information about gun rights, guns, violence, gun violence and the psychology of CCP holders. Read more about guns and meet the gun lobby.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Richard Warnick on December 16, 2012 - 5:32 pm

    Things that we know, which ought to inform the public debate, and probably won’t (h/t Think Progress):

    1. More than two-thirds of U.S. households do not own firearms. We are the majority, yet we are expected to sacrifice our security to the whims of a minority. More and more Americans are making the sensible decision to get guns out of their house.

    2. A survey by researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health found strong statistical support for the idea that, even if you control for poverty levels, more people die from gun homicides in areas with higher rates of gun ownership.

    3. Scholars Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander recently studied state-to-state variation in gun homicide levels. They found that “[f]irearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation.”

    4. According to a recent CNN poll (last August, before the latest mass shooting incident), 57 percent of Americans want the federal government to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons. This morning California Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired under President George W. Bush in 2004, told “Meet the Press” that she plans to reintroduce the law on the first day of the new Congress in 2013.

  2. #2 by Mike Murphy on December 17, 2012 - 11:44 am

    Cliff & Richard: I’m sorry your bias has blinded you to so many simple truths.

    If our true intent is to stop the hideous displays of violence in our society then it’s time to do some soul searching and engage in some root-cause analysis. Otherwise, we’re left sacrificing one right after another in a blind attempt at security. The outrage over Sandy Hook is completely understandable, as was the outrage following 9/11. The problem comes when people fail to analyze the root cause of such incidents and rather lash out at the most convenient scapegoat (e.g. 2nd Amendment rights and Muslims).

    I recall the grossly deluded Diane Feinstein’s assault weapons ban. Essentially, it banned firearms she and a panel of non-firearms crime experts decided ‘appeared’ more threatening. Included in the list were pistols used only in Olympics competition and never to perpetrate crime. In fact, the vast majority of the banned firearms were never used in crimes or extremely infrequently. Because of this, her legislation did little more an inconvenience thousands of law abiding citizen’s from exercising their God-given rights.

    The argument that unfortunately seems so prevalent, and also characteristic of faulty and shallow thinking, is the notion that firearms are in and of themselves evil; that somehow the existence of a firearm causes individuals to become mass murderers: the trigger pulling the finger. Any rational human being can see this isn’t the case; the firearm is an inanimate object, a tool and no more.

    The root cause of each murder or anti-social behavior is much more subjective and stems from upbringing, environment and at times psychosis. Can any sane person think that mass murder, especially of children, is acceptable? Obviously these perpetrators lack sanity and tend to further exhibit insanity by committing suicide shortly following their atrocious deeds.

    Obviously any serious discussion regarding prevention of murder must begin with the environment which makes such acts ‘acceptable’. Let’s take a hard look at violent movies, television, video games and music which desensitize the mind and glamorize violence and murder. Any talk of “banning” must begin there. Those who obtain all or most of their firearms knowledge from Hollywood are certainly not the ones to decide which route would be most successful in reducing their misuse and abuse.

    “Note to readers: OneUtah is a leading publisher of accurate, trustworthy, legal and scientific information about gun rights, guns, violence, gun violence and the psychology of CCP holders.”
    Really? You expect anyone with the least bit of discernment to believe this hype? I find it hard to believe given the juvenile comments and apparent lack of firearms-based knowledge that anyone at UtahOne has done much more than watch a few movies and perhaps visit a gun store and handle firearms much less carry one on a regular basis much less use one in time of emergency. Yet, we are supposed to believe UtahOne publishes “accurate, trustworthy, legal and scientific information about gun rights, guns, violence, gun violence and the psychology of CCP holders.”? I doubt it. How about a sensible discussion regarding root-causes rather than attempts to remove rights that would only open the door to internment of all who don’t share your politics?

    By the way: the moronic photo in your article displays AIR RIFLES, not firearms. I’m laughing at your ‘accurate and scientific information about guns’.

  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2012 - 12:15 pm

    “God-given rights”? Who is deluded?

  4. #4 by Mike Murphy on December 17, 2012 - 12:21 pm

    Richard Warnick :
    “God-given rights”? Who is deluded?

    Seven paragraphs and Richard’s only response relates to God-given rights? Richard, you live in the United States yet fail to understand something as basic as this? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Constitution or any of the writings of the Founders or the writings which informed them?

    Who is ignorant?

  5. #5 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2012 - 12:29 pm

    I’m familiar with the Bible, Old and New Testament. Not a word in it about firearms laws.

    As for knowledge of firearms, does four years service in the U.S. Army count? I qualified with the M-16 rifle and .45 caliber pistol, not to mention tank gunnery, 7.62 mm and .50 caliber machine guns. We learned to disassemble and reassemble weapons blindfolded. So Mike, how about you?

  6. #7 by Mike Murphy on December 17, 2012 - 2:14 pm

    Richard:

    For your information the bible, which I did not refer to, was written over 1,100 years BEFORE the invention of firearms, so why would they be mentioned therein?

    No, four years in the Army doesn’t count, especially if it was 20+ years ago and firearms were not your primary specialty. So you shot a few fam rounds at the KD course and took apart a few crew served weapons blindfolded. Every recruit does the same in Army summer camp. How many firearms have you or do you own? Do you or have you carried on a frequent basis (2-3x per week)? Ever been subject to hostile fire?

    As for me? I’ve been around firearms all my life and carry on a daily basis. I own dozens of weapons which remain locked unless on my person. I’ve qualified ‘expert’ dozens of time with edged weapons, carbines, long-guns, shotguns and handguns. I’m also a black belt in the Marine Corps martial arts program where the only rule is to stay alive. I’m also a veteran of nearly every engagement the US has taken part in from 1991 to 2005, Somalia to East Timor, Serbia to Yemen. Most of those missions humanitarian in nature where we rebuilt communities and feed thousands.

    Your link was an interesting read. I agree #3 and #4 are a bit far-fetched there is some truth to #2, #5 and #6. To #5 Val Farrelly replied: “It’s nothing to do with self control and everything to do with a lack of gun control.” Really? We can’t expect people to be responsible for their own actions but rather must blame the availability of guns (that a parent failed to keep unavailable from a mental incompetent). [sarcasm]Sure, let’s keep glamorizing murder and gun violence via all media sources and expect youth and those who suffer mental impairment to be responsible.[/sarcasm]

  7. #8 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2012 - 3:26 pm

    Mike–

    You’re right about the Bible, but then that raises the question of where did you get your idea that God loves guns?

    Congratulations on your extensive service record. I was in the Army during the Cold War, but I don’t think you can discount my training so easily. I was in Combat Arms and carried a personal weapon at all times in the field.

    Anyhow, I refuted your fact-free contention about my lack of experience.

    Why would I want to own a firearm? To make the gun lobby happy? They are useless in civilian life.

  8. #9 by Cliff Lyon on December 17, 2012 - 3:53 pm

    [caption id="attachment_33236" align="aligncenter" width="600"]NRA Enabler of death NRA Enabler of death[/caption]

  9. #10 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2012 - 4:00 pm

    National Review: Newtown Massacre Is The Price We Pay For The Second Amendment

    Mass murder is a sad but inevitable consequence of the wonderful Second Amendment, according to an inhouse editorial in one of America’s leading conservative magazines. National Review’s editors, writing in response to the recent massacre in Connecticut, delivered a full-throated defense of the right to own guns. When confronted with the reality of mass-killings, the editors said “too bad.”

    As originally intended, the Second Amendment sought to provide Americans with the security of “a well regulated militia.” But the right wing has turned the amendment on its head, claiming now that we have to live with insecurity because the gun lobby says so.

  10. #11 by Richard Warnick on December 17, 2012 - 5:52 pm

    Bushmaster assault rifle ad (h/t Mother Jones)

    Incredibly stupid. But they must know their customers.

  11. #12 by cav on December 18, 2012 - 8:05 am

    Obama Announces Second “Beer Summit” Between Wayne LaPierre, Newtown Parents.

    The Rude Pundit:
    When I had that gun pointed in my face all those years ago, I didn’t think, “Damn, I wish I had a gun, too.” I didn’t think, “Damn, I wish someone else with a gun would come along and save me.” I thought, “Damn, I wish he didn’t have a gun.”

    Exactly. 

    Anyone else getting lots of Server Errors?

  12. #13 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2012 - 10:36 am

    Yeah. Cliff is working on fixing the site.

  13. #14 by Mike Murphy on December 18, 2012 - 11:29 am

    Richard-

    And congratulations for your Army service during the Cold War. Seems you were exiting the service about the time I was entering. That makes it 20+ years since you’ve handled a firearm. Given the amount of time having passed and your lack of and disregard for civilian carry I’d say you’re completely ignorant of firearms and their use with regard to defensive use as a civilian. I feel this is a true statement given your own statements:
    “Why would I want to own a firearm? To make the gun lobby happy? They are useless in civilian life.”

    How about self defense or the defense of others? What will you do when the shelves in the grocery stores are empty? Might be a good idea to know how to hunt for food and have the tools to do so. Will you be one of those crying for the government to provide food, clothing and shelter following a disaster? I’m sorry you feel firearms are useless in civilian life. I’ve found more uses for firearms in civilian life than during my time in uniform. Interesting that you’ve ignored and refused to answer or even respond to any of my other questions and comments. Could it be true that Richard is the only UtahOne contributor who possesses any hands-on experience with firearms?

    The comments regarding the NRA are completely FALSE, misleading and stereotypical. “Enabler of death…” What a bunch of nonsense. To think the Second Amendment is an enabler of mass murder? Did we not have mention herein of the mass killing in China where the perpetrator used a knife? Why are so many of you refusing to take a hard look at the individual and the factors that skew their thinking, thus causing these incidents of mass murder rather than blaming only one of many tools used in such atrocities (firearms vs. knives, bats, narcotics, explosives, cars, etc…)? Such narrow thinking is a disgrace to ‘liberal’ thought and will always fail to resolve the underlying issues spawning such acts of violence. The disarmament agenda of the Left must take precedence over a realistic viewpoint and response. Cliff has already let the cat out of the bag again by mentioning disarmament as a precursor to forcible internment of those lacking a Leftist/communist point of view.

    Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment in its entirety:
    “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.”

    This single sentence can be interpreted however one chooses, and like much of the bible, has been. I don’t see how this one sentence can be interpreted to state that ONLY the Militia is allowed to keep and bear Arms. The amendment clearly states “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms” not strictly the Militia. Even if we stretch the amendment to give the right to keep and bear arms ONLY to the militia that still gives those rights to every civilian. Let’s define “Militia”:
    “A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.”

    As one should clearly see, even if we stretch the amendment the right to keep and bear arms extends to each and every citizen. I agree basic requirements should be in place prior to being allowed to purchase and carry a firearm (e.g. background check for past convictions and mental health) but enforcement of the current laws is sufficient. Further bans on weapon types and capacities are ill conceived and will never yield a decrease in violent crime; they never have and never will. It’s suicidal to hand over our rights to the government when we see the corruption and usurpation of authority within all levels of government increasing every day. Why should I trust a federal government filled with corruption and seeking to erode our Constitutional rights and confiscate more and more of my personal property? That’s not only insane but naïve and foolish.

    It’s comical for Bill Moyers to characterize the NRA as “weak-kneed and delusional” when he and others who share his opinion feel that further bans on firearms and reliance on the police will bring security. Anyone who has worked in or with law enforcement knows that police rarely do more than provide a clean-up detail following violent crimes. Response times prevent police from arriving in time to save lives and prevent crime. People scoff at proposals to have teachers or school staff carry firearms or keep one locked up on site for emergencies; how ignorant. Instead, they propose hiring an armed guard at each school. Who would bear the cost of this $100k+ annual expense? The schools can’t even afford paper, the states are broke and the federal government bankrupt. Even so, an armed guard is a liability. They would be the first target of an assailant. Look at banks; armed guards in those institutions are the first target to be neutralized and banks continue to be robbed.

    It’s too bad so many people these days expect government to do everything for them. You want an example of the ‘entitlement class’ Cliff? That’s it: a group of people who are willing to sell their rights to the federal government in hopes of security. It is outside the federal government’s authority to provide personal security. Security from foreign nations only is the express purpose. Security within our states, towns and communities is an individual responsibility guaranteed by responsible citizens and mutual respect. What happened to personal responsibility, accountability and a can-do attitude so manifest in our forefathers? The American way is not passing off to government that which we can do for ourselves.

  14. #15 by cav on December 18, 2012 - 11:40 am

    So you killed people all over the world. Big fuckin’ deal. You may be proud, there are those that are ashamed. We’re all upset about twenty babies in Connecticut, but merrily go about way more rash and heinous killing in other parts of the world. Thanks for your support. Jesus!

    I don’t salute you. And my only challenge with folks who get snookered into military support of the imperial regime, is what to do with you all when and if there ever is peace.

  15. #16 by cav on December 18, 2012 - 11:56 am

    Marine action (Kill the enemy of the day) are the pinacle of humanitarianism. Yes, indeed.

    (climbing down from high horse – as an ex green beret)

  16. #17 by cav on December 18, 2012 - 6:41 pm

    Oops. I’m supposed to be curbing my vitriol.

    I’ve heard rumors there’s a plan to ‘lock-down’ this site. (Well, aksully, I’m starting the rumor right now).

  17. #18 by Becky Stauffer on December 18, 2012 - 7:01 pm

    Mike Murphy, you recited the propaganda about as well as can be done. Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, however, doesn’t wash with me and many others. You are using 21st century definitions (and technology) and plugging that into 18th century words.

    How Conservatives “Reinvented” the Second Amendment

    Choosing that babies can be slaughtered just to defend so-called God-given constitutional rights as interpreted by gun fanatics has to be the lowest our country can sink.

    I’m encouraged that some congressional members having “A” ratings from the NRA are now saying we need to put gun control on the table. These killings have changed everything – have changed us.

  18. #19 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2012 - 8:01 pm

    I’m still waiting for Mike to tell us why he believes God loves assault rifles. Could make for an interesting theological discussion.

    This talk about so-called gun rights is ridiculous. Where was the right-wing when the Bush administration was shredding the Constitution? They unquestioningly supported every loss of freedom, every government crime.

  19. #20 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2012 - 8:16 pm

    I’m still waiting for Mike to tell us why he believes God loves assault rifles. Could make for an interesting theological discussion.

    The tired old talking points about so-called gun rights are ridiculous. Where was the right wing when the Bush administration was shredding the Constitution? They unquestioningly supported every loss of our freedom, every government crime.

  20. #21 by Mike Murphy on December 18, 2012 - 8:44 pm

    cav: Thank you for verifying you may rightfully be categorized as: HUA. A Marine shouldn’t have to explain to an Army dog what that stands for (“dog” is not a diminutive, it’s what they call each other).

    Becky: You really think my posts consist of “propaganda”? Have you read your own posts? I’m seeking to maintain individual rights and privileges whereas you seek to give them away for a false sense of security and political activism. How about a sober look at root causes rather than forwarding a petty political agenda that fails to address the problem?

    Your linked article regarding the Second Amendment made an interesting read. The interviewee, Toobin, makes several false assertions, the first of which the notion that militias don’t exist anymore. Ever heard of the National Guard? Each state governor has the National Guard to serve as a state militia. Has the definition of “militia” changed since 1789? I don’t think so. Sure, things were different then. Walking down the street carrying a firearm didn’t cause the fear and suspicion it does now (thanks to Hollywood). In 1789 the right to own a firearm was as natural as owning a horse or a shovel, it was just another tool. Like same sex marriage the idea of prohibiting private firearms ownership wasn’t even a subject of debate but rather seen as a God-given right (read their writings for further insight). Further, the United States had recently won their independence largely due to private firearms ownership. Without the exercise of this right we would be speaking: the Queen’s English, French, Spanish, German, Japanese or Russian.

    Here’s some more information for your enlightenment:

    Whenever a tragedy — a revolting grave crime — is committed, gun-grabbers ALWAYS rush to “cash in.”

    Always.

    With the national media as their accomplice, they drive up mass hysteria, fear and IGNORE basic facts that don’t fit their anti-gun agenda, like:
    >>> “Gun Free Zone” signs do not protect anyone from violent madmen;

    Like we saw in the Aurora movie theater and the Newtown, Connecticut Elementary School, all these signs do is guarantee killers never face anyone who can defend his or herself;
    >>> Guns don’t commit crimes. Criminals do;

    In fact, guns are used 2.5 MILLION times every year to deter or stop crimes. In fact, at the recent mall shooting in Portland, Oregon, the gunman took his own life after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed handgun. And there are literally dozens of stories of shootings being stopped by legally-armed citizens over the past few decades;
    >>> Gun Control DOES NOT WORK. PERIOD.

    Anti-gun utopia Mexico — whose anti-gun laws are so harsh it has only one gun shop in the whole country — is virtually owned by violent gangs who don’t beg “permission” from government officials before they get their hands on guns.

    How can we make sense of the senseless murder of twenty children and seven adults? How can we make sense of one deranged individual who was in such a dark place that he shot his own mother, murdered children and then killed himself?

    Now, as we move forward, efforts will be made to prevent this from happening again — or at least to minimize the risk. It will be a difficult task.

    What we face is more like a cancer than a virus. Our society has turned on itself, and these mass murders are the shocking fruit. The perpetrators of these crimes now typically turn their weapons on themselves and have essentially become societal suicide bombers. As the military knows, there is no real defense against a suicide bomber who has reached such a point of desperation and delusion that his own life doesn’t matter.

    Responding to this specific crisis with legislation would be a mistake that politicians will likely make.

    Responding to the root cause of the crisis would be a better way to go.

    And what is that root cause?

    The destruction of the family.

    I’m not discounting any other factors, but to address problems with our mental health institutions or virtual reality gaming or the drugging of our children or our gun laws or the media culture’s glorification of such violence and not deal with the root cause of our societal decay are vain attempts to mask symptoms.

    The statistics back me up on the destruction of the family being at the center of our national crises, including violence.

    Before I cite the statistics, please do not take these numbers as a condemnation of single moms or dads. There is no condemnation. Many single parents are doing double duty and raising wonderful children.

    But the numbers are hard to overlook.

    Consider what our family brokenness has done to society:

    * 3 in 10 children grow up in broken homes.

    * In the African-American community, it’s far worse: two-thirds of black children grow up with one parent.

    * More than half of all babies are conceived out of wedlock.

    * Of those conceived out of wedlock, 4 in 10 are aborted. And so, the cycle of violence begins.

    * Of the survivors of abortion, half the children born out of wedlock end up in poverty.

    Children from broken homes account for:
    –63% of teen suicides.
    –71% of teen pregnancies.
    –90% of homeless and runaways.
    –71% of high school dropouts.
    –75% of all drug users.
    –85% of behavioral disorders.
    –70% of those in juvenile detention.
    –57% of all prison inmates.
    In the midst of tough times, getting married and thinking about the future do not instinctively come to mind. Marriage is expensive. Children are expensive. Yet in Jeremiah’s letter to exiles, marriage and child bearing are central to the instruction. Perhaps this is because in tough times — at any time, for that matter — the marriage bond is the stabilizing force for individuals, for families, for communities and even for a nation. Marriage and strong families are vital to our nation.

    What if our government policies unashamedly focused on the goal of reducing the fatherless and divorce rates? What if our laws profoundly preferred those who get married and stay married?

    More importantly, what about you and me? After all, our laws only reflect our culture.

    What are we actually doing in our families and communities to strengthen marriages? Is it clear in our social circles that sex out of wedlock is wrong? Are we holding young men accountable for their actions, demanding they take their responsibility as fathers seriously? Do men face any negative societal pressure for putting children and mothers at risk for the sake of fulfilling their own sexual exploits outside the marriage bond?

    Many traditional wedding ceremonies include an open acknowledgment by all in attendance of their responsibility to do whatever it takes to help this new couple in their marriage. We should take that commitment much more seriously.

    Every marriage faces profound times of crisis. Perhaps your prayer, phone call or offer to babysit could ultimately help save a marriage, keep a child from facing long odds and, dare I say, spare a community from another unspeakable horror.

    Richard: You want to know why “God loves assault rifles”? What a ridiculous question but I’ll provide an insight: one of God’s greatest gifts to man is his agency. We have the right to choose. Limiting mans agency by removing his right to choose is evil. Forcing legislation which removes and limits the rights of man in a supposed effort to bring security to the masses would only open the door to further usurpation by the federal government, having little in its way from forcing more restrictive legislation. It’s a slippery slope and already liberals here on this forum and elsewhere have tipped their hand as to what further legislation would consist of.

    Here’s an interesting article from an Israeli point of view: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-americans-learn-from-israeli-gun-laws/
    The Bush administration “shredding the Constitution”? Are you referring to the Patriot Act? On May 26, 2011, Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act: roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of “lone wolves” — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups. In October 2001 the Act passed the House 357 to 66 and the Senate by 98 to 1; lots of Leftist Dems in that crowd.

    Having worked with law enforcement and within the IC I can attest the Act gives us the tools to find, conduct surveillance on, apprehend and prosecute those who would do our country harm. Do you not find it hypocritical to on one hand advocate confiscation of the private property of law abiding citizens while on the other complain that you cannot make overseas wire transfers, overseas telephone calls or affiliate with domestic or international terrorist groups without scrutiny? How naive.

  21. #22 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2012 - 8:56 pm

    Mike–

    You’re making the same mistake as some other gun absolutists. You think this is just another tragic mass shooting, latest in a long series, and no different from the rest. This one is going to be a turning point, I think.

    The NRA went “all in” in an attempt to keep President Obama from getting a second term. Obama signed a bill allowing loaded guns in national parks, and has done nothing – NOTHING – to stop these horrible gun massacres. But maybe he’s smart enough to realize that if the NRA is against him no matter what, he can just as easily do what the majority of Americans are demanding.

    Reality check: Your precious Second Amendment refers to muskets, i.e. single-shot firearms that take a minute to reload – if you’re good at it. I will happily agree that your right to bear a musket shall not be infringed!

  22. #23 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2012 - 9:01 pm

    BTW I have never advocated the confiscation of anything. Where do you get that idea?

    Yes, I do object to the widespread warrantless surveillance being conducted on U.S. citizens in blatant violation of our Constitution. Why don’t you? And it’s very naive to think the too-broad powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act have not been heavily abused – we have the proof.

  23. #24 by Mike Murphy on December 18, 2012 - 9:09 pm

    Richard: Yours is an extremely faulty line of reasoning. Taking your line, one may reason that one may exercise free speech so long as the subject is one which was pertinent in 1789 or, regarding the Fourth Amendment one has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, etc… but not in apartments, condos or duplex’s since those did not exist in 1789 or, with regard to the Fifth Amendment one may expect not to be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime so long as that crime was unlawful in 1789 and not thereafter… on and on your line of reasoning flounders.

    Richard, here’s a “reality check”: what’s the big deal regarding loaded weapons in a national park? That was such a useless and ridiculous law and by no means a significant concession on the part of Barack Obama. All these senseless laws regarding magazine capacities, firearm types, loaded or unloaded, concealed or unconcealed serve only to inconvenience and harass law abiding citizens while doing NOTHING to address violent crime.

  24. #25 by Mike Murphy on December 18, 2012 - 9:10 pm

    Richard: Yours is an extremely faulty line of reasoning. Taking your line, one may reason that one may exercise free speech so long as the subject is one which was pertinent in 1789 or, regarding the Fourth Amendment one has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, etc… but not in apartments, condos or duplex’s since those did not exist in 1789 or, with regard to the Fifth Amendment one may expect not to be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime so long as that crime was unlawful in 1789 and not thereafter… on and on your line of reasoning flounders.

    Richard, here’s a “reality check”: what’s the big deal regarding loaded weapons in a national park? That was such a useless and ridiculous law and by no means a significant concession on the part of Barack Obama. All these senseless laws regarding magazine capacities, firearm types, loaded or unloaded, concealed or open carry serve only to inconvenience and harass law abiding citizens while doing NOTHING to address violent crime.

  25. #26 by brewski on December 18, 2012 - 9:23 pm

    “BTW I have never advocated the confiscation of anything. Where do you get that idea?”

    Your entire raison d’etre is entirely built around the principle of confiscating private property as much as possible. That is all you talk about. That is your obsession. Your fetish.

  26. #27 by brewski on December 18, 2012 - 9:25 pm

    “Your precious Second Amendment refers to muskets,”

    Under your logic then the First Amendment only refers to pamphlets.

  27. #28 by Mike Murphy on December 18, 2012 - 9:26 pm

    Richard: YOU may not have advocated outright confiscation but other contributors have. Read the last sentence in this rant: http://oneutah.org/republicans/conservative-movement-has-become-a-racket/

    I don’t object to warrantless surveillance for the same reason I couldn’t care less that the county is monitoring exterior improvements on my property: I’m not breaking any law, thus I have no need to worry. To think I can transfer >$10k to a suspect overseas account, hold an international telephone conversation and mention “terror”, “explosives”, “jihad” etc… and not draw suspicion is irresponsible. You expect a ‘right’ to privacy yet given another successful terrorist incident we would all question why such overt acts were not detected. How silly is that? We all complain about TSA making us remove belts and shoes and perform random pat downs yet we expect them to catch hidden blades and various weapons. For some reason many of us are unwilling to pay the price for security yet are the first to complain we are not secure.

  28. #29 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2012 - 9:28 pm

    Everybody understood the simple rule about guns in national parks – keep them unloaded and stowed. It was the same for 70 years. Now gun-toting park visitors have to keep up with different state laws. For example, what’s legal in the Nevada part of Death Valley NP is illegal in the California part.

    The new law is ridiculous, just something the gun lobby pushed through to show they had the politicians running scared. There was no logical reason for it.

  29. #30 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2012 - 9:33 pm

    Wow, Just wow Mike. You want to wrap yourself in a “God-given” Second Amendment and to Hell with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

  30. #31 by Mike Murphy on December 18, 2012 - 9:53 pm

    Richard Warnick :
    Wow, Just wow Mike. You want to wrap yourself in a “God-given” Second Amendment and to Hell with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    Richard: “Wow” indeed. The ENTIRE Constitution was written by men inspired by the Almighty. Having lived in Utah for this long I thought you would have known by now the church’s stance with regard to that document. The right to defend oneself and others is an inalienable right and responsibility. How does this in any way disparage or impinge on the Bill of Rights? It in fact guarantees it.

    As a park ranger I suppose you have a bias against various gun toting hooligans. That is to be understood but lets not stereotype the greater population of responsible gun owners. Laws prohibiting carry of loaded firearms are ridiculous. Is the park service funded to distribute tasers and pepper spray to hikers who come in contact with lunatics and hungry carnivores out on the trail? Point is, there’s no reason a law abiding citizen should not be allowed to carry a loaded firearm anywhere he/she so chooses.

  31. #32 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2012 - 10:03 pm

    If the LDS Church members believe the Constitution is divinely inspired, then why did Senator Orrin Hatch try to amend the First Amendment to take away the right of free speech?

    If the Church truly believes in the Constitution, why did Utah welcome an NSA facility that will be devoted 24/7/365 to violating the Fourth Amendment?

    Do you bring a loaded gun to church? Or are some things sacred even to you?

    I carry pepper spray when needed in bear country. Cheaper than a gun, and way safer.

  32. #33 by Larry Bergan on December 18, 2012 - 10:25 pm

    cav said:

    I’ve heard rumors there’s a plan to ‘lock-down’ this site. (Well, aksully, I’m starting the rumor right now).

    I second the rumor!

    I feel like I’m on dial-up with Rigamortis.

  33. #34 by cav on December 18, 2012 - 10:26 pm

    I was a dog, but after some soul searching, it occurred to me that I had two legs for a reason. I was a human – and I ought to start acting like one.

  34. #35 by Mike Murphy on December 18, 2012 - 10:30 pm

    cav :
    I was a dog, but after some soul searching, it occurred to me that I had two legs for a reason. I was a human – and I ought to start acting like one.

    And your stance on individual gun rights validates you remain HUA.

  35. #36 by Larry Bergan on December 18, 2012 - 10:38 pm

    The blog is running MUCH better then last night!

  36. #37 by cav on December 18, 2012 - 11:15 pm

    Have a Heart U Animal.

    I don’t believe you’ve fully absorbed my stance on individual armament (some call it weapon) rights.

  37. #38 by cav on December 18, 2012 - 11:21 pm

    Seems to be, Larry. There’s a jinx out there in the shadows though. I just know it. Better git sum gunz.

  38. #39 by Larry Bergan on December 19, 2012 - 12:11 am

    The NRA gets huffy, and finally proclaims it is:

    “prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.”

    Contributions? What does that mean?

    Wouldn’t concessions be the appropriate word. Maybe it misspoke.

    It’s says it’s not going to to spill the beans until Mayan apocalypse day.

    Should be interesting.

  39. #40 by Larry Bergan on December 19, 2012 - 12:26 am

    cav:

    Don’t have the cash to buy the gun or the bullets, and wouldn’t have the time to learn how to shoot them.

    I’m not a millionaire, banker, or CEO either. Oh well; maybe next time.

    I keep hearing that in all the other “developed” countries, CEO’s make 8 to 11 times the average wage of their employee’s, but “in the greatest country on the face of the earth”, it’s more like 400 to 500 times that.

    Would they really do that to US?

  40. #41 by Mike Murphy on December 19, 2012 - 12:33 am

    Seems I must spell it out for the Army dowg:

    “Hooah (hü-ä or who-ah) is a U.S. Army slang term. It is used[1] by infantry, cavalry, airborne troops, and rangers (though ultimately by any and all army soldiers regardless of rank, to varying degrees) “referring to or meaning anything and everything except no”.[2] It can also be a type of battle cry. The word’s etymology is unclear, but one possible origin is that it is based on the acronym HUA, meaning “heard, understood, acknowledged”.[3] A joking etymology for this is also “Head Up Ass” so that Hua can have a double meaning, either a motivational one (“Hua, Sir, we’ll take that hill”) or else when told something that one couldn’t possibly believe, they answer sarcastically with “Hua”, knowing the other derivation.”

    To make is absolutely clear, you fall within the later definition.

    Larry: No, I don’t believe the NRA misspoke. “Contributions” more likely references MEANINGFUL countermeasures to violent crime rather than ill conceived ‘feel-good’ legislation that addresses symptoms and not the cause. WRT the cause try reading my earlier posts, #21 should prove enlightening.

  41. #42 by Larry Bergan on December 19, 2012 - 5:55 pm

    The first time I heard the army chant who-ah was when Bush-the lesser was visiting Irag. I just bet you most of them had “Head Up Ass” on their minds that time, because by then the whole farce had become evident.

    And that wasn’t even the time he showed up with a fake turkey.

  42. #43 by fire on April 16, 2013 - 1:50 am

    I find this very amusing:the outright and misleading statement.

    He did defend it and exposed the debunkers in this published reply. Why do all good liars hide the truth and then shout they are speaking truth?

    *It should be noted that Gary Kleck has refused to defend his study ever since it was published.

    Note to readers: OneUtah is a leading publisher of accurate, trustworthy, legal and scientific information about gun rights, guns, violence, gun violence and the psychology of CCP holders

    http://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: