Do They Know How Crazy They Sound?

Today’s Senate committee hearing on gun safety began with a surprise appearance by Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), grievously wounded during an assassination attempt two years ago that left six others dead.

“Thank you for inviting me here today,” she said. “This is an important conversation for our children, for our community, for Democrats and Republicans. Speaking is difficult, but I need to say something important.”

She continued: “Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act. Be bold, be courageous. Americans are counting on you.”

But later in the hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) bragged about having an AR-15 at home.

“You could find yourself in this country in a lawless environment from a natural disaster or a riot,” he said… The Republican senator added that he would carry his assault rifle around his neighborhood in the event of “a law and order breakdown.”

And then it got weirder.

One of the witnesses at the hearing, Daily Caller writer Gayle Trotter, head of the conservative Independent Women’s Forum, argued that limiting magazine capacity would particularly affect women, who she claimed believe the AR-15 to be their “weapon of choice.”

“An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon, and the peace of mind that a woman has as she’s facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened, violent criminals,” she said.

I’m almost 60 years old. I never had even one “hardened, violent criminal” attack me at home. Not one time. Do these people know how crazy they sound to most Americans?

More info:
Gun advocate tells Senate: AR-15 is the ‘weapon of choice’ for women with crying babies
Lindsey Graham: GOP-Forced Budget Cuts Will Mean Fewer Cops, So People Need To Arm Themselves
Senator Catches NRA Head In Epic Flip Flop

UPDATE:
Gayle Trotter’s Fantasies of Fighting Off Violent Men Don’t Have Anything to do With Women’s Realities

The fact of the matter is that more guns put women in danger. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has found that states with more guns have more female violent deaths. Their research also found that batterers who owned guns liked to use them to scare and control their victims, and would often use the gun to threaten the victim, threaten her pets or loved ones, clean them menacingly during arguments, or even fire them to scare her.

Trotter’s organization, the Independent Women’s Forum, opposes legislation aimed at curbing domestic violence including the Violence Against Women Act.

UPDATE: Amanda Marcotte attempts to explain what Trotter’s unhinged testimony was about: Why Was An Anti-Feminist Organization Using Senate Time to Sell Guns?

Rape and domestic violence apologists and gun nuts have overlapping interests, it turns out. The gun industry needs people to be afraid of random, impersonal crime and rape/domestic violence apologists need to deny that interpersonal crime is really a problem. So, as we see, the gun industry works with anti-feminists to paint a picture of a country where bad guys are breaking in doors on an hourly basis, but inside those doors, there’s nothing but harmony and peace. A gun can plausibly protect you against strangers breaking into your home (though even that’s debateable), but it’s a terrible weapon to protect you from a lover or a friend that wants to hurt you. Despite all the silly wingnuts claiming to me on Twitter that women should simply wear a gun in the shower and in bed and at parties and while cooking dinner or while making out with a new guy they’re dating, most sane people realize that’s not going to be feasible. Most sane people realize that if one person in an an interpersonal situation decides to become violent—whether or not he’s a wife beater or a rapist—he’s probably going to be the one who gets to the gun first. As the evidence bears out.

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by Cliff on January 30, 2013 - 1:09 pm

    I heard that part live. I almost choked. Can you imagine living in a paradigm in which young Mothers are constantly under threat of attack by homicidal maniacs wielding assault rifles?

    Dollars to donuts that bitch is way into S&M.

  2. #2 by cav on January 30, 2013 - 2:10 pm

    Cliff. That’s not the point!

    It COULD happen!!!!!!!!!!!

    - N.E. Pantspissingscared Wingnut

  3. #3 by brewski on January 30, 2013 - 2:26 pm

    “Do They Know How Crazy They Sound?”

    Something you should be an expert in. ;-)

  4. #4 by cav on January 30, 2013 - 3:33 pm

    By GINGER GIBSON | 1/29/13 8:10 PM EST
    Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz are asking for help in bringing unloaded guns to Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing.

    Lindsey: “This is my rifle, does anybody wanna see my gun?”

  5. #5 by Cliff on January 30, 2013 - 4:53 pm

    CHICAGO — A 15-year-old majorette who performed at some of President Barack Obama’s recent inauguration festivities has been shot to death in Chicago.

    Police say Hadiya Pendleton was shot in the back Tuesday in a South Side park and died at a city hospital.

    Authorities say Hadiya was one of about 12 teenagers sheltering from heavy rain under a canopy when a man jumped a fence, ran toward the group and opened fire. The man fled the scene in a vehicle. No arrests have been made.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/hadiya-pendleton-dead-chi_n_2581309.html

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on January 30, 2013 - 5:45 pm

    brewski–

    How many women do you know who have a “weapon of choice”? And how many of those keep an AR-15 in the cupboard?

    Gayle Trotter is a DC lawyer whose interest in gun safety is very recent. She was obviously shilling for the Gun Lobby.

  7. #7 by brewski on January 30, 2013 - 7:08 pm

    About as many as I know of companies who go out of their way to move to high tax states, as you asserted before.

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 11:34 am

    UPDATE: Amanda Marcotte attempts to explain what Trotter’s unhinged testimony was about: Why Was An Anti-Feminist Organization Using Senate Time to Sell Guns?

    Rape and domestic violence apologists and gun nuts have overlapping interests, it turns out. The gun industry needs people to be afraid of random, impersonal crime and rape/domestic violence apologists need to deny that interpersonal crime is really a problem. So, as we see, the gun industry works with anti-feminists to paint a picture of a country where bad guys are breaking in doors on an hourly basis, but inside those doors, there’s nothing but harmony and peace. A gun can plausibly protect you against strangers breaking into your home (though even that’s debateable), but it’s a terrible weapon to protect you from a lover or a friend that wants to hurt you. Despite all the silly wingnuts claiming to me on Twitter that women should simply wear a gun in the shower and in bed and at parties and while cooking dinner or while making out with a new guy they’re dating, most sane people realize that’s not going to be feasible. Most sane people realize that if one person in an an interpersonal situation decides to become violent—whether or not he’s a wife beater or a rapist—he’s probably going to be the one who gets to the gun first. As the evidence bears out.

  9. #9 by brewski on February 1, 2013 - 12:32 pm

    Amanda Marcotte has about as much credibility as the lint in my belly button. She worked for the Edwards campaign and is famous for wanting innocent people convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. Who’s your next “source”, Tawana Brawley? You have stooped to a new low, Richard.

  10. #10 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 12:40 pm

    How about Gayle Trotter? Credible, in your opinion? What facts did Trotter offer to back up her movie-bad-guy home invasion scenario with screaming children and an AR-15 wielding Mom who is heavily armed at all times for “peace of mind”?

  11. #11 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 1:13 pm

    Hey Richard,

    Why can’t Gayle Trotter have an OPINION on the matter, eh?

  12. #12 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 1:20 pm

    Bob S.–

    Interestingly enough, I once testified at a congressional hearing (on wilderness designation for Utah). I never considered going in without facts to present, and just making stuff up.

  13. #13 by cav on February 1, 2013 - 1:21 pm

    Gayle Trotter is lower than brewski’s belly-button lint!

    Relativity being the issue here, perhaps we should look at the actual distance from his navel to his cranium.

  14. #14 by brewski on February 1, 2013 - 1:41 pm

    I didn’t cite Ms. Trotter. Richard did cite Ms. Marcotte.

  15. #15 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 1:46 pm

    Richard,

    considered going in without facts to present, and just making stuff up.

    So what has changed in the intervening years?
    (sorry but the current debate is getting on my nerves here). You present opinion as if it was fact and then criticize this lady for saying she has a preferred weapon — that is her opinion.

    It is backed up by facts. More to the point, it is backed up by the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
    What do they issue homeland security troops?

    M4/AR-15 style weapons classified as “personal defense weapons” right?

    “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.”

    https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3 – PDF alert.

    So it is a weapon to be used by the men and women of Homeland Security but not by the people seeking to secure their homes??????????

    Just who is without facts and making stuff up????????

  16. #16 by cav on February 1, 2013 - 2:11 pm

    I’m just sayin, if Gayle Trotter wasn’t such a BushMaster she’d probably have been murdered in her sleep a long time ago.

    I mean I bet not a night goes by she doesn’t have to kill another plague of child dismembering assailants. And she doesn’t even live in Kabul, let alone Chicago.

    And BobS, When you’re good, you’re very good. So You’ve learned – this is a tough house! Well, sort of.

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 2:13 pm

    Great comment from a Brit:

    This isn’t a bar-room chat. Or an NRA-sponsored gun forum. Or a two-way on Fox News. It’s the US Senate. Isn’t there even a minimum threshold of plausibility?

    But thanks for defending the lunacy, Bob S. Somebody has to.

  18. #18 by cav on February 1, 2013 - 2:43 pm

    Why, if I’m not mistaken, it is in the Senate where the minimum threshold of plausibility is established. Or is that the House?

    It’s confusing some times.

  19. #19 by brewski on February 1, 2013 - 2:48 pm

    You mean, sort of like Sandra Fluke and the zero minimum threshold of plausibility that the left did not hold her accountable for.

    One lying testimony deserves another. You have no moral leg to stand on.

  20. #20 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 3:04 pm

    brewski–

    Thanks for the reminder. Sandra Fluke may be the best known graduate of Georgetown Law School. As a former G.U. undergrad I’m proud – Hoya Saxa. A year after the right-wing Republicans failed to stop her from testifying, she’s still in the news.

    And it’s just stupid to compare her to Gayle “Happiness is a Warm Gun” Trotter. Lawrence O’Donnell Eviscercates Gayle Trotter Over Gun Testimony

    During an interview on “The Last Word” Wednesday night, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell challenged Trotter for not being able to provide one real life example of a case when an assault weapon specifically saved one woman’s life in that kind of a situation. “You don’t go to the Senate to imagine things!” O’Donnell said.

  21. #21 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 3:24 pm

    Richard,

    If you don’t think a woman should be able to pick her weapon of choice to defend home, hearth, kith and kin; what would you recommend she

    a.) do in case of home invasions (unless you plan on denying home invasions happen)

    and

    b.) if she so desires to use something other then her physical prowess; what weapon would you suggest?

  22. #22 by cav on February 1, 2013 - 3:51 pm

    The important thing to remember is IT COULD HAPPEN!, and really, let’s face facts for once. It’s just a matter of time.

    Fear is not only a bored housewife’s protector, it may also actually be reflective of a deep felt wish.

    I believe Freud said that.

  23. #23 by cav on February 1, 2013 - 4:19 pm

    From Clinton Derangement, to Bush Derangement, and Now Obama Derangement…it just occurred to me that for the greatest while nearly fifty% of our population has been totally deranged.

  24. #24 by brewski on February 1, 2013 - 5:13 pm

    “Thanks for the reminder. Sandra Fluke may be the best known graduate of Georgetown Law School. As a former G.U. undergrad I’m proud”

    You’re proud of a pathological liar? Did Lawrence O’Donnell eviscerate her over her $3,000 birth control fabrication?

  25. #25 by Becky Stauffer on February 1, 2013 - 5:27 pm

    It’s a real problem when gun nuts don’t even see anything ridiculous about “three, four, five violent attackers”, with “kids crying in the background”, and mom with amazing “peace of mind” saving the day by brandishing a “scary-looking gun.” Where to even start with that?!

    And let’s add in that gun owners may very well not know their legal rights and responsibilities with gun ownership in any situation. Just yesterday in Utah, a homeowner was arrested for firing shots at a burglar. If the story is correct as reported (and it never is), the homeowner turned into a vigilante ready to mete out instant justice to the burglar. All you need to do is read the comments to the KSL story to realize how uninformed people are about the law.

    So what’s the answer? You can’t fix stupid.

    http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=23928833

  26. #26 by Becky Stauffer on February 1, 2013 - 5:39 pm

    To answer my own question, what is needed is regulation to protect the rest of us from the gun nuts who endanger us. That may include not only limiting types of weapons and magazines, along with 100 percent background checks, but also licensing of firearms with a requirement for annual renewals.

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/31/the-most-powerful-gun-control-speech-father-of-sandy-hook-victim-speaks-out-video/

  27. #27 by cav on February 1, 2013 - 6:06 pm

    Becky, I think you can fix stupid, but, it’s not going to happen in my lifetime. Er, wait…

    That was some pretty moving testimony from David Wheeler.

  28. #28 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 6:20 pm

    Becky,

    I find your news report to be interesting since there were 3 people involved in the home invasion but you claim we don’t see anything ridiculous about ’3,4, or 5″ home invaders.

    Imagine that— reality actually happens as ‘we imagine it’.

    Not going to include the links to avoid the spam filter — so search for the reports if you want

    FOUR children were left terrified by a home invasion in which a woman had a rifle pointed at her head.
    See your ad here

    The offenders pulled the trigger, the gun clicked, but it wasn’t loaded, Newcastle District Court was told yesterday.

    As a result of the ordeal in a Woodberry home in the early hours of July 5, 2011, four men were yesterday sentenced to jail terms ranging from 12 years to 13 years and six months.

    Did that mom find 4 invaders ‘ridiculous’?

    State police are looking for five suspects who they say invaded an apartment along Medlar Drive in White Township early Wednesday and robbed three men.

    One wonders how ridiculous the 3 men in this apartment felt when 5 guys invaded it.

    So large number of home invaders happen just like people defending their homes with firearms occurs on a routine basis — if you have eyes willing to see the truth.

    As far as your ‘need for regulation – maybe the part of the home owner being arrested for illegally shooting at the robbery suspects escaped you?
    Let me clue you in — the police charged him with violating the regulations you say we need.

    They already exist.

  29. #29 by Becky Stauffer on February 1, 2013 - 6:26 pm

    It was moving, Cav. And so calm and reasonable compared to the crazed rantings of those who buy into the story the gun lobby is feeding them.

    And one more link for kicks. Pro-gun lawmakers apparently have a case of NIMBY when it comes to carrying weapons in their own workplace. http://americablog.com/2013/01/idaho-gun-nut-lawmakers-freak-out-over-gun-nut-in-the-state-capitol-even-though-guns-are-permitted.html

  30. #30 by Becky Stauffer on February 1, 2013 - 6:43 pm

    Bob, of course the homeowner was arrested. The problem is he didn’t even know it was illegal to chase the burglar and shoot at him (by the way, the other two were sitting in the car). And if you read the comments, you’ll realize there is a severe lack of knowledge about such a basic law. Incredibly, a different local news story tonight interviewed the 20-year old daughter of the burgler, and she stated the homeowner should not be charged as he was only defending his property. Did the reporter follow up with any facts? Of course not.

    I still say the scenario described by Rambo-Lady Trotter is a crazy way of defending the need for assault weapons. Especially the idea that a “scary-looking” weapon is the secret to ensuring she’s not outnumbered.

    If 3, 4, 5 people break into my house, they will be looking for money and things they can sell. They can have them and no-one needs to die.

  31. #31 by cav on February 1, 2013 - 7:48 pm

    This is kinda funny;

    http://mediacdn.disqus.com/1359756499/uploads/mediaembed/images/426/3240/original.jpg

    ———> Burglars, my neighbor has many valuable guns to steal.

  32. #32 by Becky Stauffer on February 1, 2013 - 8:05 pm

    Exactly.

  33. #33 by Larry Bergan on February 1, 2013 - 9:00 pm

    One of the funnier statements from an actual congressman who thinks citizen militias should have the same weapons as the military.

    Why not?

  34. #34 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2013 - 5:16 am

    I’ve been trying to find the video you posted, portraying people being brought down by their own firearms; resulting in a young, drunken man saying his mom was going to kill him for putting a bullet in the ceiling.

    Re-post. Or not. I will understand.

  35. #35 by cav on February 2, 2013 - 7:13 am

    Last September the NRA published an official list of gun enemies:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/02/good_lord_is_this_awesome.php?ref=fpblg

    I hope your scroll wheel’s working.

  36. #36 by Bob S. on February 2, 2013 - 7:19 am

    Becky,

    The problem is he didn’t even know it was illegal to chase the burglar and shoot at him

    When did you gain the power to know what another person was thinking at the time of a crime? Was there something in the reports I didn’t see.
    YOU THINK HE DIDN’T know the law but it could be he did and was either prompted by something that has not been disclosed (which might make it legal to shoot) or was so frustrated at the burglary he decided to break the law anyways.

    (by the way, the other two were sitting in the car).

    and how does that matter– it was still 3 against one — think if he hadn’t been armed it might have turned out to be different?

    Think if they other two are caught they want be charged with burglary?
    They were part and parcel of the home burglary; so why do you want home owners to be at a disadvantage to criminals?

    ncredibly, a different local news story tonight interviewed the 20-year old daughter of the burgler, and she stated the homeowner should not be charged as he was only defending his property.

    And if I was on the jury, I would vote to let him off also. I hope the D.A. doesn’t press charges; if he does he might find that sentiment to be very high now days. Ever hear of jury nullficiation.

    I still say the scenario described by Rambo-Lady Trotter is a crazy way of defending the need for assault weapons.

    In my opinion, you are denying reality. Home invasions happen, usually with several people acting in concert and they are violent. Home invasions are just one of the reasons a person may want to own an AR-15. The rifle is light weight, low recoil and can be fitted with an adjustable stock making it a weapon that can be used by many people comfortably and effectively.

    If 3, 4, 5 people break into my house, they will be looking for money and things they can sell.

    Some how I doubt if you will publicly broadcast your view and stand by your principles, right?

    That is great that you feel that way and will let hours or weeks out of your life be taken (property represents the hours of work it took to purchase it) but please don’t try to force your view on others through more gun control laws.
    Is that too much to ask?

  37. #37 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2013 - 7:25 am

    Skipping Bob S…

    Must have been a pretty small fund raiser, compared to the gun nuts. eh?

    And always remember: I have a real name.

  38. #38 by Becky Stauffer on February 2, 2013 - 8:33 am

    Cav, that’s quite a list. Let’s hope gun owners decide to boycott each and every person and organization on the list.

    Bob S., “If” doesn’t count in this incident. The facts are what they are. The other two people chose not to engage the homeowner. I don’t deny there are violent crimes, but most home break-ins are simply robberies. The perps just want stuff. And stuff is not worth anyone’s life (in my opinion).

    But I failed to make my bigger point, and that is, gun owners who are not educated about the law and who don’t know their own responsibilities and limitations (along with their rights), and who fail to maintain a level of skill need to use a weapon safely, are a danger to all the rest of us. In fact, your suggestion that he might have fired simply out of “frustration” is something that really troubles me. In the heat of the moment, people act differently than in a class or on a gun range. This homeowner should surely lose his CCP. But what about all the other cowboys out there just itching to take a bad guy down? You don’t have to look far on the internet to find people advertising such eagerness.

    Larry, is this the video you were thinking of?
    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWHFMQ8Wlk&w=640&h=360

  39. #39 by Bob S. on February 2, 2013 - 9:01 am

    Becky,

    Yes, the facts are what they are — a man with a firearm stopped a crime in progress.
    But to claim perps just want stuff is to deny reality again- some do but some want to hurt, to rape, to murder.

    While you may want to take a chance like that; most people don’t.

    But I failed to make my bigger point, and that is, gun owners who are not educated about the law and who don’t know their own responsibilities and limitations (along with their rights), and who fail to maintain a level of skill need to use a weapon safely, are a danger to all the rest of us.

    This is where the evidence does not bear out your fear – and yes I believe it is your fear talking. Firearm related death, injuries and accidents are declining.

    Even this homeowner’s ‘reckless’ shots injured no one, right?
    If it is such a concern for you, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and pay for firearm safety and training classes? That would improve public safety and not infringe on people’s rights.

    After all, if we have to pay for Sandra Flukes’ birth control this is obviously a better use of money right?

  40. #40 by cav on February 2, 2013 - 9:06 am

    In my younger years I had become an expert marksman, always kept my arms lockered, did all of the right things. Still, on two occasions I had to repel violent assailants, with such surprising haste that resorting to guns was out of the question. On the first, I simply accessed a solid wood broomstick leaning against the wall, broke it over the assholes head, then broke the remainder with a second blow. This, and a swift kick to the balls, ended the assault. This fella eventually came to an ignoble end by the sharp shooting of a Vietnamese defender.

    On the second occasion I had the upper hand from the beginning. I was on a landing at the top of some stairs, and he was charging up from below. Sensing the danger, I was able to slam the door on his arm, giving it a few very persuasive raps with a handy 2 lb. coffee can quickly dissuading an further advances.

    I’ve been shot at, but surprisingly it took two shots for me to figure out exactly what was happening and to take cover. When you do figure it out, if you’re not dead already, it puts a whole new perspective on who assholes with rifles can be.

    Again, I’m not saying everyone with a rifle is an asshole, but rifles just make the assholes among us that much more dangerous.

  41. #41 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2013 - 9:23 am

    Becky:

    For sure; that’s the one:

    He, He!

  42. #42 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2013 - 9:33 am

    Again, I’m not saying everyone with a rifle is an asshole, but rifles just make the assholes among us that much more dangerous.

    Couldn’t have said it better!

  43. #43 by Bob S. on February 2, 2013 - 9:57 am

    Cav,

    Rifles also make the a-holes among us think twice before doing something stupid.

    Yes, rifles do make a-holes more dangerous but they make the physically weaker, infirm, disabled, more dangerous.
    I’m glad you were able to overcome your attackers with just physical violence but I’m in full recognition of my prowess in martial arts (limited) and physical condition (not bad for my age and shape but not great).
    The homeowner in Becky’s news report was 64 years old. The criminal in his house was 17 years younger — fair fight?
    Would you want to be in the position of the home owner unarmed?

  44. #44 by cav on February 2, 2013 - 10:22 am

    Can’t say that I would, but you can bet, those tools available to me would come into play in as dangerous and advantageous a way as my creativity would take them.

    None of the encounters I recalled above had much more driving them that the pure animal instinct and reaction I know very well has been fading since, what, my 50th? Maybe even earlier. The perp in Becky’s story was porky and prolly on booze or drugs (which is not to diminish the danger he presented), but, barring him being so hot-headed as to shoot me right off, I’m confident he’d never have made it out of my house without knowing who was the boss therein. I know…tough talk…We’re all gonna die.

  45. #45 by Barker Willis on February 2, 2013 - 10:37 am

    Better get ready progressive stupids, the gun culture is only growing, and obama pissed on his own shoes with his Sandy Hook speech.

    The gig is up, Americans are taking their country back from this freak of president, if you agree with him, then ask yourself, why?

    Why support a man who would regulate you while committing war crimes using banned weapons and war practices, he murders with impunity with drones, and for this reason alone, every American should be locked and loaded for what this murderer president is all about.

    It’s over, his power is waning, even the “obamaphone” Lady now thinks he is totally full of shit. Thanks Alex Jones, that was a yeoman’s effort to turn that foundering ship around.

  46. #46 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2013 - 10:39 am

    Thanks all for an entertaining debate. I just read something in the morning paper that inspired me to make another post about gun fanatics.

    In answer to Bob S. question above, I’m rapidly approaching my 60th birthday and so far have experienced zero home invasions. I’ve lived in the most heavily armed nation in the world (USA) and the second most heavily armed (Yemen).

    Becky has got it right – let them take whatever they want, then call 911 after they are out the door. Gayle Trotter is a lawyer paid to shill for the Gun Lobby, and even she didn’t believe what she was saying. People at the Senate hearing actually laughed.

  47. #47 by Barker Willis on February 2, 2013 - 10:43 am

    15k semi auto’s a day, and now the Ruger waiting list just to PLACE an order, not get a firearm they make, is 6 months!!

    Obama is the Greatest Gun Salesman that Ever Lived!! By the numbers, JMB is the American champ.

  48. #48 by Barker Willis on February 2, 2013 - 10:58 am

    A gun is just a more durable essential item, like a toothbrush, it is not fanatical to wish to defend your life and that of your Treasure, at all times from violence and usurpers with lethal force.

    Great Richard, the reason your home hasn’t been invaded is due to the gun culture, try living in western canada with no gun culture, old folks getting their doors kicked in, run to their banks kidnapped, beaten and so on, baseball bat is the favorite tool of the thugs there. All for drug money, and since the CIA is the biggest drug dealer on Earth now, we’ll be keeping our weapons thank you, as I’m sure you have.

  49. #49 by Barker Willis on February 2, 2013 - 11:03 am

    BTW, one of the most popular shivs in prison, is a sharpened toothbrush.

  50. #50 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2013 - 11:53 am

    Or maybe I’m not wealthy enough to own stuff worth stealing. ;-)

  51. #51 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2013 - 11:53 am

    Your sharpened toothbrush against my sharpened DVD case.

    BRING IT ON, Barker!

  52. #52 by cav on February 2, 2013 - 1:28 pm

    Is that you Glenn?

    Seems during the election a phrase relating to what must be permanently encoded reactions to familiar stimuli – be it ‘racism’, the .01%, or our just plain old helplessness in the overwhelming odds – became popular. The phrase: Dog whistle. It’s kin to what the filibluster has become.

    We’ve sho’ nuff met our match.

  53. #53 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2013 - 1:54 pm

    Years ago, when I was an optician, my Boss’s son was playing around with his friends and they found a pistol.

    Somehow, the thing went off. (what else can you do with the damn thing but pull the trigger), and the bullet went through the wall into the garage and killed a kid who was there.

    A Chemistry set could have burned down the place, but probably wouldn’t have.

  54. #54 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2013 - 2:20 pm

    Did you see the picture of the weapon that killed all those children?

    It looked like some kind of weapon from outer space.

  55. #55 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2013 - 2:41 pm

    Wouldn’t it be great!:

  56. #56 by Barker Willis on February 3, 2013 - 10:57 am

    Duh Larry, who would know what they were all killed with, the tapes all recorded from the local feeds shows without a doubt there is something rotten in Connecticut, and it smells like cover up and authority protecting its ass.

    Who cares what it looks like, it’s what it does, and all it is is a dressed up .223, like a Ruger Mini 14.

    So Adam is found dead in the school with only pistols, yet the rifle that killed everyone, .223 Bushmaster, “supposedly” is in the trunk of his car. Nobody with any sense believes this pile of manure the “official” liars are putting out.

    Everyone of these shoot em freaks is on SSRI medications or coming off them, no mention of that, even Jeffrey Dahmer the cannibal was on ‘em, these or some other pharma psych med, stuff is poison, and basically if used enough amount to a chemical lobotomy.

    Good luck figuring out what’s next Larry, you clearly in the weeds.

  57. #57 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2013 - 11:42 am

    There’s nothing like a good conspiracy theory. However, the Newtown truthers haven’t got a good conspiracy theory.

  58. #58 by Barker Willis on February 3, 2013 - 11:50 am

    Oh well for you Richard, it’s all there to see in chronological order, a story that has absolutely no relation to the final “official” story. you will believe what you want, did you ever see the 1/2 video of Adam Lanza’s shrink?

    If you have not watched that, you don’t know anything about what has happened.

    Friends have the entirety of the feeds taped, from minute one.

  59. #59 by cav on February 3, 2013 - 12:37 pm

    Before the Sooper-Blow, I’m gonna need an obsessive nap. Anyone on this sucky blog know where a Zanax might be found?

    I might not shoot up my TV only if the right team takes it. Otherwise…no promises.

  60. #60 by Cliff Lyon on February 3, 2013 - 2:10 pm

    Cav,

    9 out 10 chance your neighbors on either side of you have something pleasant.

  61. #61 by Cliff Lyon on February 3, 2013 - 2:11 pm

    test

  62. #62 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2013 - 2:50 pm

    On CNN right now they are discussing God’s plan for the Super Bowl. Interesting question: would an omniscient, omnipotent being necessarily want to determine the outcome of a football game?

    OTOH Matthew 10:29.

  63. #63 by cav on February 3, 2013 - 2:55 pm

    True.

    And without being too wordy, I just wanted to give a prop to Barker Willis for shifting some of the focus to the Mighty Drug Cartels – You know, the unbelievably profitable pharmaceutical / diagnosis monster.

  64. #64 by cav on February 3, 2013 - 2:57 pm

    Jesus H. Christ Richard. You’re testing me…I just know it.

    Makes me a sinner that I don’t even know which teams are playing.

  65. #66 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2013 - 3:45 pm

    Here’s one source, AWOLBush.com:

    Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association – did not serve (apparently pulled lottery #97 in 1969 as a campus radical at SUNY-Albany, but weaseled out by getting a family doctor to claim he had a nervous disorder).

    Snopes.com suggests that LaPierre isn’t prohibited from owning a gun:

    Probably not, since the standard established by the Gun Control Act of 1968 is that gun sales are prohibited to someone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

  66. #67 by cav on February 3, 2013 - 5:18 pm

    Looks like Ron Paul was a draftee. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  67. #68 by Cliff Lyon on February 3, 2013 - 5:36 pm

    I dont know if Wayne LaPierre has a nervous disorder but he is certainly a psychopath – every bit the murderer of anyone who has been the recipient of a misdirected bullet to the head.

  68. #69 by brewski on February 3, 2013 - 6:22 pm

    If mental disorder disqualifies one from owning a gun, then that would mean that the entire delusional left would be disqualified from owning a gun with their Napoleonic Complexes, irrational faith in their own wisdom, and cultish followings of Authoritative Personalities.

  69. #70 by Cliff Lyon on February 3, 2013 - 7:27 pm

    I’d take that bet Brewski…since the science is already in.
    Rather than find you all the links…they are all here.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/12/883743/-Studies-Confirm-the-Closing-of-the-Conservative-Mind

    That ^^^ is the latest science about conservatives. Its not pretty or politically correct to talk about.

    Sorry.

  70. #71 by Cliff Lyon on February 3, 2013 - 7:30 pm

    “Studies have revealed that conservatives are much more uncomfortable with uncertainty than liberals. (This might explain in part why conservatives consistently report being happier than liberals, given their certainty about this life and the next.)”

    Good stuff ^^^ (no conservative will read)

  71. #72 by cav on February 3, 2013 - 7:42 pm

    Thankfully the ‘delusional left’ represents only a very small part of the left as a whole;

    Unlike the delusional right (wrong) which encompasses a much greater portion of the right.

  72. #73 by cav on February 3, 2013 - 8:05 pm

    Looks like God’s got Money on S. F.

  73. #74 by brewski on February 3, 2013 - 8:13 pm

    Cliff,
    Your use of the word “science” is bit looser than mine.

    According to your “scientists” this never happened:
    http://www.araratnews.eu/pictures/1238197647.jpg

    You make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seem reasonable in comparison.

    • #75 by Cliff Lyon on February 4, 2013 - 9:15 am

      Hey Brew,

      For future reference, you may assume “my definition” of any word I use is exactly the same as Websters.

      So the question becomes, why is YOU definition stricter than Websters and or an uncommon definition? Finally, do you have a copy of the Brewski dictionary for our reference.?

    • #76 by Cliff Lyon on February 4, 2013 - 9:22 am

      BTW: Not sure how the pleasant picture relates to the scientific findings about conservatives in the references I gave you.

  74. #77 by brewski on February 4, 2013 - 10:18 am

    Did you read your own link?

  75. #78 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2013 - 12:37 pm

    According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 92 percent of voters nationwide support background checks for all gun buyers, only 7 percent oppose background checks.

    Jon Walker on FDL (emphasis added):

    Just to show how incredibly fringe the opposition to universal background checks is I went looking for things that poll higher. For example more Americans don’t believe President Obama was born in the United States (17%) than oppose background checks. Twice as many Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth (18%) as oppose background checks. There are even more Americans who claim to have personally seen a UFO (11%) than oppose background checks.

    Nearly every regular American supports this commonsense reform. It may be one of the least controversial ideas proposed in decades. The fact that there is a real chance Congress may not approve it shows how unbelievably powerful the gun manufacturer lobby is.

  76. #79 by Bob S. on February 7, 2013 - 2:44 pm

    Interesting phrasing on the question ‘ support background checks for all gun buyers ‘.

    There is a big difference between that and asking if they support a requirement that every purchase has a background check.

    It is easy to conduct a background check personally without a law. There are websites and services that can do it now for a very low cost.

    Tell me do you support a background check on every voter? Every commenter/author who posts here Richard?

    Of course, you also leave out the question:

    40. Who do you think better reflects your views on guns, President Obama or the National Rifle Association?

    Where 46% to 43% says the NRA over Obama.

    You also fail to cover this:

    Despite the huge news media coverage of the issue since the Newtown shooting, only 37 percent of voters are more likely to vote for a congressman who votes to ban sales of assault rifles, while 31 percent are less likely and 30 percent say it would not affect their vote.

    I believe that as people learn more about the existing laws, how a few metropolitan ares and mostly criminals are the main source of shootings; they become less likely to support gun control laws.

  77. #80 by Bob S. on February 7, 2013 - 2:52 pm

    And I wonder if this makes any difference

    The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and the nation as a public service and for research.

    Notice what is missing? A vast part of America????

    Oh, they stick in “and the nation” but I don’t see anything saying where the numbers polled came from. There is substantial regional differences in opinion.

    PARTY IDENTIFICATION
    Republican 24%
    Democrat 33
    Independent 34
    Other/DK/NA 9

    and it appears they under sampled (what a shock !!! ) Republicans. Seems to be a fairly consistent habit with pollsters.

  78. #81 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2013 - 3:02 pm

    Bob S.–

    You completely missed the point. The poll indicates that pretty much all sane Americans regardless of political views support universal background checks. More info:

    Gun Show Attendees Explain 5 Reasons They Want Universal Background Checks

    BTW only 24.4 percent of the electorate self-identify as Republicans.

  79. #82 by Bob S. on February 7, 2013 - 3:23 pm

    Richard,

    There you go again — not a nice way of calling me names but you do it often.

    “pretty much all sane” — see if I disagree with you, then I must be insane right?

    And where does that lead us, to compromise? Nope you won’t compromise. You are demonizing anyone who disagrees with you. Shame on you.

    I didn’t miss the point. I showed how the polling question is biased, how the demographics are questionable and therefore so are the results.

    The self-identification as Republican is a highly variable measure — from Pew having it at 28% to Rasmussen having it as 37%.

    So — since you are a potential child molester / pornographer, do you support background checks on anyone purchasing cameras or computers?

  80. #83 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2013 - 3:52 pm

    Bob S.–

    The term “pretty much” allows that there might be some exceptions. Depends on whether you think Presdient Obama isn’t an American, or if you believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. ;-)

    This is a test of our political system. Americans are essentially unanimous in demanding these background checks. Can politicians defy the Gun Lobby on behalf of 92 percent of their constituents, or will they wimp out?

  81. #84 by Bob S. on February 7, 2013 - 3:55 pm

    Richard,

    Is our country a democracy?

  82. #85 by cav on February 7, 2013 - 5:02 pm

    Is this a trick question?

  83. #86 by Larry Bergan on February 7, 2013 - 6:38 pm

    Bob S. said:

    Tell me do you support a background check on every voter? Every commenter/author who posts here Richard?

    Go ahead.

    I’ve ,pretty much, said everything there is to say about myself here anyway. There isn’t any reason for Bush’s “department of homeland security” to spy on me. I drink too much, smoke marijuana, admire people who document animal cruelty, hate the fact that I have to use fossil fuels, when America could have been THE leader for renewable energy, want free elections with hand-marked and hand counted ballots, hate ALEC for it’s sneaky legislation, ect.

    But Bob, (guns), S. calls ME a one issue guy and refuses to use his real name.

    And, by the way, I’m against assault weapons, not guns.

  84. #87 by Epraim James on February 7, 2013 - 10:38 pm

    Universal background checks, now!

  85. #88 by Bob S. on February 8, 2013 - 4:21 am

    Larry,

    I really don’t like calling you a liar but when you say I’m not using my real name — that is a lie.

    Bob S. is my real name. It is all of my name but I have established it as my Online Identity — My first name and last initial of my real name.
    Now what difference does it make?
    Are my citations, facts, evidence any less true because you don’t know what my full last name is?
    Do my words make less sense?

    smoke marijuana,

    If we applied the rules of firearm ownership to every other right; you would be ineligible to vote, to speak in public, to exercise or not your choice in religion, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

    All because of that one admission.

    Just trying to educate people as to what the laws really are and what is being proposed.

    “Universal background checks” are nothing more then a way to outlaw private property sales without government approval.
    As I pointed out, it isn’t “approving the buyer” – it is approving the buyer each and every time (s)he purchases a legal product. Adding to the cost and hassle of purchasing a product.

    I already own over half a dozen firearms; how does it make sense for me to have another background check done on my next purchase?

    I have already had a background check when I was issued my concealed carry license,; how does it make sense for me to have another check when I purchase another firearm?

    Will ‘universal background checks’ stop criminals from getting firearms? Nope. NOT one bit.

    So why do it?

    Cav,

    Nope, not a trick question. Is our country a democracy?

  86. #89 by cav on February 8, 2013 - 9:54 am

    Hi BobS. There’s much here to be discussed. I’m suffering some gomboo, or would be better involved. Sorry.

    You may take comfort in the tenets of the immutable 2nd Amendment, and say “yes”.

    There’s plenty of other policy and econ evidence that suggest otherwise.

  87. #90 by Richard Warnick on February 8, 2013 - 10:07 am

    Bob S.–

    The United States is a federal republic, but it is also a representative democracy. When 92 percent of Americans want something, we expect our representatives to pay attention at the risk of losing the next election. If they want to represent the Gun Lobby, then the Gun Lobby can vote for them!

    BTW the First Lady will be attending Hadiya Pendleton’s funeral tomorrow.

  88. #91 by Bob S. on February 8, 2013 - 10:30 am

    Richard,

    You have it right, it is a federal republic. More accurately and importantly, it is a Constitutional Republic.

    That means there are clearly defined powers and authorities – limits on what the government can do. Even if the majority wants something. Especially if a Majority wants something.

    My rights aren’t dependent on a vote. And the issue isn’t as clear cut as you would lead people to believe.

    From your own poll
    Who do you trust to do a better job handling – gun policy, President Obama or the Republicans in Congress? — Obama 45, Republicans 43

    35. Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States? Support 52 Oppose 43

    REND: Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?

    Feb 07 Jul 17
    2013 2008

    Support 52 54
    Oppose 43 40
    DK/NA 5 5

    Even after all the media bias, the lies and distortion, the blatant pandering (ITS FOR THE CHILDREN — President Obama signing Executive Orders with children on the stage) — Still there isn’t overwhelming support for stricter laws.

    39. If a member of Congress who represents your district were to vote for a ban on the sale of assault weapons, would you be more likely to vote for that person, less likely to vote for that person, or wouldn’t it make a difference? More likely 37 Less Likely 31

    So our elected representatives are actually listening to the people – you just don’t like their response apparently.

    Again — 46% of the people feel the NRA more closely reflects their views on Gun control compared to 43% that feel Obama does.

    BTW the First Lady will be attending Hadiya Pendleton’s funeral tomorrow.

    You mean the funeral in Chicago – where they had 500+ homicides last year. In the state with restrictive gun control laws, in the city where you need a permit just to own a firearm, in addition to the state permit — that city?

    So tell me how gun control laws are working out?

    In the mean time, let’s talk about the positive aspect of firearm ownership.

    How many times each year do civilians use firearms defensively? The answers provided to this seemingly simple question have been confusing. Consider the findings from two of the most widely cited studies in the field: McDowall et al. (1998), using the data from 1992 and 1994 waves of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), found roughly 116,000 defensive gun uses per year, and Kleck and Gertz (1995), using data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS), found around 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

    Many other surveys provide information on the prevalence of defensive gun use. Using the original National Crime Survey, McDowall and Wiersema (1994) estimate 64,615 annual incidents from 1987 to 1990. At least 19 other surveys have resulted in estimated numbers of defensive gun uses that are similar (i.e., statistically indistinguishable) to the results founds by Kleck and Gertz. No other surveys have found numbers consistent with the NCVS (other gun use surveys are reviewed in Kleck and Gertz, 1995, and Kleck, 2001a).

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=94

    315 to 6,800 defensive gun uses PER DAY. With 19 studies supporting the upper number found in the Kleck & Gertz survey….19

    So Richard why do you want to make it easier for criminals?

  89. #92 by cav on February 8, 2013 - 10:46 am

    http://mediacdn.disqus.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/430/1861/original.jpg

    And firing from the back of a galloping dinosaur.

  90. #93 by Richard Warnick on February 8, 2013 - 10:49 am

    Bob S.–

    I heartily agree that under our form of government, we should not be able to take away anyone’s constitutional rights via a popular vote. And BTW thanks for opposing California’s Prop 8!

    Once again, your precious Second Amendment is not under threat. President Obama’s sole achievement on gun safety has been to sign a stupid law that reversed the 75-year-old policy of not allowing loaded guns in national parks.

    Now the Obama administration is finally talking about making us safer, but (1) it’s only talk, and (2) probably because the President is getting tired of having to go to funerals (four mass-shooting funerals so far, and he’s got four more years to go).

    Senator Feinstein’s bill and other proposed federal legislation would not infringe on anyone’s rights. The Supreme Court has said so.

    You know darn well that no city or state gun laws can be really effective as long as people can buy online or go to another state where guns are unregulated. It’s the Gun Lobby that’s on the side of criminals. You know that the NRA used to support background checks, but now they don’t – why is that?

  91. #94 by brewski on February 8, 2013 - 11:16 am

    Bob,
    Richard fully supports taking away our constitutional rights. He has in the past supported the government’s seizure of private property for private use as well as supported unequal protection of the laws.

  92. #95 by Bob S. on February 8, 2013 - 11:17 am

    Richard,

    You are simply misstating the truth. In New York State, they passed a law outlawing magazines with a capacity of 7 rounds or more. People have to dispose of them. Already one person is facing 35 years in jail.

    Diane Feinstein wants to ban ‘assault weapons’ — the most popular type of rifle being purchased today. 30 round magazines — to be banned.

    Semi-automatic pistol identical to what the military and the police are issued — to be banned.

    You know darn well that no city or state gun laws can be really effective as long as people can buy guns online or go to another state.

    And now you are showing your ignorance or flat out lying.

    First, you can only purchase rifles in states contiguous to your own. Anything other than that — like pistols, what is most often used in crime — have to be shipped to a Federal Firearm License holder in your state. Where that FFL has to perform a background check!

    So the idea people can simply buy guns online or in another state is bunk.

    Let’s continue with Illinois as an example and look at the ATF’s 2011 Trace data.

    Where do most firearms traced come from? Illinois — out of the 7500 or so firearms traced to where they came from 3953 – 52.6% came from Illinois.

    The average “Time to Crime” on firearms traced? 12.95 years for Illinois — Hardly a case where people are running across state line to pick up a firearm for Friday’s crime, eh?

    Less than 1,800 of the firearms traced where purchased within 3 years of the crime.

    http://www.atf.gov/statistics/trace-data/2011-trace-data.html

    Now the Obama administration is finally talking about making us safer, but (1) it’s only talk,

    So we shouldn’t address the talk? Wrong. We need to show that the talked about ‘gun control laws’ will not, have not and will never work. They haven’t been shown to be effective in the past or do they work where they are in place now. Else Chicago would be a paradise not Murder Central.

    2) probably because the President is getting tired of having to go to funerals (four mass-shooting funerals so far, and he’s got four more years to go).

    And if he is really tired of going to funerals he can stop pushing for laws that restrict the people from carrying. I’ve cited the study that shows where people can legally carry there are fewer casualties in a mass shooting.

    “Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now,” Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.

    So if you are pushing for these failed laws it really seems that you want more people shot. Even Joe Biden admits the laws will not stop — yet the mass shootings is the excuse given for pushing these laws.

    How does that make sense?

  93. #96 by Richard Warnick on February 8, 2013 - 2:50 pm

    Bob S.–

    Once again you trot out the worn argument that unless gun safety laws are 100 percent effective, we should not enact them. But we all know that laws are never 100 percent effective, so that argument is baloney.

    If you buy at a gun show without a background check, nobody knows what state you’re from. If you buy online from a private seller, again with no background check, nothing stops them from shipping the weapon direct to you.

    You would be among the first to denounce any plan to confiscate firearms, which no one is proposing to do. Yet you point out that many guns used in crime were purchased years before. Can’t have it both ways, sorry.

    The only reference I can find to the Nathan Haddad story was in the right-wing Washington Times. They say he was arrested in a parking lot of a closed business at 7:30 pm, where he planned to meet someone to sell 30-round AR-15 magazines stamped with the words “Restricted. For military use only.” Since 1994, magazines over 10 rounds have been illegal in New York. Haddad, an AR-15 owner, claims he didn’t know about the law.

  94. #97 by Bob S. on February 8, 2013 - 3:02 pm

    Richard,

    Why do you twist what I say? I’ve never said that because laws aren’t 100% effective we shouldn’t enact them.

    But gun control laws don’t work. They don’t work any better then drug laws do. How has that prohibition been working out?

    Background checks — how will outlawing private transactions stop criminals from getting a firearm?

    How will magazine capacity limits stop murder or even reduce the death toll?
    The Virginia Tech shooter used nothing but 10 round magazines, right? Columbine shooters had a Hi-point carbine with many ten-round magazines.

    It isn’t a matter of being 100% effective, it is a matter of any effectiveness. The CDC Studied the issue and reported that no law or combination of gun control law reduce the violence.

    So your idea is to make more laws that don’t work???

    Let’s look at Haddad — he thought he had Pre-Ban magazines, ones manufactured before 1994 and therefore legal. Just because a manufacturer stamps “for LEO use only” doesn’t mean a thing.

    So should a person be punished for simple possession?

    How does punishing him reduce criminal use of firearms?

  95. #98 by brewski on February 8, 2013 - 3:10 pm

    “Why do you twist what I say?”

    Because that is all he’s got.

  96. #99 by Bob S. on February 8, 2013 - 3:46 pm

    Oh and for the person who continually claims that no one is talking about confiscating legally owned firearms:

    All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines would be banned, all guns would be registered and no ammunition could be bought without a special permit in California under a sweeping list of bills rolled out Thursday by state Senate Democrats.

    The 10-bill package constitutes the single largest gun control push in decades in the Golden State, which already boasts some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state’s 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners.

    It’s in the news paper so it has to be true. Right Richard?

    Or this one:

    State Rep. Dan Muhlbauer, D-Manilla, says Iowa lawmakers should ban semi-automatic guns and “start taking them” from owners who refuse to surrender any illegal firearms through a buy-back program.

    In an interview, a fiery Muhlbauer said it is time to act with “radical changes” on gun laws and other issues to protect schoolchildren from shooting sprees like the one last week in Newtown, Conn.

    “We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them,” Muhlbauer said. “We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons.”

    He added, “We should ban those in Iowa.”

    Muhlbauer, who did not list the specific weapons he wants outlawed in The Daily Times Herald interview, said he would like to see the ban implemented in a retroactive fashion.

    “Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Muhlbauer said. “We can’t have those out there. Because if they’re out there they’re just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public’s hands. There are just too big of guns.”

    Still going to deny people are talking about coming for our guns ?

    or

    Last week, Gov. Cuomo suggested during a radio interview that “confiscation could be an option’’ when developing a newly restrictive policy on assault-style rifles.

    While a Cuomo aide estimated their number at just 30,000, industry experts who have firsthand knowledge of gun sales in New York over many years say there are “at least’’ a million semiautomatic rifles modeled on the military’s M16s legally in the hands of New Yorkers.

  97. #100 by cav on February 8, 2013 - 4:36 pm

    bad linkage – disregard.

  98. #101 by Richard Warnick on February 8, 2013 - 4:51 pm

    Bob S.–

    We went over the CDC numbers before. I think those numbers indicate that the AWB was very successful in reducing the number of crimes committed with mass-murder weapons. Would you support a proper government study of gun laws around the world? For example, Australia?

    You didn’t provide links (who are you quoting?) but I will. California’s proposed law does not involve taking away firearms.

    Iowa doesn’t have a bill, or even a concrete proposal so far. Just one legislator who thinks they ought to consider it.

    Governor Cuomo’s talk radio quote has been used before – you are recycling. What part of “talk radio” do you not get? He hasn’t proposed taking away guns.

    Sorry, I will believe it when I see it, but so far I don’t see it.

  99. #102 by cav on February 8, 2013 - 5:41 pm

    I’ll try it again. Noting the cops should be similarly deprived, checked, trained.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-shootings-newspaper-carriers.html

  100. #103 by Bob S. on February 8, 2013 - 7:28 pm

    Richard,

    I’m not citing the CDC report but the “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003″
    http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

    Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

    So the National Institute of Justice reports the renewal of the ban would probably have little or no impact.

    and this:

    In contrast, guns equipped with LCMs – of which AWs are a subset – are used in roughly 14% to 26% of gun crimes. Accordingly, the LCM ban has greater potential for affecting gun crime. However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks (see Chapter 9). All of this suggests that the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small.
    19

    You didn’t provide links (who are you quoting?) but I will.

    I didn’t provide links because of the blasted spamfilter here. I did, however, provide enough of a citation for you to find the articles I cited. There is this cool feature on the Internet called “search engines’.

    You have repeatedly denied people were calling for the confiscation of firearms. You’ve said “no one is calling for confiscation”.

    I provide you three sourced articles showing you are wrong (being charitable here) AND STILL YOU DENY IT.

    People are out there calling for confiscation — only vocal and consistent objection from people who value individual rights have kept them from proceeding.

    And that article you linked to is the one that cites earlier bills—

    It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state’s 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners.

    So thanks for verifying the citation I GAVE.

    Will you please stop denying (Hey…..are you a confsication DENIER???? ) reality now?

  101. #104 by Larry Bergan on February 8, 2013 - 7:40 pm

    Bob S. said:

    Bob S. is my real name. It is all of my name but I have established it as my Online Identity — My first name and last initial of my real name.
    Now what difference does it make?
    Are my citations, facts, evidence any less true because you don’t know what my full last name is?
    Do my words make less sense?

    I’m thinking that you meant to say It is not all of my name. Since you value honesty so much, I’ll bet you wished your last name was Smith and not Wesson.

    Why do people change their names? Why do corporations change their names? I know why Blackwater changed it’s name, (three times). I know why Diebold changed it’s name, (four times). Don’t pretend to not understand why political bloggers from the right want to be anonymous.

    You know why.

  102. #105 by Bob S. on February 8, 2013 - 8:13 pm

    Larry (if that is your real name) Bergan,

    You are correct I meant to say it is not all my name.

    Oh, I understand. I understand completely.
    I had a ‘liberal’ threaten to come to my house and punch me because I had the gall to disagree with his wife about an issue.

    Many other bloggers have noticed that anti-rights cultists aka anti-gun advocates – are violent

    http://www.saysuncle.com/index.php?s=%22anti-gun+activists+so+violent%22

    Other conservative bloggers have lost jobs, been denied jobs or have had other problems with employment because of their views. View which don’t follow the narrative of the ‘supposedly tolerant’ liberals.

    I also note that it is the supposedly ‘tolerant and accepting’ liberals like Cliff that often demand credentials or full disclosure of real names. So much for being pro-choice, eh?

    Again….does using an online brand/identity make my words any less valid? Are my arguments less logical or consistent because I don’t disclose my last name?

  103. #106 by Larry Bergan on February 8, 2013 - 9:13 pm

    Bob S.:

    I don’t know where to start.

    YES, Larry Bergan is my real name, and I have put my existence in real danger by disclosing my real name. I made a decision to do that because I figured I wouldn’t be taken seriously otherwise.

    I think you stepped in it by admitting that conservative bloggers have jobs blogging. Are you actually talking about PAYING jobs, blogging. This is unheard of on the left. Even the best, REAL, journalists on the left have to beg for money to stay alive. George Soros gives them NOTHING; NADA!

    We don’t even want money to blog. We want the democracy they keep telling us we have.

  104. #107 by Bob S. on February 9, 2013 - 4:46 am

    Larry (if that is your real name, I’ve never met you so I don’t know) Bergan,

    I joke about your real name because it is easy to assume an identity, especially online. I have no doubt it is your real name but could you prove it? Not just a driver’s license, those are easy to fake.

    But prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you are you?
    And if you did, would it make your words less important or more? Would you know any more about firearms or less?

    I didn’t admit that conservative bloggers have jobs blogging. I admitted they have lost jobs, been denied jobs because of their blogging.

    Liberals like George Soros may not directly pay bloggers but where does Coalition to Stop (Only) Gun Violence, The Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun Control Inc), etc get their money?

    The Joyce Foundation.

    Who gives the Joyce Foundation money? George Soros.

    So, color me skeptical of your claim that liberal bloggers have to go begging more than conservative ones.

    We don’t even want money to blog

    I don’t want money to blog either. My blog has no ads, no tip jar or anything like it. I do it for the fun and enjoyment of getting my ideas out there.

    We want the democracy they keep telling us we have.

    We don’t have a democracy and that is a good thing. YOU don’t want conservatives voting away your rights any more than I want liberals voting away my rights.

  105. #108 by Larry Bergan on February 9, 2013 - 5:35 am

    I’m sorry Bob, but Larry Bergan is actually my real name. I made the decision to use it when I was outraged by election fraud at the highest levels of government, and started to comment on BradBlog about three years after I realized our republic was being hacked.

    You said:

    We don’t have a democracy and that is a good thing. YOU don’t want conservatives voting away your rights any more than I want liberals voting away my rights.

    My, ironclad, belief is that liberals are standing in long lines at the risk of losing their jobs, while “conservatives” are stealing our republic.

  106. #109 by Richard Warnick on February 9, 2013 - 10:52 am

    Bob S.–

    I do go to the trouble of Googling your un-sourced quotes. They always come from right-wing sources, which I suppose is the reason you don’t acknowledge where you got them.

    Nobody is proposing a law to confiscate any firearms. I kind of wish they would, because as you say newly-purchased guns are only a part of the crime problem. However, there is no such proposal.

    The Gun Lobby claim that “they are coming to take away your guns” is pure paranoia and a ploy to ramp up gun sales. It’s working, either because people naively believe it or are cynically catapulting the propaganda.

  107. #110 by Larry Bergan on February 9, 2013 - 11:17 am

    Nobody’s assault rifle is going to be taken away. The drug war is never going to end.

    There’s too much money in it!

  108. #111 by Bob S. on February 9, 2013 - 3:26 pm

    Richard,

    You are flat out lying again when you say “they always come from right-wing sources”.
    I really wish you would stop lying. Do some of them come from right wing sources yes. Does that make them an less valid? NO. If the information is accurate, it is accurate.

    I also quote, neutral and left wing sources — because I know you and others attack the source instead of the information – JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING NOW.

    So stop lying – or prove that you are right.

    Nobody is proposing a law to confiscate any firearms.

    You originally and repeatedly said that no one was calling for confiscation. I’ve shown that to be a lie. I’ve shown politicians calling for confiscation. I’ve pointed out comments made by people like you.
    By the way….do you get the supreme irony of denying a call for confiscation and in the next sentence come out with a wish that people would confiscate firearms?

    It isn’t paranoia Richard. Diane Feinstein is on video saying a decade if she had the votes she would have confiscated ‘assault weapons’. New York State laws requires disposition to an authorized source or out of state OR ELSE turn them into the state. Not quite confiscation but getting there.

    You can move the goal posts ( no one call versus no one proposing legislation) all you want – the fact remains that many people want to confiscate firearms. Any and all firearms. To deny that is to deny reality.
    Something that it shouldn’t surprise me that you do.

  109. #112 by brewski on February 9, 2013 - 9:10 pm

    And this coming from the guy who unapologetically quotes from totally disreputable left wing sources.

  110. #113 by Richard Warnick on February 9, 2013 - 10:00 pm

    Bob S.–

    But the information is NOT valid. There is no proposed law in California to confiscate firearms, as claimed in the right-wing website you quoted.

    My point is that there is no proposal to take away guns. Casual remarks on talk radio don’t count, speculation by right-wing media doesn’t count — only proposed legislation.

    As for your opinion that “many people want to confiscate firearms” – can you cite a poll to back that up?

  111. #114 by Bob S. on February 10, 2013 - 6:22 am

    Richard,

    The website I quoted said “earlier legislation” talked about confiscation — not the list of 10 proposed bills that was most recently submitted.

    You repeatedly said no one was ‘calling for confiscation’ — do you deny that?

    Now you want to move the goal posts to say “no one is proposing legislation” – no dice. Casual remarks, legislators talking about it counts because that is how legislation starts.

    Piers Morgan, Ed Schultz, Michelle Malkin — all national media figures have talked about confiscation.

    And how about this idea floated by someone:

    The current round of gun violence is just a road too far. The progressive community needs to adopt a program of first identifying all guns and equipment with no valid hunting or defense purpose such as assault weapons, high capacity magazines, .50 cal rifles, etc.; second , requiring that these weapons be turned in for appropriate compensation and then destroyed. Furthermore, manufacture or importation of such weapons or equipment would be banned. Third, we need to require registration, training and securing.

    Confiscation with compensation is still confiscation.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/15/1170217/-Gun-Confiscation-with-Compensation#

    Not many people on that site agree with him but still people are talking about it.

    No I don’t have poll, I have anecdotal evidence from what I’ve seen and what others have reported.

    Or this other poster on Daily Kos

    The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story_2012_12_21_1172661_-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

    Replace the underscores with forward slashes for the URL — sometimes I don’t provide the URL because the spam filter blocks two or more URLs in a post.

    And finally, how about California State Senator Leland Yee — Senate Bill 47.

    It wound prohibit possession of more then just ‘assault weapons’ — requiring people to turn them in or have them confiscated. Or his previous attempt SB 249 from last year.

    Time and time again we’ve heard the calls for confiscation — you are wrong and just won’t admit people are calling for it.

    HECK RICHARD, you yourself said

    Nobody is proposing a law to confiscate any firearms. I kind of wish they would, because as you say newly-purchased guns are only a part of the crime problem.

    So stop lying, stop trying to demonize gun owners for recognizing the fact that people like you do want to take our firearms.

  112. #115 by cav on February 10, 2013 - 10:04 am

  113. #116 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2013 - 10:33 am

    Bob S.–

    I was agreeing with you. You said that newly-purchased weapons were only part of the gun crime problem. Well, I’m in favor of solving what we can solve right now, but if buy-backs can eventually be enacted let’s do that too.

    The fact is, the gun safety measures now being seriously proposed are all supported by a solid majority of Americans and nearly all by a solid majority of gun owners. The Gun Lobby is frantically trying to rally extremists by shouting, “They’re coming to take your guns!” But it isn’t true. And nothing that’s been proposed undermines the Second Amendment in the least.

  114. #117 by Bob S. on February 14, 2013 - 10:27 am

    Hey Richard,

    You keep saying no one is proposing a law regarding confiscation, right?

    4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

    (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

    (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

    (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

    An introduced bill in Missouri

    http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

    So….tell me how I’m paranoid again?

    And I didn’t say that ‘newly purchased weapons were only part of the problem’ — I debunked your idea that criminals are purchasing firearms out of state for use in crimes by showing the Time to Crime trace data doesn’t support it.

    Guess once again you are wrong.

  115. #118 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2013 - 12:49 pm

    Bob S.–

    I’ll be honest with you, we need a law like that at the federal level. But we’re not even going to get a renewal of the former AWB. The USA is chock full of mass-murder weaponry, and thanks to the Gun Lobby that’s not going to change.

    All we can hope for is some tweaks to the existing system of background checks, and maybe a ban on large-capacity magazines.

  116. #119 by Bob S. on February 14, 2013 - 1:44 pm

    Richard,

    Do you realize how hypocritical you are? You’ve been chiding me for days/weeks that no one is calling for confiscation of our firearms.

    Yet, here you are saying we need a national confiscation of firearms. Hypocrite.

    You’ve denied there was legislation proposing it – yet here it is and you support it. Hypocrite.

    You talk about “mass murder weapons” and haven’t once mentioned Christopher Dorner — a left wing gun control advocate who has murdered people. Hypocrite.

    You call them ‘mass murder weapons’ and advocate only the POLICE and our military possessing them. Are you calling our POLICE and military murderers or potential murderers?

    You keep calling for measure that even the National Institute of Justice has a problem with

    http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

    Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks. They hypothesized that the background checks simply shifted to the secondary market those offenders who normally purchased in the primary market.
    Supply sources can vary in different parts of the country. An NIJ funded study of the Los Angeles illicit gun market noted: “Results showed that many crime guns were first purchased at local—that is, in county—licensed dealers, rather than from out of state. That is, contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.” Thus, gun markets can be highly local.

    and

    Universal checks are insufficient for ensuring that firearm owners remain eligible. Convictions, mental health issues, and restraining orders can develop after the background checks…..
    The challenge to implementing this more broadly is that most states do not have a registry of firearm ownership. Currently NICS background checks are destroyed within 24 hours. Some states maintain registration of all firearms. Gun registration aims to 1) increase owner responsibility by directly connecting an owner with a gun, 2) improve law enforcement’s ability to retrieve guns from owners prohibited from possessing firearms.

    So in order for ‘universal background checks” – aka outlawing private sales – to be even partly effective; a national registry would have to be implemented.

    Of course, you’ll tell me that registry never leads to confiscation — just like you said no one was calling for confiscation, right?

  117. #120 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2013 - 5:22 pm

    Bob S.–

    You want to bet gun confiscation legislation is going to pass in our lifetimes? I’m not. It would be like betting on brewski’s tax reform proposal.

    Therefore, the Gun Lobby is engaged in fear-mongering.

    The Nine Most Insane Quotes From The NRA’s New Apocalyptic Op-Ed

    I don’t know the California shooter’s political opinions any more than I know (or care about) the views of other mass murderers. I doubt his motivation was political, but you apparently get your information from Glenn Beck. What I do know is that he used military-type weapons.

    Turns out there is a loophole in California law:

    Law enforcement officers can purchase high-powered weapons that the general public is forbidden to possess, and they can keep them if they retire or are dismissed from the force.

  118. #121 by Bob S. on February 14, 2013 - 5:47 pm

    WRONG RICHARD !!

    I read the manifesto he published. I saw his praise for Pelosi, his praise for Obama.

    I read his support and praise for gun control efforts.

    You keep trying to move the goal posts and I keep calling you on it.
    You claimed no one was calling for confiscation – I showed you lied.
    You claimed (despite New York’s new law & California’s proposal) that no one was pushing legislation for confiscation — I showed you lied.

    You claim that ‘gun control’ works — I’ve shown time and time again — using National Institute of Justice and the CDC as sources among many — that the evidence doesn’t support ‘gun control working’.

    You say gun confiscation won’t pass in our lifetimes but I’m not so sure. If it doesn’t it will be through efforts to keep people like you from depriving us of our rights.

    What we do face is continued calls to ‘compromise’ our rights away. Magazine capacity limits, background checks, etc — chipping away time and time again yet you offer nothing in return for the compromise.

    You want to talk about compromise — how about national reciprocity of concealed carry permits, how about removal of the ban on1986 and after manufacture of fully automatic firearms, how about intrastate purchase of firearms if we go through an FFL.

    You don’t want compromise — you want us to give in again and again until we have nothing left. Forget it. We are done compromising !

  119. #122 by brewski on February 14, 2013 - 7:42 pm

    Richard,
    The California madman was one of you. He loves leftism and violence just like all lefties. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, you. You are all the same. Mass murderers, statists, leftists, progressives.

  120. #123 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2013 - 9:27 pm

    Bob S.–

    I haven’t read anything from the California shooter, or any other mentally disturbed violent criminal. Not my thing. Actions speak louder than words.

    You know and I know that the only serious gun safety legislation being proposed has the support of large majorities of gun owners. You demand weakening of existing legislation, but when it comes to doing something about the surge in mass shootings I expect the Gun Lobby cannot play that game again.

    President Obama says these bills deserve a vote in Congress. He’s right.

  121. #124 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2013 - 9:32 pm

    brewski–

    Sorry you’re having a bad day, apparently. Get a good night’s rest.

  122. #125 by Bob S. on February 14, 2013 - 10:19 pm

    Richard,

    I don’t think you ever answered — is this country a democracy ?

  123. #126 by brewski on February 15, 2013 - 7:08 am

    I’m having another great day. Another great day of proving how Statism and Statists are evil.

  124. #127 by Cliff Lyon on February 15, 2013 - 7:12 am

    Bob S,

    News flash: That is the signature question of the pathetic fools who learnt American History from Glenn Beck and Co.

    The rest of us who actually learned American History in the pre-Tea Party world, are well aware of the fact that we are a Republic.

    What Glenn Beck did not tell you is that we are a DEMOCRATIC Republic.

    They are mutually exclusive (that means we can be both at the same time).

    And therein lies the elephant in the room. Your knowledge of American government is not knowledge at all. It is propaganda spoon fed to you and other fools by right-wing rubes and television personalities.

    People like you make me very sad and afraid for my country.

  125. #128 by Bob S. on February 15, 2013 - 7:50 am

    Cliff,

    We aren’t a ‘democratic republic’ — BZZZZZZZ you are wrong again.

    We are a Constitutional Republic — that means there are certain things no matter how many people vote for it can not be done. Such as disarming American citizens.

    The Heller Decision followed not long after by the McDonald Decision confirmed that the Right to Keep and Bear arms is a.) a pre-existing right, b.) applies to individual unrelated to the militia and c.) applies to cities and states as well.

    And that is just the start of the decisions coming down the line :)

    Scalia, whose legacy decision in the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller ended the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., suggested that the Constitution allows limits on what Americans can own, but the only example he offered was a shoulder-launched rocket that would bring down jets.

    And the wily judge suggested to an audience of Smithsonian Associates at George Washington University’s Lisner Auditorium Tuesday night that he is not just preparing for a new gun control challenge, but that he’s softening up one of his liberal colleague on guns.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/antonin-scalia-says-gun-control-is-heading-to-supreme-court/article/2521413

    The veneer of ‘gun control’ is wearing thin. You, Richard and others are showing it really is about “people control”. And the people are getting fed up with it.

    Note the record number of background checks, the empty store shelves, the classes for training — how to use and carry — filling up. The people are voting with their pocket books. Not just current gun owners but people who never owned a firearm before are buying them and getting training.

    Yet — still crime is down mostly, injuries, down, deaths down.

    • #129 by Cliff Lyon on February 15, 2013 - 11:51 am

      Ok Bob S,

      We have been advised the U.S is not a democracy in your estimation.

      • #130 by Bob S. on February 15, 2013 - 12:00 pm

        Cliff,

        It isn’t in my estimation — it is the fact.

        Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the U.S. Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic

        http://constitution.org/soclcont.htm

        I notice you have a habit of resorting to snide personal attacks when you can not refute the facts.

        So given there are checks and balances – primarily that the Constitution limits the power of the majority to deprive the minority of their rights — it really doesn’t matter how popular an idea is.

        There are still limits on what can be done and what should be done.

  126. #131 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2013 - 9:40 am

    Bob S.–

    You forgot, I answered your question already. Now a question for you: If 92 percent of the American people want a policy enacted, one that’s perfectly constitutional, should Congress at least hold a vote on it?

    Cliff makes a good point, some of us learned American History pre-Tea Party, even pre-Rush Limbaugh. It’s laughable that people like Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Glenn Beck set themselves up as experts, and produce books riddled with basic errors.

  127. #132 by Bob S. on February 15, 2013 - 10:07 am

    Richard,

    First you are assuming that the policy is ‘perfectly constitutional’ — that is a huge and mistaken assumption.

    Assertions by some prohibitionists that the aforesaid common guns and common magazines are only made for mass murder are a malicious libel against the millions of peaceable Americans who own these self-defense and sporting tools.

    Pursuant to District of Columbia v. Heller, such firearms and magazines may not be prohibited, because they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” 554 U.S. 570, 625 (2008). As Heller explained, the Second Amendment prohibits prohibition of “an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose” of self-defense. Id. at 628.

    The conclusion is reinforced by Heller’s observation that handgun prohibition was unconstitutional “Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” Id. at 628. For substantive rights (as opposed to procedural ones), the two main standards are Strict Scrutiny and Intermediate Scrutiny. The former is for most situations of racial discrimination by government, and for most types of content-based restrictions on speech. The latter is used for government discrimination based on sex, as well as for most “time, place, and manner” regulations of speech in public places.

    So we know that handgun prohibition fails Strict Scrutiny and also fails Intermediate Scrutiny. Although formulations of Intermediate Scrutiny vary from case to case, the general approach is that to pass Intermediate Scrutiny, a law must involve “an important government interest” and must “substantially” further that interest.

    Now consider Intermediate Scrutiny as applied to handguns. Handguns constitute approximately one-third of the U.S. gun supply. They are used in about half of all homicides.[4]

    And yet, a handgun ban fails Intermediate Scrutiny. If a handgun ban fails, then the bans on magazines and on so-called “assault weapons” must also fail.

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/11/letter-to-senator-cruz-on-constitutional-issues-in-federal-gun-control-proposals/

    If the Court struck down a ‘handgun ban’ how could an ‘assault weapon ban’ stand?

    Especially since the Miller decision protects firearms such as the AR-15 — remember that the decision didn’t say the person had to be related to the militia but the firearm itself had to have a reasonable relation. And it is hard to argue that the AR-15 isn’t in common use.

    Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’” 128 S.Ct. at 817.

    I keep asking the question because you seem to keep forgetting we are not a democracy. We have a constitution that limits the actions of what the government can do.

    I find it interesting you keep referring to polls supporting ‘gun control’ positions – what was the one you mentioned — 92% support ‘universal background checks’ right?
    Yet the people, the very ones saying they support such measures, aren’t waiting for them to be enacted are they?

    Record number of N.C.I.S. checks, firearms not available because everyone is sold out, ammunition the same way.

    I also find it hilarious that you try to link me with Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck and the others — argument is pretty weak when you have to try to smear someone by association, especially when I am not associated with those folks.

  128. #133 by Cliff Lyon on February 15, 2013 - 11:48 am

    Bob S, The Scalia Heller decision was among the worse decisions in SCOTUS history right behind Citizens United.

    Thankfully, it DID confirm federal jurisdiction for gun regulation, you know, so the feds can keep muskets away from little girls afraid of their own shadow.

    • #134 by Bob S. on February 15, 2013 - 12:09 pm

      Cliff,

      Amazing that the Heller Decision was the worst one; what does that make the McDonald decision then?

      Another Supreme Court case confirming a preexisting right and explicit stating that it applies to the states and cities also.

      Court case after court case has confirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to the militia.

      Yes, the Supreme Court did rule some regulation of firearms is permissible, such as the prohibition against felons and mentally ill or carrying in ‘sensitive’ places — but that isn’t the same as saying all regulation is acceptable. Remember recently the Circuit Court ruled that Illinois’ prohibition against Open/Concealed Carry was unconstitutional.

      I find it hilarious that you bring up the ‘musket’ argument on a computer, using the internet — surely you should be scratching out that argument with a quill pen or using a screw type press, right?

  129. #135 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2013 - 12:01 pm

    Bob S.–

    You know and I know that patterns of gun ownership in America are changing. The proportion of gun-owning households has declined to one-third. But the number of guns keeps increasing due to paranoia.

    A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation’s guns.

    AR-15s and high-capacity magazines are manufactured for one purpose and one purpose only. Mass murder.

    • #136 by Bob S. on February 15, 2013 - 12:20 pm

      Richard,

      Your data is out of date.

      Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

      Could it be that survey was taken before the 2008 Heller Decision and the 2010 McDonald decision? Yep, 2004.

      AR-15s and high-capacity magazines are manufactured for one purpose and one purpose only. Mass murder.

      REally, then why do the police have them?

  130. #137 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2013 - 12:32 pm

    Bob S.–

    One-third of U.S. households own guns.

    Almost one-third of U.S. households report having any guns in the home — the lowest level ever since the survey began in the 1970s, a survey indicates.

    The report by the Violence Policy Center is an analysis of data from the General Social Survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. The report says household gun ownership peaked in 1977, with 54 percent of households reported having any guns.

    However, by 2010 household gun ownership dropped to 32.3 percent of U.S. households reporting having any guns in the home — the lowest level ever recorded by the General Social Survey.

    SWAT teams have military-style weapons because they don’t want to be out-gunned. But you knew that. If Americans didn’t own mass-murder weapons, then the police would not need them.

    • #138 by Bob S. on February 15, 2013 - 2:00 pm

      Richard,

      As usual your ‘single statistic doesn’t tell the entire story. First the Gallup Poll I cited was Households — 47% of the HOUSEHOLDS contained a firearm

      Second, the number of households has increased greatly over the years. In 1977, there were only 76,030,000 households. In 2010, there were 119,927,00 households according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

      That means — using your percentages the number of households reporting ownership of firearms went from 41,056,200 to 38,736,421. A decrease yes but not the huge percentage you are portraying.

      SWAT teams have military-style weapons because they don’t want to be out-gunned. But you knew that. If Americans didn’t own mass-murder weapons, then the police would not need them.

      So SWAT teams need weapons to mass murder everyone because everyone owns mass murder weapons?

      Your ‘logic’ fails spectacularly. You cite one criminal activity as your source? So how about we just make it illegaller for criminals to use assault weapons to commit crimes and we law abiding folks can keep ours?

  131. #139 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2013 - 12:51 pm

    Interesting footnote. Actual gun sales figures are deliberately concealed from the public, for a good reason.

    [W]hy do the NSSF and NRA continue to refuse to give reporters access to actual sales data (which they get from every other industry in America)? The answer to that question is obvious. The gun lobby is desperate to perpetuate its image as The Lobby That Cannot Be Crossed by Politicians in the face of a very harsh reality: Declining gun ownership in the United States.

    …With fewer Americans choosing to own firearms, the gun industry understands that it must sell additional firearms to people who are already gun owners. To this end, the NRA has dramatically ratcheted up the promotion of gun confiscation conspiracy theories…

    …The reality, however, is that the guy buying his second assault rifle or third handgun isn’t a new gun owner. And sales of used or second-hand guns are not new sales–and no self-respecting industry would treat them as such. By purposely hiding actual data about gun sales in America, the gun lobby is attempting to reinforce its oversize reputation and make the industry look like a more politically potent force than it actually is.

  132. #140 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2013 - 1:19 pm

    Another interesting factual footnote. No, Chicago Isn’t Proof That Gun Regulation Doesn’t Work.

    Chicago is not an island… Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state…

    …Chicago had an outright ban on handguns from 1982 until 2010, when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. So there’s no reason to believe that strict regulations on gun ownership were responsible for a spike in gun homicides in 2012, two years after Chicago was forced to loosen its gun laws.

  133. #141 by brewski on February 15, 2013 - 1:47 pm

    ” The Scalia Heller decision was among the worse decisions in SCOTUS history right behind Citizens United.”

    Yeah, it’s right up there with Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, Schenck, Korematsu, and the most recent disaster, National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius.

  134. #142 by brewski on February 15, 2013 - 1:50 pm

    “Chicago is not an island…”
    Neither is the United States with the open border policies of the Lefties.

  135. #143 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2013 - 2:31 pm

    brewski–

    We await with interest your plans for building a really long moat.

  136. #144 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2013 - 2:36 pm

    Bob S.–

    There is nothing that “law-abiding folks” can legally do with mass-murder weapons. And in California we just saw a demonstration of what happens when someone decides to wage war on the police department (that’s the rationale most often advanced by the Gun Lobby for why we all should buy military weapons).

  137. #145 by brewski on February 15, 2013 - 2:41 pm

    So if gun laws were not successful in Chicago since it is not an island, then why do you think they will be for the country, if it is not an island?

  138. #146 by Bob S. on February 15, 2013 - 3:05 pm

    Richard,

    There you go flat out lying again.

    There is nothing that “law-abiding folks” can legally do with mass-murder weapons. And

    Target practice isn’t legal? 3 gun matches aren’t legal? Simply possessing one isn’t legal?

    All of those are legal and acceptable things that can be done with ‘mass murder weapons’.

    And that doesn’t even get into the recent accounts of ‘mass murder weapons’ being used to stop crime – yet another legal application for them.

    Unless you are trying to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to stop criminals.

    Is that what you are saying?

  139. #147 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2013 - 4:05 pm

    Bob S.–

    I don’t accept that military-style weapons are necessary for target practice. You can collect exact replicas if collecting is your thing.

    As for the Wayne LaPierre post-apocalyptic hell, when police departments cease to exist and there will probably be zombies… hasn’t happened yet in America, and there is a good chance it never will in our lifetimes.

  140. #148 by Bob S. on February 15, 2013 - 5:11 pm

    Richard,

    You don’t have to accept a damn thing Sir. IT isn’t up to you to determine what is NECESSARY for my or anyone other then your own target practice.

    If you don’t want to view them as ‘necessary’ for target practice, don’t buy one, don’t use one.

    But I do and there fore it is a fully acceptable reason to own one.

    That and it fulfills a deep seated psychological need to flip a metaphorical finger to gun grabbers like you.

    You really aren’t getting it. The law says there is an individual right to own one, That is all we need. We are done compromising since you don’t want compromise.

    Zombies? Yep, that hasn’t happened yet. Unless you count the flash mobs in many major cities.
    Or the gang violence prevalent in so many cities like Chicago.
    Or riots like the Rodney King L.A. Riots.

    Nope, your feeble excuses why people don’t “need” something like an AR-15 don’t fly.

  141. #149 by Larry Bergan on February 16, 2013 - 12:55 am

    Bob S.:

    Flash mobs aren’t armed. They usually sing.

  142. #150 by Bob S. on February 16, 2013 - 6:36 am

    Larry,

    You are showing your ignorance of current events. Might want to stop focusing on ALEC and Diebold for a day or two.

    http://violentflashmobs.com/

    It’s been going on for a while.

    PHILADELPHIA — It started innocently enough seven years ago as an act of performance art where people linked through social-networking Web sites and text messaging suddenly gathered on the streets for impromptu pillow fights in New York, group disco routines in London, and even a huge snowball fight in Washington.
    But these so-called flash mobs have taken a more aggressive and raucous turn here as hundreds of teenagers have been converging downtown for a ritual that is part bullying, part running of the bulls: sprinting down the block, the teenagers sometimes pause to brawl with one another, assault pedestrians or vandalize property.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/us/25mobs.html?_r=0

    That article is from the New York Times in 2010.

    Sometimes the ‘flash mob’ just ransacks and loots a store; sometimes there are violent assaults. The physical violence seems to be increasing as time goes by.

    If you want to debate current events Larry, you really need to show that you are up to date on current events. Not knowing the M16/M4 (which is based on the AR-15 platform) is the most commonly issued rifle for the military is ignorance.

    Not knowing that riots and looting under the guise of ‘flash mobs’ is also ignorant.

    But the combination of those two shows that you don’t know why many people want to keep AR-15s for self defense.

  143. #151 by Larry Bergan on February 16, 2013 - 7:07 am

    Bob S.: says

    Might want to stop focusing on ALEC and Diebold for a day or two.

    Seriously!

    Thank you mentioning two entities who are causing the violence.

    I mean that!

  144. #152 by Larry Bergan on February 16, 2013 - 7:36 am

    Bob S,:

    Diebold/whatever and ALEC/whatever ARE the problem.

    What do you expect me to do?

  145. #153 by Bob S. on February 16, 2013 - 8:03 am

    Larry,

    I don’t expect you do anything. I hope that you will educate yourself on what you are talking about.

    I hope that you will stop calling for disarmament and bans on some of the most commonly used firearms in America — especially since those firearms are so seldom used in crime.

    I hope that you will learn how and why the average citizen does use their firearms like the AR-15.

    I hope you’ll actually read the news and see why many people feel they do need an AR-15.

    I hope you’ll exert pressure on others to stop calling for actions that deprive people of their rights instead of expanding on our rights.

    If nothing else, I hope you’ll just leave gun owners alone.

  146. #154 by Becky Stauffer on February 17, 2013 - 7:11 am

    And here is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make all along.

    “Niederhauser acknowledged he shouldn’t have fired his weapon when he did.

    “Despite all of the education and training I have received, I was not prepared for the effects of emotion and adrenaline, and how that interfered with my ability to act in accordance with my training,” the statement said. “I cannot be sure where the bullets I fired hit.”

    He told other homeowners they have a right to protect themselves, but he cautioned them to fire their weapons only within the parameters of the law.

    “Please know that you cannot shoot at a fleeing felon unless somebody’s life is in immediate danger,” the statement said. “Remember, we value life more than property.”

    Yes, we SHOULD value life more than property. No matter how hard we worked to get that property (directed to Brewski), life is still more valuable.

  147. #155 by Bob S. on February 17, 2013 - 8:17 am

    Becky,

    And yet despite all the emotion and adrenaline flowing; he still didn’t injury someone, right?

    So your contention is because one person acted against the law; all gun owners should have consequences imposed, right?
    How about the mothers that drown their children?
    Should all women now be required to get a license from the state, a background check, mental health screening?

    How about bad drivers? Should everyone have to have alcohol interlocks on their cars, allow the local law enforcement to approve their license or not?

    This guy made a mistake and is paying for it. That is how the system works. So why push for more if it isn’t to control the people instead of the guns.

    Yes, we SHOULD value life more than property. No matter how hard we worked to get that property (directed to Brewski), life is still more valuable.

    That property you so blithely dismiss is representative of my life. Hours out of my time that was used to earn it. From the TV that took 20 hours to earn to the car that takes thousands of hours to pay for.

    Why should any criminal get the message that (s)he can take property without possible lethal consequences?
    Aren’t they the ones deciding to risk their life to obtain the property?
    And given that the criminals don’t wear signs announcing their intentions; how can a homeowner tell the difference between “just a robber” and “robber then murder for the fun of it”?
    You may want to take that chance; but don’t force your values on everyone else, ok?

  148. #156 by Becky Stauffer on February 17, 2013 - 8:26 am

    Bob S., it was just luck and nothing else that no-one was injured. I don’t like walking around in a society where some gun nut starts firing out of emotion and andrenaline, thereby putting innocent lives at risk. As far as I’m concerned, this guy is representative of probably 95 percent of gun owners. Please note that he ALSO did not hit his target.

    Read the article if you want to understand what was ILLEGAL about what this guy did. You see, he was still obligated to act within the law.

    At least you acknowledge you value property over human life, Bob S. You would have made sure to hit your target and kill a guy to protect your TV.

  149. #157 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2013 - 1:46 pm

    Good thing Niederhauser was a bad shot, or he would be facing a manslaughter charge. Is it worth going to jail to protect a TV set?

  150. #158 by Bob S. on February 17, 2013 - 5:15 pm

    Becky,

    What part of my argument are you having a problem understanding?
    Reality would be my guess.

    Yes, what he did was illegal. So he is facing the consequences of it.
    A woman someone abused her kids, took drugs, prostituted herself, or any of a thousand other crimes somewhere today.
    Doesn’t mean you should be subjected to restrictions based on what she did, does it?

    Then why push restrictions on my firearms because what this guy did? Punish him and move on.

    Richard,

    As usual you ask the wrong question; it should be ‘why isn’t it criminals don’t fear going to jail to steal a TV set”?

    Ever notice how few of your proposal (or any of the ‘gun control advocates proposals) deal with the actual criminal?
    It is almost as if you aren’t concerned about them — either that or you are out to help me have a safer work environment by disarming their victims.

  151. #159 by Becky Stauffer on February 17, 2013 - 5:33 pm

    Bob S.,

    You try to circumvent my point, so I’ll say it more plainly. Most of the people who think guns will protect themselves (and their property), don’t have the skill or the mental and emotional control to actually carry it out. They are a danger to those around who might receive one of their stray bullets. Neiderhauser admitted he had no idea where his bullets went. People who carry guns are just waiting for an opportunity to use them.

    It’s not just that Neiderhauser broke the law and will be suffer consequences; it’s that he knew the law but because of emotion and adrenaline, behaved in a way he would otherwise not have. We could speculate about how many gun owners would behave similarly in the same circumstances. My guess is pretty much all of them.

    But remember, we have a thing called due process. Even a burglar has rights.

  152. #160 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2013 - 5:47 pm

    Bob S.–

    I’ll answer your question.

    TVs are so cheap these days, most of them would only count as a misdemeanor theft (under $1,000). That’s punishable by up to one year in jail, but Utah’s prisons are crammed with nonviolent drug offenders. I think few crooks would be incarcerated for stealing a TV.

    Now here’s my question.

    Why is it the Gun Lobby is so determined to let everybody buy guns without a background check, even if they have a criminal record, are insane or are on a terrorist watch list?

  153. #161 by Bob S. on February 17, 2013 - 6:23 pm

    Richard,

    First your base argument is flawed; when criminals break into houses they rarely only steal just television sets.

    Second, when someone breaks into your house; how do you know they are just there to take your property, rape you/your wife/children and then take your property, or murder everyone and take your property?

    Most people don’t know so they treat any criminal in their house as the worst case scenario.

    Third, you are proving my point about focusing on the criminal. They know few of them will go to jail or stay there any length of time so the current system is no deterrent to them.
    A system you appear to be uninterested in fixing.
    You focus is making sure that I don’t have a magazine capable of holding 11 or more rounds. Sad and misplaced.

    Why is it the Gun Lobby is so determined to let everybody buy guns without a background check, even if they have a criminal record, are insane or are on a terrorist watch list?

    Is there a school you folks go to? One that teaches straw man arguments?? Seriously let me know.

    Nothing stops an individual from conducting their own background check now. NOT A SINGLE THING.
    Frankly the terror watch list is also a straw man argument. I find it ironic that you want to let the government — without due process of any kind — deprive people of their rights.

    What kind of sense does that make?

    So what the ‘gun lobby’ opposes is a law requiring that all private sales go through a licensed dealer. Dealers that are often closed in the evenings, weekends, holidays. Dealers that would rightfully want to be compensated for their time (thus increasing the cost of a purchase).

    All the while the ‘universal background check’ will not reduce crime or criminals getting firearms. Even the National Institute of Justice — referenced earlier — has said that.

    So you want to make a law that won’t work, cost the average person more time and hassle just so you can satisfy your over-inflated ego’s need to ‘do something’.

    Oh….and for all that extra effort; you don’t want to give up a single law or regulation on the books — you want us to “compromise” again.

    So NOT AN EFFING CHANCE Sparky.

  154. #162 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2013 - 6:34 pm

    Bob S.–

    I answered your question. If you don’t like the premise, then it’s not on me.

    According to one account, Oscar Pistorius thought there was an intruder in his house, and he treated the situation as a worst case scenario. Then he got a lesson in what really constitutes a worst case scenario. This is not an isolated case – I can give you an example of a father who shot his own daughter under similar circumstances.

    You still haven’t given me an answer why the NRA used to be in favor of background checks, and is now opposed.

  155. #163 by brewski on February 17, 2013 - 7:29 pm

    Richard has never answered one of my questions, especially the really simple ones.

  156. #164 by Bob S. on February 18, 2013 - 4:33 am

    Richard,

    It is on you when you base your answer on lies and false premises. What is worse is you know your answer is based on lies.

    Why is it anti-rights cultists like you always want to use criminals facing jail time as a basis for your argument?
    I mean it isn’t like they have a reason to lie or anything, right?

    I am not a member of the NRA nor am I on the board of the NRA – here is a novel idea Mr. Research based Journalist — why don’t you ask the NRA why?

  157. #165 by Richard Warnick on February 18, 2013 - 8:38 am

    Bob S.–

    You accuse gun-safety advocates of being on the side of criminals, but I submit the Gun Lobby is helping criminals and potential terrorists as well.

  158. #166 by Bob S. on February 18, 2013 - 8:58 am

    You can submit anything you like; the truth of the matter is you can’t back up that charge.

    You certainly didn’t provide any evidence in your ‘opinion’ post.

    Gun owners want to be able to responsibly transfer firearms between individuals without a background check being required by law.
    Many gun owners will already require a copy of the buyer’s driver’s license, a bill of sale with statements confirming the buyer isn’t a prohibited person. Some already conduct background checks themselves.

    You want a law that requires the checks but will not stop criminals from getting firearms. That isn’t my opinion; that is the conclusion from the National Institute of Justice study.

    You want to make it illegal for homeowners to defend themselves with firearms because “property isn’t as important as people” — yet you can not tell me or anyone else how to identify a ‘robber’ in the midst of the crime versus a murderer/rapist just getting started.

    So the criminals will know that it is safer to rob people in their own homes.

    You are against Open and Concealed Carry law — making it safer for criminals to rob people in the streets.

    You are against people owning AR-15s and standard capacity magazines — making it safer for large groups of criminals to operate.

    None of these are my opinions; they are yours — so submit your opinions all you want.

    The truth is out there and you are showing yourself to be pro-criminal.

  159. #167 by Cliff Lyon on February 18, 2013 - 9:11 am

    Bob S,

    When you say things like “So the criminals will know that it is safer to rob people in their own homes,” repeat an insanely stupid canard.

    I refer you back to the title of this post.

    Ya know whats even crazier?

    “You are against people owning AR-15s and standard capacity magazines — making it safer for large groups of criminals to operate.”

    Either, you watch too much Batman or The God Father not enough. “Large groups of criminals?” really Bob S?

  160. #168 by Richard Warnick on February 18, 2013 - 9:16 am

    Bob S.–

    I never said it ought to be illegal for homeowners to defend themselves with firearms. Never. I just don’t believe it’s a good plan, because keeping guns in the house increases the chances that someone in that household will get shot.

    Guns in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

    Despite the fact that nearly one-third of American households have a firearm, studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit.

    I never said I was against concealed-carry or open carry. Where do you get that?

    Yes, I think that mass-murder weapons and large-capacity magazines ought not to be available to just anybody, as they are now.

    You routinely accuse me of lying, but then you yourself resort to wrongly characterizing my views.

  161. #169 by Barker Willis on February 18, 2013 - 9:35 am

    Google chrome lists this site as being a distributor of malware viruses. Act accordingly.

    One perusal through the crap posted here will confirm the malware status.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: