Utah’s Washington Country Sheriff Threatens Armed Resistance, Gets History Wrong In Open Letter To President Obama

The most honest message in Washington County Sheriff Cory Pulsipher’s Open Letter to Barack Obama is that Sheriffs are politicians; “We, the elected sheriffs of Utah…” On the other hand, use of the word “We” implying all Utah Sheriffs signed off on the language, is most likely, a lie.

Utah Washingoton County Sheriff Cory Pulsipher Formal PhotoIt is difficult to believe that ALL of Utahs 28 county Sheriffs support threatening President Obama with a call to “trade our lives” in an effort to resist “federal officials,” which may also explain why NO OTHER County Sheriffs’ names appear in the letter posted on Cory’s website on behalf of the Utah Sheriff’s Association.

The only substance in the letter is the final paragraph. Whether this paragraph was agreed upon by all of Utah’s Sheriffs, or is merely a personal campaign message, the reader must decide for her/himself.

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, …we will enforce the rights guaranteed…by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

Finally, it must be noted that Mr. Pulispher’s implicit assertion that HIS is also “the traditional interpretation” of the second amendment is a canard and should offend even the most pedestrian history buff. I think we can safely assume Sheriff Pulispher’s interpretation of 2A is identical to Wayne LaPierre’s. And it is wrong and certainly NOT the “traditional one.

“In regard to the Second Amendment, not a single Congressman or Senator is recorded as saying that it would establish an individual’s right to possess a weapon.

In summary the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the states to form and maintain state militias, free of the potential federal incursion created by Article I, section 8, clause 16 of the Constitution.  Hopefully, we will one day get an intellectually honest majority on the Supreme Court that will reverse the judicial activism that the five right wing ideologues on SCOTUS forced on the American people in Heller, Citizens United, and the majority’s dangerous restriction on the interstate commerce clause in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sibelius (otherwise known as the “Obamacare” decision).”

For those of you who would dismiss the above as a radical assertion, I would challenge you to read this well research and sourced primer on the actual debate and circumstances surrounding the ratification of the Second Amendment. For those of you more used to reading NRA, Breitbart, Drudge and or the mountains of fabricated, unsupportable drivel presented by so-called second amendment advocates, I fear you will find the level of primary sources and facts in this brief, excruciating.

For posterity, the entire page containing Sheriff Pulsipher’s letter is posted below:

Open Letter to President Barack Obama

My fellow Sheriffs and I have prepared the following letter for the President.

 

UTAH SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION

P.O. Box 787
East Carbon City, Utah 84520
(435) 888-2004
Fax: (435) 888-0842

7 January 2013

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We, the elected sheriffs of Utah, like so many of our fellow Americans, are literally
heartbroken for the loved ones of the murdered victims in Connecticut. As Utahans, we are
not strangers to this kind of carnage—-one of the latest being the 2007 Trolley Square murders
wherein nine innocents were gunned down-five losing their lives.

We also recognize the scores of other recent domestic massacres, which have decimated
countless honorable lives. As Americans, we value the sanctity of life. Furthermore, similar to
our inspired Founders, we acknowledge our subservience to a higher power.

With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is
also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and
potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who
commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As
professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence
must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry
must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them
from all types of illegality.

As your administration and Congress continue to grapple with the complex issue of firearm
regulations, we pray that the Almighty will guide the People’s Representatives collectively.
For that reason, it is imperative this discussion be had in Congress, not silenced unilaterally
by executive orders. As you deliberate, please remember the Founders of this great nation
created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens
from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake,
as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to
our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our
constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has
given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional
interpretation.

The Utah Sheriffs’ Association

Washington County Sherrif Corry Pulsipher Website Screen shot of Obama Threat Letter 1-20-2013

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

  1. #1 by Ken on January 20, 2013 - 9:57 am

    Sheriffs take an oath to defend tha Constitution and refuse to obey or defend unconstitutiional laws or edicts from the President. Also Sheriffs can forbid and restrict the activities of federal law enforcement officials within their respective counties.

  2. #2 by Cliff Lyon on January 20, 2013 - 10:05 am

    Ken, Sheriffs do not to decide by fiat what is constitutional and what is not. I am correct?

    Furthermore, it should be noted that a vast majority of Americans support further gun restrictions.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE90G1B120130117

    Ergo, Sheriff Pulsipher should be careful about assuming his constituents all share his sentiments.

  3. #3 by Nathan Erkkila on January 20, 2013 - 11:28 am

    So whatever happened to treason going from a capital offense to patriotic?

  4. #4 by rmwarnick on January 20, 2013 - 11:33 am

    Sheriff Pulsipher believes in the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment. So do I. Our right to keep and bear single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets shall not be infringed.

    BTW a belated Happy Gun Appreciation Day to all the gun nuts. I would appreciate guns more if I could think of anything good they bring to American life.

  5. #5 by Nathan Erkkila on January 20, 2013 - 11:56 am

    rmwarnick :

    Sheriff Pulsipher believes in the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment. So do I. Our right to keep and bear single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets shall not be infringed.

    BTW a belated Happy Gun Appreciation Day to all the gun nuts. I would appreciate guns more if I could think of anything good they bring to American life.

    I can imagine that a gun can protect you from someone who wants to take your life. That to me has never been a question. The real question is this. Are you going to die wishing you had a gun or die wishing you didn’t have a gun? The latter is a bit more frequent.

  6. #7 by Bob S. on January 20, 2013 - 1:20 pm

    Richard,

    I could link to men who raped women yesterday — should you lose your rights because of their actions?

    I could link to parents who abuse children (or if you aren’t a parent, uncle, family friends, etc) should you be subjected to licensing that has to be renewed because of their actions?

    I could link to men who drove drunk — should local law enforcement be allowed to reject your driver’s license because of the actions of the drunks?

    And Cliff,

    Maybe you should learn a little more before you start making authority statetments

    Unconstitutional Official Acts

    16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

    Or

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” -Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” -Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

  7. #8 by Cliff Lyon on January 20, 2013 - 3:43 pm

    Thanks for posting that long legalistic thing Bob S.

    In the future, please give us your take on it and use the C&P as a reference.

    Over the years, I come to realize that people with different levels of education and intelligence, understand the written word differently.

    I hope that makes sense but I am unreasonably optimistic.

  8. #9 by Bob S. on January 20, 2013 - 3:53 pm

    Oh, it makes sense and I did give you my take.

    And given that different levels of intelligence, education and all, i wanted to make sure even someone who has trouble could clearly see I didn’t delete anything.

    I find it interesting you don’t address the point of my response but how I responded.
    Could it be that what I’ve shown shoots down your original posting?

    Yea, I think so. By the way, ever hear of ‘jury nullification’?

    It also is a doctrine that individuals do not have to follow an unconstitutional law. So do you attack someone for following traditional and accepted doctrines of personal responsibility in enforcing the law?

    And speaking of traditional — your ‘opinion’ on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment isn’t holding up so well. How do you still cling (possibly bitterly) to the militia only interpretation in spite of 2 recent Supreme Court Decisions, in spite of the recent 7th Circuit Decision (striking down the Illinois ban on Carrying – Bearing Firearms)?

  9. #10 by Ken on January 20, 2013 - 4:18 pm

    All elected officials and servicemen are REQUIRED to disobey and resist all unlawful orders.Any law or edict that is against the Constitution is by definition unlawful.

  10. #11 by Ken on January 20, 2013 - 5:01 pm

    Cliff

    This statement is not by this one Sheriff but by the Utah Sheriff’s Association.

    http://www.utahsheriffs.org/USA-Home_files/2nd%20Amendment%20Letter_1.pdf

  11. #12 by Cliff Lyon on January 20, 2013 - 6:07 pm

    Bob S.

    Is this your point that I didnt get?

    “And Cliff,

    Maybe you should learn a little more before you start making authority statetments”

    Pls advise.

  12. #13 by Cliff Lyon on January 20, 2013 - 6:10 pm

    Ken, I notice there are several Counties missing including the largest one.

  13. #14 by Cliff Lyon on January 20, 2013 - 6:14 pm

    Ken, Until laws are struck down (and stop being laws) they are laws.

    No Sheriff can decide what is Constitutional. Do you have any idea how dumb some sheriffs are?

    Ever heard of Sheriff Arpaio? That idiot is probably gonna go to jail,

  14. #15 by Bob S. on January 20, 2013 - 6:16 pm

    Cliff,

    Yes, point you should get and didn’t. If you had actually did a little research, knew a little about constitutional law, the role of law enforcement in interpreting the law, etc, then you wouldn’t have said they had it wrong.

    I’ve shown, with court decisions and law, that Sheriffs have a responsibility and a right not to enforce unconstitutional laws.

    So you get yet another thing wrong; just like you have the ‘meaning of the 2nd Amendment’ wrong, again.

    Just keep insisting you have it right and everyone, including multiple Supreme Court Decisions, else is wrong about it. Just shows who the extremist really is.

  15. #16 by Bob S. on January 20, 2013 - 6:28 pm

    Cliff,

    Instead of stomping your foot, insisting you are right (that is a logical fallacy called proof by vigorous assertion) ; why don’t you provide something to support your opinion?

    How about this link http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

    First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court’s decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President’s view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has “the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.” Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President’s authority to act contrary to a statutory command).

    That was written by Walter Dellinger President Clinton’s Office of Legal Counsel.

    Are you saying that the President can decide NOT to enforce unconstitutional laws but the sheriffs can’t?

  16. #17 by Cliff Lyon on January 20, 2013 - 6:34 pm

    Bob S,

    Besides Heller, what other SCOTUS decision do you include in “multiple” that would make lawful gun confiscation so unconstitutional as to justify a county sheriff resisting a federal official?

    And PLEASE Bob, be very exacting and check it with a lawyer before responding. I havent the time to respond to Buba bullshit.

  17. #18 by Bob S. on January 20, 2013 - 7:44 pm

    Cliff,

    The McDonald v Chicago Decision, The 7th Circuit court Decision in Moore/Shepherd v Madigan.

    Sorry but I didn’t say just “SCOTUS” decisions, I said court decisions. Even the Miller Decision upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms — all it did was specify the weapon, not the person had to have some reasonable relationship to the militia.

    1961 Poe V Ullman — lists it as a individual right.

    How about a section from the Heller decision

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    1972 Laid v Tatum – Right to keep and bear arms listed as an individual right

    1965: GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT same as above
    1961: KONIGSBERG v. STATE BAR
    1908: TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY – stated that personal rights like the “right to keep and bear arms’ was not incorporated yet.

    That enough or you want more?

    I noticed that you wisely dropped your insistence the sheriffs were wrong.

  18. #19 by jdberger on January 20, 2013 - 10:07 pm

    Cliff Lyon :
    Ken, Until laws are struck down (and stop being laws) they are laws.
    No Sheriff can decide what is Constitutional. Do you have any idea how dumb some sheriffs are?
    Ever heard of Sheriff Arpaio? That idiot is probably gonna go to jail,

    So how does this statement mesh with the whole concept of “sanctuary cities” with regards to immigration, medical marijuana laws with respect to legalizing (decriminalizing dope), and same-sex marriage laws regarding gay marriage?

    In all the above cases, local authorities have decided to thumb their noses at the Federal Government.

    Are you, Cliff Lyon, suggesting that these local authorities (in some case voters) are committing crimes?

  19. #20 by jdberger on January 20, 2013 - 10:09 pm

    Right about now is where Cliff does a bong hit, screams at the television and wishes he had a smart-alek kid to smack around……

  20. #21 by Larry Bergan on January 20, 2013 - 10:12 pm

    I heard somewhere that law enforcement officers would prefer not to be confronted with assault weapons in the line of duty.

    Must have heard wrong.

  21. #22 by Maineprepper on January 20, 2013 - 10:25 pm

    Your article cites anti-gun editorialists as your historical proof? What a ridiculous piece of drivel. The “well research(ed) and sourced primer” you cite is nothing but left wing quote lifting attempting to pick snippets out of context and play them against one another, desperately wiggling to come up with a new meaning of “militia” which you feel erases the latter part of the 2nd Amendment in the process.

    Dailykos as a source LOL – what a farce.

  22. #23 by Bob S. on January 21, 2013 - 4:04 am

    Larry,

    I’m sure the law enforcement officers would prefer to confront a completely disarmed populace but should that be the basis to restrict our rights?

    I would think they would also prefer a populace that didn’t have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, that didn’t have the right to remain silent, etc.

    On the other hand, I’m sure many in the country would prefer to be able t confront the law enforcement offices with whatever weapons law enforcement would use against them.

  23. #24 by Cliff Lyon on January 21, 2013 - 8:09 am

    Maineprepper,

    Do you need to be reminded that a LARGE majority of Americans support more gun restrictions, including NRA members and gun owners…like me.

    We are NOT all “anti-gun” we are anti-gun violence and some of us are also Constitutional scholars and historians who feel the need to point out that the gun-craZed second Amendment advocates are simply wrong about 2A.

    You are welcome to point out the factual errors in the Dkos article, but you are not welcome to call everyone who disagrees with your extreme views of 2A “anti-gun.”

    Finally, Maineprepper, YOU are the minority. YOU are out numbered 10-1 and YOU are an example of how and why, gun violence is exploding in this country.

    YOU are unreasonable.

  24. #25 by Bob S. on January 21, 2013 - 8:51 am

    Cliff,

    If enough people voted a proposal that everyone in (Pick a social/racial/sexual orientation/political party) category to be rounded up and detained (aka Japanese ancestry in WWII) would you support it?

    If enough people voted for a proposal to make something like a Gay Marriage ban legal, would you support it? (Oh you didn’t, did you?)

    See you keep talking about how a ‘large majority’ of Americans support gun control but forget we aren’t a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic that is designed to protect the rights of everyone from a tyranny of the majority.

    YOU are an example of how and why, gun violence is exploding in this country.

    And now you have to resort to a blatant lie. Sorry but “gun violence” exploding in this country. Why do you have to resort to fear mongering while trying to enact restrictive laws?

    http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

    Look at the numbers instead of your personal opinion.

  25. #26 by Richard Warnick on January 21, 2013 - 11:06 am

    Look, the mass-murder weapon ban and large-capacity magazine ban are constitutional. If you don’t believe me, just ask Justice Scalia (the most right-wing member of the most right-wing Supreme Court in 100 years).

    The vast majority of Americans, including the 1/3 of households who own guns, are sick of gun violence in general and mass shootings in particular. It happened again yesterday in Albuquerque.

    Gun fanatics are a tiny minority on the wrong side of history.

  26. #27 by Bob S. on January 21, 2013 - 11:43 am

    Richard,

    Scalia did not say that they were ‘constitutional’. What he said in the Heller decision

    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    Part of that is really simple; simply enough that even you should be able to follow it. The Court was not ruling on those long standing prohibitions

    The first AWB survived because the Supreme Court had not ruled on the individual nature of the right yet.

    Now that will be a lot more difficult. From the same note as above.

    Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    Can you deny that AR-15s with standard capacity magazines are in common use now? The police carry the full auto versions with 30 round magazines, so does the army. Millions and millions of people own AR-15s, AK-47 variants and many others.

    So in my opinion, banning a firearm that is in common use now would not be constitutional.

    You can’t have it both ways as Justice Scalia noted in the Heller decision:

    “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”[46]

    Either it is ‘militia related’ and AR-15 (and M4s, M16s for that matter ) are protected especially or it is an individual right not tied to the Militia.

  27. #28 by Richard Warnick on January 21, 2013 - 11:59 am

    Bob S.–

    The “well-regulated militia” of the 18th Century no longer exists, and the weaponry envisioned by the Second Amendment is mostly in museums now.

    This is the 21st Century, and there is no legitimate reason for selling mass-murder weapons to the general public. The Gun Lobby is protecting the merchants of death, that’s all there is to it.

  28. #29 by Bob S. on January 21, 2013 - 12:19 pm

    Richard,

    You keep repeating your opinions as if you can convince people by sheer repetition. You might but I think you are just boring them.

    The ‘weaponry’ wasn’t envisioned by the Second Amendment. It was envisioned by men who had studied history and knew the progression of armaments. They had seen the advances, from muskets to rifles, themselves. If they wanted the people to have the right to ONLY carry Muskets, they could have clearly said that.

    They didn’t.

    It was no more of an oversight then they didn’t mention pens and parchment or screw type presses when they talked about freed speech and freedom of the press.

    They talked about our rights — the principles of freedom and limited government.

    You say, as if you are an expert, that there is no legitimate reason but tell that to the people who suffered in the LA/Rodney King Riots, tell that to the people who were looted in Katrina or after SuperStormSandy.

    Time and time again you’ve spouted off your opinion and rarely have you been proven correct on any of your statements of law or fact. So why should people care what you think now?

  29. #30 by Richard Warnick on January 21, 2013 - 12:30 pm

    Bob S.–

    Your single-minded focus on guns bores me, so we’re even. I still can’t believe you simultaneously argued that it’s OK for the government to violate the Fourth Amendment, while claiming the Second Amendment is sacred.

  30. #31 by Bob S. on January 21, 2013 - 12:34 pm

    Sorry please tell me how I argued that.

  31. #32 by Richard Warnick on January 21, 2013 - 12:37 pm

    You can look it up yourself in the comments, but you said it. Warrantless surveillance of Americans, remember?

  32. #33 by Bob S. on January 21, 2013 - 1:18 pm

    Richard,

    You are flat out lying if you say I supported Warrantless surveillance of people.

    As far as my focus here, don’t confuse it with it being my only focus. In fact, if you open your eyes or your mind, you’ll see I’ve argued many different subjects here.

    Plus that whole thing about my own blog and all; seems like once again you are proven wrong.

    I would ask when will you stop being wrong but that would be the same as asking when you were stop commenting.

  33. #34 by Bob S. on January 21, 2013 - 2:47 pm

    Cliff,

    Maybe you could learn something from President Obama

    The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few, or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people. Entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed. And for more than 200 years we have.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/21/transcript-president-obama-inaugural-address

  34. #35 by Richard Warnick on January 21, 2013 - 5:12 pm

    Bob S.–

    Maybe I got your position wrong. You didn’t support warrantless surveillance of Americans? That’s good.

    What about habeas corpus, also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? Do you think we ought to restore the right of habeas corpus?

    I think that President Obama is violating the Constitution on a massive scale. Just not the Second Amendment.

  35. #36 by Richard Warnick on January 21, 2013 - 5:30 pm

    OK, looking on your blog you quoted something on July 26 that’s critical of widespread domestic surveillance. We may agree on that issue. It has to stop.

  36. #37 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 7:30 am

    “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

    ? Martin Luther King Jr.

  37. #38 by Cliff Lyon on January 22, 2013 - 12:14 pm

    Bob S,

    In quoting MLK did you really mean to equate gun regulation to the oppression of segregation, discrimination and Jim Crow laws in the 1950′s?

    Hey, why not equate background checks to slavery?

  38. #39 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 12:31 pm

    Cliff,

    I equated the moral responsibility to stand up to injustice to the moral responsibility to stand up to injustice.

    You are the one saying that sheriffs have to enforce unconstitutional and unjust laws. I’m pointing out other people who feel the same way.

  39. #40 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 2:19 pm

    I think he’s unhappy because “black guns” are being discriminated against by the proposed reinstatement of the mass-murder weapons ban.

  40. #41 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 2:37 pm

    Richard,

    That is your inner racism showing, not mine. Intelligent people know that it is the function of the firearm at issue, not the appearance.

  41. #42 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 2:45 pm

    I got that specious argument from former National Rifle Association president Marion Hammer.

  42. #43 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 3:05 pm

    Richard,

    Marion Hammer is pointing out exactly what I said.

    SIMONE: And they even admit this is about banning the ugliest guns, it’s about cosmetics and it has nothing to do about how a firearm works.

    HAMMER: Well, you know, banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago. But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It’s just bad politics.

    The original assault weapon banned firearms because of cosmetic features — pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lugs — that did not affect the functionality of the firearm.

    The current assault weapon ban would do the same thing but with even more restrictions.

    Obviously you are having difficulty understanding the argument intelligent people are making.

  43. #44 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 3:42 pm

    Bob S.–

    Well, we could just ban semi-automatic firearms. That would simplify the definition of what’s banned.

  44. #45 by Bob S. on January 22, 2013 - 5:15 pm

    And Richard,

    Just how could you constitutionally justify a ban on semi-automatic firearms?

  45. #46 by Larry Bergan on January 22, 2013 - 5:55 pm

    Bob S.:

    When I said:

    I heard somewhere that law enforcement officers would prefer not to be confronted with assault weapons in the line of duty.

    Must have heard wrong.

    I was wondering why a gaggle of Sheriff’s would WANT the citizenry to have assault weapons that could be used against THEM.

    Unless they oppose some of the most ridiculous motives of the NRA, that’s what they support.

    I’m not expecting a swat team to show up at my house unless I smoke marijuana – which I don’t – anymore. :)

  46. #47 by Larry Bergan on January 22, 2013 - 6:00 pm

    In fact, my employer wants me to piss in a cup, just to be able to open the back door in the execution of my duties as a janitor there. :(

    I’ll do it tomorrow, unless they’re testing for legal drugs. :)

  47. #48 by Richard Warnick on January 22, 2013 - 8:45 pm

    Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone has a right to possess a semi-automatic firearm?

  48. #49 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 4:35 am

    Richard,

    You still don’t get it. The Constitution isn’t a list of what rights I have!

    The Constitution is a list of what the government has to do, what authority it has, and who does it.

    But the 2nd Amendment clearly states there is a right to keep and bear arms. Not muskets, not blunderbusses but arms.

    Same way the ‘right to free speech’ isn’t limited to quill pens and parchment but includes computers.

    And if that isn’t enough; there is that pesky 9th Amendment.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Sorry but it’s right there.

  49. #50 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 8:50 am

    You wanted a clear-cut definition of what firearms to ban, and I offered a good one.

  50. #51 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 9:01 am

    Richard,

    I’m not denying you offered a definition of what firearms you want to ban.

    What I’m asking — and you are ducking – is how you can justify that ban legally and Constitutionally.

    You tried and failed — the Constitution protects my right to keep and bear arms, yes even semi-automatic weapons.
    Not one state in the country bans semi-automatic weapons — that should be a hint to someone even as thick as you that there is a problem with trying to ban them.

    So, once again — how can you legally justify a ban on semi-automatic weapons?

  51. #52 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 10:27 am

    Bob S.–

    I don’t want to ban semi-automatics. I simply offered that as an example of what we COULD ban instead of banning mass-murder weapons, because the Gun Lobby insists on quibbling about the definition. There is no legal reason why the federal government couldn’t enact a ban on semi-automatics.

    Right now, AR-15 assault rifles, .50 caliber sniper rifles, semi-automatic pistols, other firearms which are very similar or identical to military-issue weapons, ammo and high-capacity magazines are readily available to criminals, straw buyers for drug cartels, and mentally unbalanced would-be mass murderers. That’s the problem. What do we do about it?

  52. #53 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 10:35 am

    Richard,

    You say we could and I’m challenging you to show me the legal or constitutional authority for you to ban such weapons.

    Right now cars, trucks and vans are readily available to criminals — do we ban those? Automobiles are responsible for more deaths and injuries then firearms.

    You keep using that word “assault rifle” when you know it is not accurate – (essentially lying) especially when combined with “AR-15″. Assault Rifles are capable of select fire (3 round burst, fully automatic) and AR-15s are most definitely not capable of that.

    So, why do you feel it is necessary to keep lying about the capability of firearms?

    Next

    That’s the problem. What do we do about it?

    No that is what you ‘feel’ the problem is. Tell me why Fort Worth Texas, despite having fewer restrictions on purchasing firearms, Concealed Carry allowed, many many gun stores, etc does not have the same homicide rate as Chicago?

    If it was the ‘firearm related laws’ as you claim; shouldn’t Fort Worth be awash in blood instead of Chicago?

  53. #54 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 10:49 am

    Bob S.–

    The authority to ban semi-automatics exists. You may not like the legal definition of an assault rifle, but you can’t change it.

    Motor vehicles serve a useful purpose other than killing people. We license drivers – why not gun owners? We require insurance on vehicles – why not on guns? Also, the number of gun deaths exceeds vehicle accident deaths in 10 states.

  54. #55 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 11:05 am

    Richard,

    Firearms serve useful purposes besides killing people – heck there are even Olympic events for them.

    But that is besides the point; the point that they are useful for killing people is why we have them. If someone tries to harm my family or myself, I have the option of using lethal force to defend us. Firearms are some of the most effective means of using lethal force.

    Going back to your link; let’s pick up the stupidity there

    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Bayonet mount
    Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
    Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

    Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
    Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
    Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
    Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
    A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
    Detachable magazine

    So what we see isn’t a ban on semi-automatic weapons but on features of some semi-automatic weapons.
    And it doesn’t address the question I asked. I asked for a citation of the Constitutional or legal authority to ban semi-automatic weapons.

    You have failed to provide that. Show me the authority or admit you are wrong.

    Also please answer why Fort Worth has a lower homicide rate then Chicago.

  55. #56 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 11:14 am

    Bob S.–

    Let’s leave aside the fantasy of gunning down bad guys in your living room. Not gonna happen.

    Clearly, we need a better definition of a mass-murder weapon. One that the Gun Lobby doesn’t fill full of loopholes like they did the last time.

    My point was, your definition is wrong. It doesn’t have to be fully auto. Although there’s always the rubber-band trick.

  56. #57 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 11:46 am

    Richard,

    Once again, current events show how wrong you can be. Do you ever get tired of being this wrong?

    The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.

    The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.
    The teenager grabbed his father’s assault rifle and knew what to do with it.

    http://www.fishgame.com/webnews.php?p=16038#.UQAts1KVP6S

    MERRIMACK — A would-be robber was confronted by a homeowner with a handgun on Monday morning during an attempted home invasion in the center of town.

    Police have released a composite sketch of the intruder, who quickly fled the residence following the confrontation.

    Around 9:30 a.m. on Monday, the male intruder kicked open a locked apartment door at 429 Daniel Webster Highway, Unit 3 of a multifamily home. A female resident was awakened and retrieved a handgun that was kept nearby, according to police.

    “In the seconds following the initial forced entry, the intruder made his way to the victim’s bedroom door and was confronted by the female who warned the intruder by pointing the weapon at him and demanding he leave immediately,” Det. Scott Park said in a release, adding the robber fled on foot.

    Not going to paste a link, search for it, because it will be trapped in the spam filter.

    Just two of the many reports — one even a dreaded Assault Rifle that was used to stop a crime.

    You still haven’t answered the question; it is really simple.

    What authority or legislation empowers the banning of semi-automatic weapons?

  57. #58 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 12:19 pm

    Bob S.–

    I’ve never owned a firearm, and nobody has ever tried to rob me. Just lucky, I guess? In case it does happen, I’ll go to a safe place and dial 911. Pointing a gun at an armed intruder is stupid. Shooting an unarmed person is morally questionable, “stand your ground” laws notwithstanding.

    We’re going in circles, but again I point out that the National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) regulated automatic weapons. They must be registered, and cannot be transported across state lines without the prior written approval of the ATF. Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, machine guns not registered as of May 19, 1986 cannot be privately owned. This is called the “machine gun ban.”

    Clearly, the federal government could also ban semi-automatics if Congress passed a law.

  58. #59 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 12:26 pm

    Richard,

    You have that choice on how to handle your safety. I’ll take note that you are not ‘poor choice’ for anyone else. You want to dictate they handle it your way.

    You said fully automatic weapons were banned, now you change it to the correct ‘regulated’. There is a big difference and you know it.

    But having fully automatic weapons regulated isn’t good enough for you. You claim there is authority to ban semi-automatic weapons.

    Not going to let go of this one Richard — provide a citation for your statement. The Assault Weapon Ban didn’t ban ‘semi-automatic’ weapons but regulated certain features — mostly cosmetic – and how many each firearm could have. So that is not a citation to support your statement.

    Back up your claim or admit you were wrong.
    What authority or legislation empowers the banning of semi-automatic weapons?

    Answer the question Richard.

  59. #60 by Richard Warnick on January 23, 2013 - 12:31 pm

    Bob S.–

    Automatic weapons are banned from private ownership. It’s called the “machine gun ban.” There is no difference in principle between banning semi-automatic or automatic firearms.

    The reason I point this out is because the Gun Lobby wants to play games with the definition of assault weapons, or what I call mass-murder weapons.

  60. #61 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 12:42 pm

    Richard,

    YOU ARE LYING. I know people who own fully automatic firearms. They are not banned.

    Please stop lying.

    The National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

    Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and “burst fire” (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon’s receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.

    Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16″ long or an overall length under 26″. The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

    Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)—this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18″ instead of 16″, and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26″.

    Silencers —this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.

    Destructive Devices (DDs)—there are two broad classes of destructive devices:

    Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.

    Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50″, such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a “legitimate sporting use”.)

    An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms. The sale and purchase of NFA firearms is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows:

    All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax

    You cited that very section. YOU know that fully automatic firearms are not banned.

    There is no difference in principle between banning semi-automatic or automatic firearms.

    Prove it then

    Stop making opinion statements as fact and prove your point with evidence. Cite the Constitution, the law or court decision that allow the authority to ban semi-automatic firearms.

  61. #62 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 1:01 pm

    Richard,

    Let me try another tact.

    Do you think the British Colonials were right to fight a war of independence from the King and Parliament and establish the United States of America?

  62. #63 by cav on January 23, 2013 - 8:13 pm

    BobS

    (From way up thread)

    “The McDonald v Chicago Decision, The 7th Circuit court Decision in Moore/Shepherd v Madigan.

    Sorry but I didn’t say just “SCOTUS” decisions, I said court decisions. Even the Miller Decision upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms — ALL IT DID WAS SPECIFY THE WEAPON, NOT THE PERSON HAD TO HAVE SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE MILITARY”

    Of course, as one might expect, this brought a smile to my face – for reasons playing on the oft used ‘guns don’t kill people, yadda yadda’, Also too, there’s that old militia bug-a-boo again. Thirdly, the practical goof on corporations being people. And maybe lastly, the question: What are people for – Doesn’t it almost appear we’re simply the embodied ‘trigger fingers’ the weaponry design and manufacturing team are forced to consider? Otherwise wouldn’t we all be allowed our own drone(s) ?

    I know I ask a lot of you, but if you’d care to tickle some sense into this for me, I’d be much appreciative. TIA

    PS, My abilities to access this sight seem to be leaning against a nearly impenetrable wall-of-cookies I don’t know what to do with as I still grappling with a lifelong addiction to sweets. Wish me luck.

  63. #64 by Bob S. on January 23, 2013 - 8:54 pm

    Cav,

    I’ll try to see if I can make sense out of your comment.
    First the question before the Supreme Court wasn’t if people had a right to keep and bear arms; it was IF the government could mandate registration of certain firearms.
    Does that make sense? Miller was convicted, not of having a firearm but avoiding the Tax penalty on having it. Implicit in that argument is that he had the right to firearms.

    If you really want the militia bug-a-boo; try this on for size: If Cliff’s reading on the militia is anywhere near correct; then the Federal Government, in conjunction with State Governments, have the responsibility to insure each individual eligible for the militia is properly armed!
    If the individual can’t afford it (Hello Affordable Care Act/Medicare/etc), then tax money should be spent.

    This goes back to the Miller Decision also. The arms provided would have to be functionally equivalent to what the military is using at the time…fully automatic weapons.

    Does that make sense?

    Next, No i don’t think we are just trigger fingers. That demeans the inherent intelligence and decision making capability of people. We aren’t mindless drones.
    If that was the case; then the streets would be awash in blood do to all the violent movies, video games, inflammatory hate speech, talk radio, etc.

    Yet, firearm related deaths and injuries are decreasing year after year.

    Maybe I’m wrong (i’ve been wrong once or twice before) but look around at people.

    Millions go hungry; yet stores aren’t cleaned out by looters every day.
    Millions are poor; yet banks have money in the tills and vaults.
    Millions are born into poverty, abuse, neglect; yet millions aren’t vicious murderers, rapists, etc. Violent Crime is under 400,000 incidences last year.

    People aren’t just products of their genes or environment – they are fearfully and wonderfully made creatures that are capable of generosity, love, compassion, staggering works of art and music.

    (By the way, who says you can’t own your own drone?)

  64. #65 by cav on January 23, 2013 - 10:17 pm

    I guess I’m in too existential a frame these days. I appreciate that we are fearfully and wonderfully made with all of the qualities you describe. Yes, and of course, some of us (possibly ALL) also have potentials that are quite the opposite. That being the case, the question becomes: when a fairly sizable component of our society is profiting from the development, manufacture and promotion, of implements that can so readily evoke actions from which there is no retreat, wouldn’t we be doing ourselves a big favor by trying to wind-down our reliance on these implements? You know, as a culture? Especially since we know full well, they’re not exclusively defensive – contrary to the sales pitch.

    I’m going to take the position that we are just tools, outfitted with yet more tools, and pushed in particular directions which are profitable to the merchant class. And, while we are imbued with intelligence, decision making capability, love, compassion and generosity, among others, these are all being quite successfully subverted by the lobby who has discovered that only by expending their costly and destructive products, replacing them with the next generation of even more costly and even more destructive products (rinse and repeat ad infinitum) will their market share continue to grow.

    It may just be the perfectly evolved capitalist model, replete with population curbing effects, jobs in everything from manufacturing to rapid Med-Evac to damping down oil-field fires, to, the list goes on and on. It is as I said a near perfect system.

    Unless you’re the chosen target of the day. Then YOUR clan gets revenge.

    Perfection I say.

  65. #66 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 12:01 am

    Was that a bubble I heard exploding?

  66. #67 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 12:14 am

    Perhaps a restatement of Larry’s statement might go something like this: What is often lost in the discussion of the pursuit of unlimited Second Amendment rights is the inarguable deprivation of the thousands of other people’s rights – every year. All of them. Including the right to life.

  67. #68 by Bob S. on January 24, 2013 - 6:38 am

    Cav,

    I have a fundamental disagreement with your premise that we are all drones programmed by nameless faceless corporations. I think there is something to your idea; the vast majority of people are what many call ‘low information voters’. They don’t follow the issues; they follow a party or person. They don’t want to dig too deep into the how and the why; they just want the lights to come on and the food to be in the markets.

    And that is okay. That is their choice. Even if that choice is reinforced or introduced by others. You say nameless faceless corporations; I say friends, family, churches, schools (ever see/hear what they are teaching kids in school today?). You argue that ads, video games, movies program people to conform and there is a degree to that but it is small in most people.

    And the facts support my contention. Look at firearm related homicides. I’ll use every chance to stack the odds against my argument — if that makes sense, okay?

    Total homicides last year were around 11,600 something. Let’s round up to 12,000 and assume that every one was firearm related and each and every murder was done by a separate person with a different firearm. Reality is approximately 25% of homicides are non-firearm related.
    Estimates on firearm ownership places the number around 85,000,000 people. Let’s roll that way back to 50,000,000 people.
    Doing the math 12,000 divided by 50,000,000 times 100 (to express as percentage) = 0.024%

    Less than one-quarter of a tenth of a percent of the people could have been involved in a homicide last year.

    Firearm related violent crime — let’s use around 400,000 and the same assumptions (each one by a separate person, different gun, # of owners)
    400,000 divided by 50,000,000 times 100 = 0.8% — not even a full percentage of the population was involved in committing a firearm related violent crime.

    If nameless faceless corporations are driving firearm related crime they are doing a lousy job.

    The truth of the matter is simple; most people own a hunting rifle, a semi-automatic pistol or revolver or both. They stay in the closet or sock drawer or on the wall and never get used for anything other than target shooting or hunting every now and then. Others enjoy their target shooting, IDPA/USPPA/IPSC Cowboy Action shooting, Skeet, Trap etc and participate on a regular basis.

    Now you have to decide what you are going to do with your drones (aka low information people) are you going to help them become aware of the issue or help the bureaucracy/nameless faceless corporation maintain control. (Do you want the Blue Pill or the Red Pill Neo)

    I say you have to decide because I’ve studied history. I’m sure you have also. You know the dangers of lurking within the hearts and minds of people.
    Yes, as wonderfully and fearfully made as we are, people still choose to do evil/bad things. They do these things as individuals (rape, robbery, murder) on as a rare event. People chose to do things with horrendous repetition (Ted Bundy, Dahlmer– neither used a firearm by the way) or in a single spree (Oklahoma City Bombing – no gun, Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado).

    People are led to do things in small groups (I still say they chose to obey, to commit those acts willing) as in Cults (Jonestown Massacre/suicide) or as Segregationists.
    People chose to follow as a nation or ethnic group or political party (Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Tutsui, Serbs, etc)

    But in each and every case how does disarming the individual help the masses? It doesn’t in my opinion.

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    ? Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

    I chose to believe (because I have studied the issue and people) that the majority of the people do the right thing not because they are programmed but because they choose to.

    Don’t make it a case of people acting as drones because they have no other choice.

  68. #69 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 10:48 am

    BobS

    I’m glad you’ve taken this time to support your thinking re the 2nd Amendment, and what it means to be a citizen. Aside from my Dystopian and cynical ‘advocacy’, I don’t think our differences are fundamental.

    I suppose part of what I’ve been trying to elicit – for your sake as well as for any other readers, is the humanity that so many conscious, rational, sane gun owners actually share with us ‘Dirty-F*cking’ Hippies’ ™, who would give all our hard fought for freedoms away for another minute vacationing far from our home: Bedlam. (Disaster Capitalism by any other name would still smell as rank).

    As with you, we’re really much more complex and conscious than that.

    And, I think your comments almost provide demarcation between recreational use, truly popular (perhaps even non-violent) revolutions, foreign or terrorist interventions, sectarian tension and civil wars (all of which have different political and social roots and goals), as they pertain to the role of personal hardware choices IN these different scenarios. Important distinctions.

    ‘Thumbs-up-thingie’ re the Solzhenitsyn quote.

  69. #70 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 11:03 am

    from the It Was Only a Matter of Time Dept:

    The Fontana School District in San Bernadino County, California has purchased fourteenAR-15 assault weapons in order to “protect” students and staffers from potential attacks. FUSD Superintendent Cali Olsen-Binks approved the acquisition of the rifles, which are being stored on campuses in locked safes for responding police officers in the event of an attack. Fontana Police Chief Rodney Jones and Mayor Acquanetta Warren supported Olsen-Binks’ decision. “It’s unfortunate that we have to have that, but it’s the best message we can send to anybody that thinks to harm our children,” said Jones. “The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed.” Warren said, “Everyone wants children safe. At this time, we as a community, we have to come together and find other ways. But in the interim, our police officers need to be equipped.”

    What could possibly go wrong?

  70. #71 by Richard Warnick on January 24, 2013 - 11:14 am

    Feinstein bringing a Bushmaster assault rifle to Senate to unveil gun bill.

    Sorry, Senator Feinstein. Even a mass-murder weapon can’t defeat the silent filibuster. Your bill is DOA.

  71. #72 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 11:20 am

    The assault weapon should ‘speak’ on the senate floor until the esteemed nobles can take NO MORE! There’s a fili-bluster McConnel would attend to.

    Or not.

    DOA Talk about low ratings! OMG!

  72. #73 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 11:28 am

    So much to curse…so little time.

  73. #74 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 1:10 pm

    Pittsburgh police are still trying identify the masked man who was shot and killed in a Garfield home invasion

    http://pic.twitter.com/uaWb1crb

  74. #75 by Larry Bergan on January 24, 2013 - 7:53 pm

    cav:

    I’ll go along with that.

    I am fighting for the right to life. If somebody has a beef with me, I would prefer they aim at me and fire as opposed to spraying me.

    Bob will NEVER type the word ALEC on any blog, because he knows it will take him to places he doesn’t want to go. He’s no different from the media who focused on a dead black kid and his killer, but wouldn’t go withing a light year of the “astroturf” organizations who crafted the laws which caused the tragedy.

  75. #76 by cav on January 24, 2013 - 8:35 pm

    Nor will I EVER type the word S O C I A L I S M.

  76. #77 by Bob S. on January 25, 2013 - 4:37 am

    Larry,

    I talk about what I want because I’m allowed to do that still. I don’t have to pick up your pet peeves or conspiracy theories. ALEC, ALEC, ALEC, ALEC.

    There I typed it four times, not one. I don’t know much about ALEC (5 times) nor do I plan on addressing it at this time. If you want to talk about ALEC (6), you can. I’ll read what you write and might respond. But don’t think you can dictate what I discuss.

    As far as your claim about your right not to get shot, I talked about that. Your right is as powerful as you can enforce it.
    You want to use the firearms owned and carried by the government to make everyone else give up theirs in the hopes it will keep you safe. Unfortunately, as experience has shown, that doesn’t happen. England — one of the most restriction gun control countries out there — still had 53 firearm related homicides.

    A bloody island where it should be almost impossible for smuggling of firearms to happen and still firearm related crime happens and is increasing.

    We are also not subjects; we are citizens. We have certain inalienable rights that the government can not restrict.
    What I don’t understand is how you and other gun control advocates think the gun control laws will work. You want me to turn in my ‘assault weapons– and hope the criminals will eventually run out of guns.

    How’s that working out in the drug business?

    You want to reduce magazine capacity but most shooting didn’t involved more then 10 rounds. Really smart there and magazines are easy to change — about 1 to 2 seconds.
    So how is that going to keep you safer?

    You want ‘universal background checks’ — the end of private sales — but it already against the law for a felon, drug user etc to buy a firearm. Criminals use straw purchasers — how will this change?

    It won’t. Criminals will still use straw purchasers and still get guns.

    Unless you implement a full registration and verification program. That is right — unless every firearm is recorded by the government and its possession with the legal owner is verified often — you will have no way of knowing if someone sold it or not.

    So exactly how does gun control law reduce crime?

    The CDC could find NO firearm law or combination of firearm laws that reduced violent crime.

    So, no I won’t support laws that won’t make me safer but will reduce my privacy, my property and my rights.

  77. #78 by Bob S. on January 25, 2013 - 6:21 am

    Larry,

    And to Cav a partly.

    I would like to continue about the ‘right not to get shot’. That right — like all rights- is not unlimited. And that is the problem. I see you trying to make it an unlimited right by infringing on my rights.

    Think of it in terms as a right not to get ran over or to hear something you don’t like. While we can make laws governing how people should drive we can not nor should not ban cars. We can enact common sense laws to punish people who do run over people. Just like we have laws governing the misuse of firearms, right?

    We enact laws governing where cars can be driven or not (Not on the sidewalks) and we also have laws that govern where we can and can not carry firearms. But since crime happens in more places then cars can go, we recognize that we should be allowed to carry firearms in more places.

    What I see is the gun control push to get their rights in supremacy to mine. Your rights end at my body. You can’t force me to not say something you might not like, wouldn’t you agree?

    In the same vein, why should you be allowed to tell me what I can or can not carry? Or own. I haven’t used it against you, or anyone else for that matter.

    I didn’t take a rifle into a school building — but that isn’t good enough. You want to take away rifles LIKE the one carrying ILLEGALLY into a school building.

    That would be like banning cars like the ones that ran over the curb and killed someone. Or banning words that you don’t like.

    Your rights are not unrestricted. There is a limit what you can impose on others. And frankly, many people are getting fed up with the constant demand for more restrictions to be imposed on us — ironically usually under the guise of ‘another compromise’.

    We’ve given up liberty for 80 years now. And we are saying no more. You can not show that gun control laws work to keep us safe. Your rights do not supersede mine.

    So, you want to do all you can to be safe — then do it. Like I do. I watch where I go. I pay attention to those around me and what they are doing. I do everything I can to keep myself without imposing additional burdens on other people. I suggest you do the same.

  78. #79 by cav on January 25, 2013 - 10:24 am

    BobS. We’re not allowed to talk about S O C I A L I S M

    To think there’s any other way to go about governance except by capitalist indulgence would just be wrong.

    And. Good morning.

  79. #80 by Bob S. on January 25, 2013 - 10:39 am

    Morning Cav.

    Have you seen this news article?
    A college student warded off an intruder with his AR-15 early Tuesday morning in central New York.

    Christopher Boise told 13WHAM-TV in Rochester that he heard a noise coming from the basement of his apartment. As he walked toward the source of the noise, he noticed two men standing downstairs. Mr. Boise immediately noticed a gun trained on him.


    Raymond, who omitted his last name, started unlocking his rifle when one of the men approached his door.

    “By the time I had it out and ready, one of the men came at my door, slowly opened it, saw that there was a barrel on the other side and from there backed out,” he said.

    No shots were fired and the intruders left.

    Raymond said his legally owned AR-15 is used for sport, and was never needed for anything else until Tuesday.

    “Without that gun that day, things could have went differently,” Raymond said.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/student-ar-15-scares-home-intruder/

    Your words

    And, I think your comments almost provide demarcation between recreational use, truly popular (perhaps even non-violent) revolutions, foreign or terrorist interventions, sectarian tension and civil wars (all of which have different political and social roots and goals), as they pertain to the role of personal hardware choices IN these different scenarios. Important distinctions.

    Had me thinking for a while. What I see is we aren’t prophetic. We can’t see what trouble we’ll have in the future.

    But we know how firearms have performed in the past and what past troubles have been. Could the student have used a pistol with the same results? Probably.

    But the pistol, especially limited to 7 or 10 rounds, isn’t as useful during riots or massive upheaval. So it is important to let lawful owners be as prepared as they want to be (no one is forcing anyone to purchase a firearm) while punishing those who break the law.

    I wish I lived in Utah or near where you did; I would offer to take you to a range and let you experience some of the ‘gun culture’ (versus thug culture) that truly exists in America. Collectors with vintage firearms or rare firearms offering people the opportunity to shoot them. Experienced shooters teaching new comers to the sports — there is NOTHING like the grin of a new shooter let me tell you.

    What else is there? There are parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles teaching the next generation self reliance (notice the student didn’t have to call the police to stop the crime), helping them gain confidence (putting shots on target is a huge boost) and passing down a heritage.
    I’m lucky enough to own 3 of the firearms my father owned. My sons and daughter have shot them. I plan on leaving one to each of them with the hope they will pass them on to their kids – telling them about the great grandfather they never knew.

    Sorry to rattle on but thanks for reading.

  80. #81 by cav on January 25, 2013 - 1:05 pm

    Oh Bob, I’m hardly a new shooter. I’ve shot everything from muzzle-loaders to 50 cal machine guns, and then some.

    And, in the para of mine you quoted directly above, I failed to explicitly mention what you address so well – protection at home.

  81. #82 by Larry Bergan on January 25, 2013 - 6:52 pm

    Bob S.

    Guess I was wrong about you not being able to type the word ALEC, however you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist while admitting you don’t know anything about ALEC.

    I suggest you learn about “The American Legislative Exchange Council” because they have been taking away your, and your children’s constitutional rights since 1973 and have been active in legislating gun laws which give people the right to kill others they only suspect are a threat. If I believe in a conspiracy in regards to that, I have entertained the possibility that wealthy persons would be much more likely to use that defense then poor ones.

    But ALEC has been involved in a plethora of other things designed to take away the rights of the many through secret legislation. I have tried to fight that without using a gun, with no help at all from the media.

  82. #83 by Bob S. on January 25, 2013 - 7:54 pm

    Larry,

    I don’t have to know about ALEC to recognize your conspiracy theorist roots. You’ve shown it in other areas.
    If you want me to learn about it, write a post. I might read it. I never have a problem learning but I GET TO DECIDE where I focus my time and energy.

    have been active in legislating gun laws which give people the right to kill others they only suspect are a threat.

    You seem to have a problem with that concept. Help me understand what would be acceptable to you.
    Should a person have to wait until (s)he has been shot, stabbed, hit over the head before responding?

    Should they have to wait until the criminal/other person announces in clear terms “I’m going to hurt/kill/rape you.”?

    You fight your fight and I”ll fight mine. And if our goals are the same, I’ll help you. But right now, ALEC isn’t a priority as much as Fienstein and her ilk are — they are actively trying to deprive me of my rights.

    And here is a kicker for you — Fienstein’s bill includes exemptions for law enforcement and government employees — like herself. Isn’t that special?

  83. #85 by Larry Bergan on January 25, 2013 - 8:44 pm

    In fact, I was protesting when ALEC came to town recently and talked to one of the men who were on the “stand your ground” task force of ALEC. He told me we, (the protesters), were winning on that issue.

  84. #86 by Bob S. on January 26, 2013 - 8:25 am

    Larry,

    You didn’t answer the question about what you want instead of stand your ground laws.

    Do you feel that people should be forced to run out of their own home if a burglar breaks in? Hoping the police gets there in time to catch him?

    Do you think a rapist should be able to count on his victim having to run away first instead of fighting back?

    Just what do you want the victims of crime to do.

  85. #87 by cav on January 26, 2013 - 10:49 am

    More support for the Round Earth Theory.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022263363

  86. #88 by Larry Bergan on January 26, 2013 - 11:54 am

    Great picture cav!

    I still go to:

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

    every day.

    Thanks to you.

  87. #89 by cav on January 26, 2013 - 12:10 pm

    Oh yea! Thanks for the reminder.

  88. #90 by Barker Willis on January 26, 2013 - 2:51 pm

    “Muricah”!

  89. #91 by Larry Bergan on January 26, 2013 - 5:00 pm

    Nothing to say about ALEC’s trashing of the constitution Bob S.?

    I’ve only been robbed once. If had been home and had a gun, there’s a possibility I would have been shot. As it turns out, I wasn’t.

    Anything about ALEC?

  90. #92 by Bob S. on January 26, 2013 - 7:52 pm

    Larry,

    What part of I’ll decide what to focus on do you not get?
    Right now, the battle I’m focused on is my 2nd Amendment Rights. I figure that IF we can keep those, we have a chance at rolling back the infringement on the others.
    Without it, we don’t stand a chance.

    You talk about how you might have been shot; of course you might have scared off the burglars and prevented a crime

    Rochester, N.Y. — Early Tuesday morning, Christopher Boise heard a noise coming from the basement. As he walked toward the source of that noise, the RIT student noticed two men standing in the downstairs portion of his apartment.

    “They were waiting for me at the bottom of the stairs,” said Boise.

    One of them had a handgun trained on Boise.

    Within moments, Boise screamed. His cries were heard by his roommate, Raymond.

    “It wasn’t like a, ‘I stepped by stepped on a piece of glass’ kind of scream,” Raymond said. “So, I instinctively went to my gun bag.”

    Raymond owns an AR-15 which is a military style rifle.

    Raymond estimated that just five seconds passed until the door started to open. It was one of the intruders.

    “By the time I had it out and ready, one of the men came at my door, slowly opened it, saw that there was a barrel on the other side and from there backed out,” Raymond said.

    The two men fled the apartment.

    So tell me again there isn’t a reason to keep an AR-15.

    The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.

    The teenager grabbed his father’s assault rifle and knew what to do with it.

    “We don’t try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”

    The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood.

    15 year old, physically immature male could handle an AR-15 rifle — something that should be of interest to anyone with infirmities, or age related frailities or disabilities…..Yet Feinstein wants to ban them.

    Tell me who is trashing the Constitution? Right now I’ll focus on the one in the Senate doing it, Okay with you?

  91. #93 by Larry Bergan on January 26, 2013 - 8:17 pm

    Bob S.:

    So the robbers just happened to know the sound of an AR-15 being cocked and fled? That’s just comedy.

    Oh, he’s got an AR-15, we better get the hell outta here! If he’d had a Whamo slingshot we would have stayed.

    Please try to focus on ALEC.

  92. #94 by Bob S. on January 27, 2013 - 12:34 pm

    Larry,

    If you had bothered to pull up the story ( you do know how to use that fancy new thing called “Google”, don’t you?)

    You would have found the crook saw the gun and ran. No shots fired.

    But even if he did recognize the sound of it being charged (you charge an AR-15 not cock it, no hammer) then it would still be a defensive gun use.

    Now if an AR-15 isn’t suitable for personal defense; why is the Department of Homeland Security describing it that way?

    The Department of Homeland Security, in a public solicitation for a “personal defense weapon” describes what would otherwise be called an “assault rifle” if owned by a civilian.

    The solicitation, which was posted on June 7, 2012, describes the qualities of a firearm designed for personal defense. The solicitation’s “Statement of Work” defines the desired firearm as “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.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/26/when-is-a-personal-defense-weapon-an-assault-rifle-when-you-own-it/#ixzz2JCqAm7Zp

    And if it is unsuitable for all types; why is the Secretary of Defense through the Pentagon opening up front line combat to females?

    — You do remember the weapon used by our military today, right?

  93. #95 by Larry Bergan on January 27, 2013 - 1:35 pm

    Bob S. says:

    — You do remember the weapon used by our military today, right?

    Actually, I don’t.

    I traded a really nice pellet gun in for a Beatle wig when I was young. Money-wise, I was an idiot, but I grew long hair afterwards.

  94. #96 by Bob S. on January 27, 2013 - 4:04 pm

    Larry,

    I find it stunningly ignorant of you not to know the most common firearm issued in the U.S. Military – especially since you usually have so much to say about firearm related laws.

    It is the M-16, the military adopted that rifle from the AR-15 (yes, the civilian version came first) and it’s variants M4 and such.

    The AR-15 is the semi-automatic version. Many police departments use the AR-15 while some others use the fully automatic versions (M-16/M-4).

  95. #97 by Larry Bergan on January 27, 2013 - 5:44 pm

    Bob S.:

    I don’t know anything about guns.

    Don’t have one, and can’t afford one.

    Can’t even afford the bullets that load them.

    The only things I can afford are cloths, food, and DVD’s.

  96. #98 by Cliff on January 28, 2013 - 2:37 pm

    Bob S,

    You cannot argue that familiarity with guns is some sort of civic obligation.

    Quite the opposite. Is a life without dangerous weapons a good life, a life for which we should strive?

  97. #99 by brewski on January 28, 2013 - 3:51 pm

    I don’t have a gun and don’t want a gun. I did earn my riflery merit badge in Boy Scouts.

    I don’t know what I would do if I had a gun and I actually had an intruder. My first instinct is just let the guy take my tv and keep as quiet as possible. It seems as though if I had a gun that a lot of bad things could go wrong if I actually tried to shoot him. I’m not sure I’d want him shot anyway. I’d want him in jail.

    But suppose he actually did come into our bedroom or my daughter’s bedroom. Mostly unlikely since these guys are usually just looking for stuff to sell to pay for their drug habit. But suppose he did. At some point there is some last resort of shooting him if I had no other choice.

    My in-laws live in a very rural area where the police response time is about an hour. I know that they have a loaded gun under their bed ready to go. They live in an isolated place, are elderly and definitely like knowing they have some way to protect themselves.

    I pretty much think of guns as being like cars. You should have to apply for a license, take a written and hands on test, background test, demonstrate safety knowledge, etc.

  98. #100 by Richard Warnick on January 28, 2013 - 4:24 pm

    Who are you and what have you done with brewski? ;-)

  99. #101 by Barker Willis on January 28, 2013 - 5:19 pm

    To each his own in these United States, Cliff, the right to bear arms is a guaranteed inalienable right. License not required when the tyrannical government part of the equation comes into focus anyway.

    You are not anti gun as much as pro gun for certain people, the state, like those total success stories of people in government and law enforcement with weapons and their foibles, no cliff, for now and the indefinite future, being armed in America is the thing to be.

    Long live the unaltered 2nd, a right no matter the drivel based arguments against it.

  100. #102 by cav on January 28, 2013 - 5:39 pm

    I guess there’s drivel, and then there’s drivel.

    Bases covered.

  101. #103 by cav on January 28, 2013 - 10:41 pm

    “An emotional father who lost his six-year-old son in the Newtown school shooting has been heckled by pro-gun activists as he testified at a local hearing on firearm control.

    Neil Heslin, whose son Jesse was killed in last month’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, questioned the need for any civilian to own semiautomatic, military-style weapon at the state legislative subcommittee hearing in Hartford Connecticut on Monday.

    But he was shouted down by members of the audience who shouted ‘Second Amendment’ as he spoke.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269910/Parents-children-slain-Newtown-school-shooting-beg-legislators-stricter-gun-control.html

  102. #104 by Richard Warnick on January 29, 2013 - 12:22 pm

    DGU FAIL:

    A 69-year-old war veteran and former missionary was arrested over the weekend on the suspicion of killing a 22-year-old Cuban immigrant who mistakenly arrived in his driveway because of faulty GPS directions.

  103. #105 by Larry Bergan on January 29, 2013 - 8:17 pm

    Wow, Richard. I’m going to think twice before I ever try to turn my car around in somebody’s driveway again; especially if I’m packin’ a pair if ice skates.

    That’s just plain crazy.

  104. #106 by jdberger on January 30, 2013 - 12:59 am

    cav :“An emotional father who lost his six-year-old son in the Newtown school shooting has been heckled by pro-gun activists as he testified at a local hearing on firearm control.
    Neil Heslin, whose son Jesse was killed in last month’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, questioned the need for any civilian to own semiautomatic, military-style weapon at the state legislative subcommittee hearing in Hartford Connecticut on Monday.
    But he was shouted down by members of the audience who shouted ‘Second Amendment’ as he spoke.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269910/Parents-children-slain-Newtown-school-shooting-beg-legislators-stricter-gun-control.html

    And in other news, Christopher Columbus and his three ship expedition fell off the end of the world….

    Didn’t happen, Cav. All the news orgs have retracted/corrected their reporting. Made a neat story, though. Didn’t it?

  105. #107 by Bob S. on January 30, 2013 - 7:17 am

    Cav,

    Sorry but the gentleman was not ‘heckled’ at the hearing. He asked a question, people respectfully did not answer during his testimony at first — then when he claimed not one person could answer, they provided the answer.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO9LiEzmLWY&feature=player_embedded

    Richard,

    Sorry but that was not a Defensive Gun Use Fail — it was homicide and is being prosecuted as such. Your mislabeling of it doesn’t change the reality.

    Now please tell me how this shows we need additional gun control laws?
    The man committed a crime and is being processed through the justice system for that crime.
    So unless you want to ban and confiscate .22 caliber pistols; what additional law would have prevented this?

  106. #108 by Richard Warnick on January 30, 2013 - 7:37 am

    Bob S.–

    He was heckled. The hecklers did not answer his question, they chanted “…shall not be infringed.” The question was, why does anyone need a mass-murder weapon?

    I called it a DGU fail because the mindset clearly was, “I get to kill somebody who’s on my property without permission.” Maybe there was another motive, but it’s not apparent. He probably thought he was within his rights under Georgia’s “Stand Your Ground” law.

  107. #109 by Bob S. on January 30, 2013 - 7:59 am

    Richard,

    I realize you think your opinion should be the end all be all of all things you speak on but did you watch the video I linked to?

    You keep asking the question Why does someone need just like he did. But you really don’t want to hear the answer — an answer you’ve heard many times. Shall NOT BE INFRINGED. The 2nd Amendment. How about riots, how about easy of use?
    Joe Biden said a double barrel shotgun was easier to use then a AR-15 — if so, why isn’t his protective detail armed with them? Why is the Pentagon opening up front line combat to females and issuing M-4s to everyone?

    I called it a DGU fail because the mindset clearly was, “I get to kill somebody who’s on my property without permission.

    You have amazing super powers to be able to tell that from Utah. I don’t know what happened and neither do you. Contrary to your assertation!

    So instead of pronouncing him guilty, why not wait for the trial?
    Or do you think you are above that?

  108. #110 by cav on January 30, 2013 - 9:46 am

    I’m not in any position to alter what’s on the news.

    All else having been said, there has not been a decline in this type of mass shooting and the solution may very well be limitations of the sort laid out by the administration in response to this fact.

    Christopher Columbus was the first to not sail off the edge. That is why he is celebrated. However, I believe a vast number of the original inhabitants of the ‘New World’ must have wished he had. Another story.

  109. #111 by Richard Warnick on January 30, 2013 - 9:59 am

    Bob S.–

    I watched the video on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show last night. The Second Amendment does not answer the question of why military-style weapons are needed by anyone not in the military (or a police SWAT team).

    I think it was not only rude, but downright creepy to interrupt Neil Heslin’s testimony about the death of his son, who may have saved the lives of others by telling them to run, with a mindless-sounding chant of “shall not be infringed.”

    In the Georgia case, I left open the possibility of another motive. But it looks like the guy internalized Gun Lobby propaganda about “castle doctrine” and “stand your ground.”

  110. #112 by cav on January 30, 2013 - 10:14 am

    Did I mention it’s quite obvious that weapons manufacturers have a disproportionate amount of power?

    :just came in to $.02:

  111. #113 by Richard Warnick on January 30, 2013 - 10:39 am

    Hadiya Pendleton Dead: Chicago Teen Who Performed At Inaugural Events Fatally Shot

    No doubt our gun rights friends will say that Chicago’s laws didn’t prevent this tragedy, therefore it’s pointless to do anything. But one city by itself cannot control the proliferation of guns in the wrong hands. National legislation is required, for example background checks for all gun sales.

    The NRA no longer supports universal background checks. Why the reversal of position?

  112. #114 by Larry Bergan on January 30, 2013 - 1:53 pm

    Don’t expect Bob S. to address any questions concerning “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” laws. He’s already indicated he WILL NOT discuss ALEC other then to acknowledge the acronym exists.

  113. #115 by cav on January 30, 2013 - 2:08 pm

    I’m for letting BobS comment as he sees fit.

  114. #116 by Bob S. on January 30, 2013 - 6:41 pm

    Cav,

    Thanks for the support, I try to answer the comments as I see them but like others I can name I have a life.

    Richard,

    If Mr. Hansen wanted to ‘testify’ then he shouldn’t asked a question of the audience then challenge them to provide an answer when the politely let him continue uninterrupted. Yes, they answered his repeated question — so how is that rude?

    2nd (pun intended) get this through your head — We do not need to explain to you nor do we have to explain a “need” to anyone.
    Why do you “need” to post on this site or talk at all?
    Isn’t it enough that you have a desire to?

    How about this for a simple answer — I need whatever a tyrannical government may chose to send against me. Remember your history — Our government at the time tried to infringe on our rights — our traditional rights as British Citizens. When the did that, they were met with weapons equivalent to what the government used against them.

    Now, you who complains of the corruption of the government, of the loss of our rights, can you honestly say our government isn’t infringing on our rights?

    Larry,

    Why should I answer your questions about ‘castle doctrine” or ‘stand your ground laws’ when you don’t even know the most basic facts of the argument?

    I am not saying you have to be an expert but don’t you think a person should be aware of what weapons are being discussed and what weapons are being used by the military today?

  115. #117 by cav on January 30, 2013 - 7:30 pm

    “There is no divorcing the politics of guns from their profits. America’s gun lobby and gun industry both benefit from creating a fearful vision of life in the United States—a picture of criminals constantly menacing our families and a government hellbent on taking our guns—that is very effective at selling weapons.”

    http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-gun-industry-made-fortune-stoking-fears-obama-would-take-peoples-guns-ammo

    A good article that makes me wonder how much more attached to their guns people become as they shoot $1000.00s worth of ammo through them at the ranges..

  116. #118 by Bob S. on January 30, 2013 - 8:18 pm

    Cav,

    I know people who shoot that much money each month at the range. I know others who spend it in 3 or 4 months.

    I’ve probably spent that much last year teaching new shooters.

    I ask “who is the gun lobby” that every keeps talking about?

    Is it the millions of people lining up at gun shows buying guns? Is it the millions of people running big box stores out of ammo?

    Yep. It is.

    Is it people like Ms. Trotter who testify and Richard is trying to marginalize and demonize because he doesn’t like what she said or how she said it?

    Yep and millions of people like her who call a magazine a ‘clip’ or talk about a ‘bullet’ when they mean cartridge.

    It is also the people who keep a revolver in the sock drawer or the top shelf of the closet, just in case.
    It is the hunter who goes to the range once a year, fires 3 shots to ‘zero in’ his rifle and maybe fires another 3 shots in the field.

    From your article:

    Many factors—fear of crime during the economic downturn, better promotion of hunting by state wildlife agencies, more women taking up shooting, veterans returning home with a deeper attachment to guns—have likely fueled the boom in gun sales.

    What I find ironic — remember this article was written in August of 2012 — are the lines immediately after it.

    But Obama’s influence is given singular credit. As Remington’s then-CEO, Ted Torbeck, put it in a May 2009 conference call with investors, “demand…has risen amidst concerns that the new administration will further restrict the use or purchase of firearms and ammunition and levy additional taxes on these products.”

    So does recent events mean the fears were/are justified?

    I think so.

    I’ll close with this:

    San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within “a generation.”

    Lansdowne has gone on record saying: “I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has. I think it’s courageous with the politics involved in this process. [And] I think it’s going to eventually make the country safer.”

    He made it clear that it may take “a generation,” but new laws could eventually take all guns off the streets.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/san-diegos-top-cop-we-can-disarm-americans-within-a-generation/

  117. #119 by Larry Bergan on January 30, 2013 - 8:46 pm

    You have to hand it to Bob S.:

    He always stays on topic, because he never shows up on any thread that is about guns. ALEC’s “stand your ground” laws are all about guns, but, of course the organization is involved in a plethora of other areas which have been taking away our rights since the early 70′s.

    I spent a week protesting the group when they came to town because I know some of what they’ve been up to. Actually, almost nobody, except members, know what they were doing before the 90′s because it’s a very secretive agenda.

    AND NOW:

    Back to guns!

  118. #120 by cav on January 30, 2013 - 8:48 pm

    A couple of seemingly clearly divided and extreme camps. I don’t believe even with these worst case scenarios the final outcome would do anything but tack up the middle somewhere. But, since I really do not know, I just hope that’s the case.

    Of course, for some, any sacrifice is too much.

  119. #121 by Larry Bergan on January 30, 2013 - 8:54 pm

    By the way Bob S., It’s Heslin, not Hansen.

    Neil Heslin.

  120. #122 by Richard Warnick on January 30, 2013 - 11:20 pm

    Bob S.–

    Yes, the U.S government has infringed on the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus, and continues to do so. No, armed resistance is not a feasible solution.

    You should not wonder why we find Gun Lobby propaganda to be insane.

  121. #123 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 4:32 am

    Larry,

    I wish you had the integrity not to lie but it seems you don’t. I have been involved in many threads here that don’t involve firearms — yet you seem to ignore those.

    I believe it is common etiquette not to highjack a post/comment thread like you are trying to do with ALEC — sorry but I’m not going to be diverted from what I find of primary importance right now.

    I’m impressed that you know and care about ALEC’s secretive agenda — an agenda so secretive it is on Wikipedia.

    Cav,

    I can tell you for many gun owners we are tired of so called ‘compromise’ and yes are taking a stance to prevent more.

    In 1934, we compromised and fully automatic firearms become difficult to obtain. We got nothing.

    In 1967, mail order firearms, interstate sales w/o an FFL, and a whole slew of other laws were passed. We got nothing.

    In 1968, Sporting Purpose — a made up, undefined, unconstitutional term — was introduced and many affordable imported firearms were blocked. We got nothing.
    and the Lautenberg Act
    and The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement
    and The Brady Law
    and The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act

    Time and time again gun owners have compromised away our traditional rights and liberty and gotten nothing in return.
    People wonder why we fight so hard against the slippery slope. We know it is there — we’ve seen it, studied it.

    People wonder why we fight so hard against every ‘compromise’ — because we know; we’ve read their words — that their eventual goal is our disarmament.

    So tell me — just where is the ‘middle ground’ this time?

    Richard,

    I understand your 4 (or 8) years of experience as a tanker gives you insight the rest of us mere mortals don’t have (despite my 4 years military experience) but your opinion is just that.

    First and foremost, as Vietnam showed a country does not have to be defeated militarily now does it?
    Afghanistan both with the Russians and our own forces — ever hear of it?

    So, your true colors are showing here — you don’t mind the government trampling on rights as long as it is rights you don’t use/like.

    I’m not that way. I protest all of them and work to keep them. You would throw our rights under the bus one at a time it seems.

  122. #124 by Cliff on January 31, 2013 - 5:56 am

    Bob S,

    I have not known Larry to lie. The observation that you are primarily concerned, ok obsessed, with the gun thing is accurate in my experience.

    That ALEC cannot have a secret agenda just because there is a Wikipedia page is fallacious and so errant as to render you general reasoning ability suspect.

    As for Richard’s expertise; he is by any standard a top writer/journalist on all things defense, a distinction earned and reflected over YEARS of well researched,exceptionally well-written and sourced articles.

    Re: Cav and “middle ground”; Forget it. Your idea of middle ground is extreme. Brady bill? PLEASE! Democrats were forced to exclude regulation of straw purchases.

    Just look around you Bob S (when not at the gun range or a “meeting.” Only 8% of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT an assault weapons ban. Do you even support background checks?

    The idea that over the past 100 years “we got nothing” is bullshit. Nothing compared to what? What about the epidemic of gun violence.

    I would say 33,000 dead per year in “nothing.” Hell, I GOT NOTHING but more guns in my world. When I go out in public in SLC, I am more afraid I will get hit by a stray bullet because some gun-crazed vigilante has taken it upon himself to stop a drug deal in the Smith’s parking lot, than I am that I will have to surrender my watch to a homeless man wielding a knife.

    Its my right to give up my watch without the interference of you and yourn, than to pack heat everywhere I go.

  123. #125 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 6:34 am

    Cliff,

    I’m not surprised you defend Larry’s blatant lie. I’ve discussed many subjects without bringing up firearms but that doesn’t mean anything to you and him because it doesn’t let you paint me as an extremist.

    I have stated, also many times, that I have decided to discuss primarily firearms related issues here. That is the truth. Saying that any thread I show up on is about guns is a lie. You called Alan Korwin a liar — but it seems that you don’t want your fellow believers called out for their lies. Hypocrisy ?

    As for Richard’s expertise; he is by any standard a top writer/journalist on all things defense, a distinction earned and reflected over YEARS of well researched articles.

    Many authors write well researched articles, papers and books – but not all of them are non-fiction. History is replete with example of larger governments falling to groups armed with only small arms. To ignore that is ridiculous. He states his opinions as if they are fact, does not bother to back up his statements with evidence often and repeats them over and over and over and over and over again. I think he hopes to wear down anyone who opposes him through sheer drudgery.

    My idea of middle ground –

    Only 8% of Americans are NOT in favor of an assault weapons ban. Do you even support background checks?

    Calling you on your lies is not extreme – here is another one. Can you cite the evidence showing your percentage?

    pollingreport_dot-com/guns — only 60%
    http://scvnews.com/2013/01/30/feinstein-poll-shows-mayority-would-ban-assault-weapons/
    69% support a ban

    Or how about this:

    A Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Survey conducted this month suggests such misconceptions are common. After asking the 1,000 respondents if they thought people should be “prohibited from owning assault weapons,” the survey (which is sponsored by my employer, the Reason Foundation) asked half of the sample to “describe an assault weapon.” The answers are illuminating.

    About two-thirds of the respondents described “assault weapons” as guns that fire rapidly, guns that can fire a large number of rounds without reloading, guns with a lot of “power,” or guns used by the military. More than a quarter described them as “machine guns,” “automatics,” or the equivalent (e.g., “multiple rounds with just one pull of the trigger”).

    Overall support for banning “assault weapons” was only 44 percent, considerably lower than the 60 percent or so in recent Gallup and ABC News polls. But there was majority support—53 percent and 59 percent, respectively—among people whose descriptions of “assault weapons” emphasized rate of fire (including those who mistakenly described them as machine guns) or ammunition capacity.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/30/reason-poll-67-think-assault-weapons-ban-will-have-no-impact-on-school-shootings/

    The idea that over the past 100 years “we got nothing” is bullshit. Nothing compared to what? What about the epidemic of gun violence.

    I guess your reading comprehension failure syndrome is flaring up – either that or you are deliberately twisting what I said.

    I said we got nothing out of the compromise. And as far are you getting more guns around you, let’s talk about that.

    More guns — yet fewer firearm related deaths over the years.
    More guns, yet fewer firearm related crimes.
    In fact, over the years crime has been trending down as more and more states liberalize concealed carry, open carry and firearm laws in general.

    Isn’t it hard to argue that gun control laws work to reduce crime and death as you complain that more and more people are carrying guns yet the death toll has been decreasing?

    Its my right to give up my watch without the interference of you and yourn, than to pack heat everywhere I go.

    Then you’ll have no trouble living up to your values and principles then, right?

    I challenge you to wear a sign stating that you are unarmed and want no armed citizens to aid you if you are the victim of a crime.

    Willing to do it Bub?

  124. #126 by Cliff Lyon on January 31, 2013 - 6:51 am

    Bob S,

    You pretend as if justice begins and ends at the point of a gun. 90% of all crimes are non-violent and subject to the law-enforcement / justice process as gun-related crimes.

    I and my friends and family are MUCH safer without a gun AND without my watch, than I am confronting someone who wants my watch (or mandolin) WITH a gun.

    Please argue the above it you disagree. Remember, I do not accept the premise that being a victim of a crime is worse than EITHER getting shot OR shooting someone else.

    The new national poll showing 92% support assault weapon ban is brand new. I will find it for you.

    Re: Singular correlations between guns and gun violence is an utterly flawed method that cannot stand up to the weakest acceptable statistical method. You embarrass yourself to suggest otherwise. To exclude the time factor renders you subject to claims of fraud.

  125. #127 by Cliff Lyon on January 31, 2013 - 6:58 am

    Correction. Only 8% of Americans do not support universal Background checks.

    PS: Bob S., In the future, if Larry hurts your feelings, lets take it off-line, so OneUtah’s readers are not subject to your emotions. Call me next time (801) 555-1111.

  126. #128 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 7:24 am

    Cliff,

    I pretend nothing. Don’t try to set up a straw man argument with me here. Aren’t you the one who insists we are ‘talking guns here’.

    90% of all crimes are non-violent and subject to the law-enforcement / justice process as gun-related crimes.

    Do you want to explain that because I’m not following you.

    If a firearm is used it is considered a ‘violent crime’ by definition isn’t it?

    Are most crimes non-violent, yes.
    Are most violent crimes firearm related, no.

    You are proving my point. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says that the percentage of firearm related crime is less than 10%

    As a percentage of all violent incidents, nonfatal gun crime has fallen below 10 percent, from 11 percent in 1994 to 9 percent in 2005. These crimes include rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault.

    http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

    So — as more guns are carried, crime is falling. Doesn’t that make you worry less?

    If not, no problems. You worry and react the way you want to. All I ask is you stop trying to tell me and those like me how we have to react to the same news.
    Yes, it is unlikely I will ever be a victim of a violent crime but the consequences are high if I am. So I chose, rationally, ethically, and legally, to carry a firearm in my defense.

    Remember, I do not accept the premise that being a victim of a crime is worse than EITHER getting shot OR shooting someone else.

    That is your opinion and your right to live to your principles.
    However, it is a false dichotomy you are you setting up. Every study of Defensive Gun Uses (whether you believe only 108,000 per year or more) indicates the same thing.

    Most Defensive Gun Uses result in the crime being stopped without a shot being fired. Many are resolved without the gun being brandished — simply stating “I’m armed, don’t come any closer” etc.

    Some are stopped with the firearm being pulled and far fewer result in shots being fired.

    Many people with firearms go out of their way to avoid crime/problem areas and some, despite having the option to do otherwise, still allow the criminal to escape/complete the crime and take their property.

    So your either or scenario is false.

    Re: Singular correlations between guns and gun violence is an utterly flawed method that cannot stand up to the weakest acceptable statistical method. You embarrass yourself to suggest otherwise. To exclude the time factor renders you subject to claims of fraud.

    Strange, I’m not the one pushing ‘gun control’ as a way to reduce crime. Who is doing that again?

    YOU ARE.

    Want to talk about poverty reduction, education, mental health system improvements, getting rid of the stupid “War on (Some) Drugs”, strengthening the family, jobs, keeping violent criminals in jail – I’ve done that here and else where.
    What is your solution to crime — gun control.

  127. #129 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 7:27 am

    Cliff Lyon :
    Correction. Only 8% of Americans do not support universal Background checks.
    PS: Bob S., In the future, if Larry hurts your feelings, lets take it off-line, so OneUtah’s readers are not subject to your emotions. Call me next time (801) 555-1111.

    Larry didn’t hurt my feelings. Sorry but you aren’t going to get my goat that way.

    I’m simply following your example, ala Alan Korwin, of calling out liars for the sake of calling out liars.

    The question I have is simple; why do you let people, like Richard and Larry, who have been shown to lie repeatedly continue to contribute to your site as authors?

  128. #130 by Cliff Lyon on January 31, 2013 - 7:28 am

    btw: Bob S.

    Nowhere in the Constitution and certainly not in the second amendment is there any mention of a right to self-defense.

    I can’t recall that subject even being mentioned in the Federalist papers.

    On the other hand, the Founders did discuss the concept of national/collective security and to that end, deliberated the subject of standing armies and regulated state militias. And again, only is the realm of a collective defense.

    Please understand, I am not saying people should not be able to defend themselves, but it is a tricky subject.

    For instance, mining, farming, testing of bombs et al. have long subjected people to poisoning and premature death. The pursuit of justice in these matters illuminates for us where the assumption of a right of self-defense leads when pursued in the judicial system…which it has been.

  129. #131 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 7:50 am

    Cliff,

    First, you are wrong. While not called out by name, the Right of Self Defense is covered in the 9th Amendment.

    Second, it doesn’t have to be mentioned in the Constitution. I think you, like many liberals, believe the Constitution is the source of our rights. It isn’t.
    It is the source of the powers and authority of the government. Read the Federalist papers again — see how they took particular care to limit the powers of the government to what was listed.

    So if it wasn’t listed as a power or authority, the government had no power or authority to control it.

    Pretty simple concept for most people.

    Please understand, I am not saying people should not be able to defend themselves, but it is a tricky subject.

    I understand you are saying people should be able to defend themselves.
    What I don’t understand is why you want people who choose to do so subject to the laws of the jungle, where the stronger prevails over the weak.

    Every effort you support will make it harder for the infirm, the weaker, the sick, the elderly to defend themselves.

    Training requirements — no evidence that it affects the outcomes in civilian shootings but it increases the cost and hassling of getting a firearm or carry permit.

    Why do you not want the poor to be able to defend themselves?

    “May issue licensing” — have to be politically, socially or economically connected to the powers elite in order to get a license.

    Why do you not want the average joe to be able to defend himself?

    For instance, mining, farming, testing of bombs et al. have long subjected people to poisoning and premature death.

    And my firearms have not subjected anyone to poisoning or premature death but you want to remove some of them from my possession. Why is that?

    If I misbehave, I’m subject to the same judicial system that lets criminals walk the streets, right?

  130. #132 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 7:54 am

    Cliff,

    By the way, are you willing to live your values and announce to the world that you are unarmed and don’t want gun owners to help you ?

  131. #133 by cav on January 31, 2013 - 8:59 am

    There are those among us who have made it many many years, without packing, and it wasn’t necessarily because gun owners did their defense for them.

    So, until we’re all mandated to carry assault weapons, despite having no spare cash for bullets – I got nuthin’

  132. #134 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2013 - 9:06 am

    Interesting discussion. Of course, for Bob S. “self defense” includes the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. That’s what I would call a non-starter. One word: Fallujah (everybody in that city had an AK-47, and how did things turn out for them?)

  133. #135 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 9:16 am

    Cav,

    Ever here of the “Free Rider” effect?
    Here is a simple illustration. Let’s say someone is willing to steal a M&M’s from a bowl on the counter.

    But there is a slight problem; one of the M&Ms isn’t like the others; it has been doctored with a substance that can cause harm.

    Now….how many crooks are willing to take a chance?
    Some will always be willing to take a chance but some will not, right?

    Even if you receive no benefit from the carrying of firearms, is there evidence you have been harmed?

    I think that Concealed or Open Carry alone will not, and did not, reduce crime but was part of an overall package that affected crime rates.
    I’ve asked repeatedly for someone to explain why Chicago, with draconian gun control laws in a restrictive state, has a higher homicide rate than Fort Worth Texas. Surely if ‘gun availability’ was a factor; guns are easier to obtain in Texas right?

    Texas tracks crimes committed by Concealed License Holders — the results are published every year on the Texas Department of Public Safety’s website.

    Not once since 1995 when the CHL law went into affect did convictions of license holders go over 0.5% of all convictions.

    So, we have evidence that, even more so then the average joe like you, licensed gun owners are law abiding.

    We don’t want to force you to carry anything you don’t want to. That is a straw man argument set up by the antis like Cliff.

    We just want the liberty to exercise our rights — makes you wonder what part of that people like Cliff has a problem with?
    Liberty or Rights eh.

  134. #136 by cav on January 31, 2013 - 10:40 am

    Richard, I have no doubt BobS is quite able to respond to this, but I cannot hold back. (what’s new?)

    I’m quite certain he’s not advocating a violent overthrow of any government. It is, after all, our government, however flawed.

    In addition to so many other things, I hear him saying that, being as our ‘government’ has committed and continues to commit atrocities, world round, should there ever be a need to fight off murderous atrocities like we saw in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq (Fallujah), to name but a few – should our government ever decide to do something similar here, (we cannot overlook Waco) it is his (their) intention to at the very least, resist. if not prevail. That’s an intention, legal, understood in almost any context.That’s defensive, in my humble dirty fricking hippie opinion. And while it may be futile in the end, due to the asymmetry of it all, it’s a clarion call reflecting a citizen’s rights.

    That, on top of all of the other uses of guns he has articulated.

    Sadly, these sorts of ‘shooting revolutions’ are often as much a feature as a ‘bug’ in the present structure despite the wishes of overwhelming numbers of the manipulated class.

    Which brings me back to weapons manufacturers.

    And, I believe I recently declared ‘I got nuthin’. Perhaps that is truer than I know.

  135. #137 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 10:53 am

    Richard,

    Clue me in please. Fallujah isn’t a singular event now is it?

    Cav answered quite well and I’ll expand on that when you expand your comment.

  136. #138 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2013 - 11:15 am

    Bob S.–

    There are no “free riders.” More like being thrown under the bus. The more guns in your neighborhood, the more gun violence. I used to live in an apartment. And on the news, there are always stories of some guy playing with a firearm who ends up shooting someone in the apartment upstairs or next door.

    If not the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, what are you advocating? And to coin a phrase, resistance is futile. You ought to know this as well as anybody. Nobody cares about Waco and Ruby Ridge, either, it wasn’t heroism but stupidity.

  137. #139 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 12:01 pm

    Richard,

    You are using yet another logical fallacy – Misleading vividness – evidence as shown by the C.D.C. and FBI and just about every other reliable source is showing firearm related violence, accidents, injuries and deaths trending downward over the decades.

    I think Cav said it well. Since you have problems reading apparently, I’ll quote him again

    In addition to so many other things, I hear him saying that, being as our ‘government’ has committed and continues to commit atrocities, world round, should there ever be a need to fight off murderous atrocities like we saw in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq (Fallujah), to name but a few – should our government ever decide to do something similar here, (we cannot overlook Waco) it is his (their) intention to at the very least, resist. if not prevail. That’s an intention, legal, understood in almost any context.That’s defensive, in my humble dirty fricking hippie opinion. And while it may be futile in the end, due to the asymmetry of it all, it’s a clarion call reflecting a citizen’s rights.

    Resistance is futile – I find it hilarious that you are quoting a science fiction show to make a point. Tell the Vietnamese people that resistance was futile or Hey…how about telling all those dead old fat white guys back in 1770s that resistance was futile.

    You state your opinion without offering counter evidence.

    Or how about something from fairly recent history

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

  138. #140 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2013 - 12:18 pm

    Bob S.–

    Overall gun violence is declining, along with overall gun ownership. However it’s still true that more guns correlate with more gun violence.

    I never tire of pointing out to gun advocates that the 18th Century has been over for quite some time now. As for the Vietnamese people, millions of them died and millions more became refugees. Is that the fate you wish for your fellow Americans?

    Thanks for the “Battle of Athens” link. I don’t keep up with Gun Lobby propaganda, so I’d never heard of it. I read it when I have time.

  139. #141 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 12:56 pm

    President Obama has called for stricter federal gun laws to combat recent shooting rampages, but a review of recent state laws by The Washington Times shows no discernible correlation between stricter rules and lower gun-crime rates in the states.

    States that ranked high in terms of making records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System also tended to have tighter gun laws — but their gun-crime rates ranged widely. The same was true for states that ranked poorly on disclosure and were deemed to have much less stringent gun-possession laws.

    For example, New York, even before it approved the strictest gun-control measures in the country last week, was ranked fourth among the states in strength of gun laws by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, but was also in the top 10 in firearm homicide rates in 2011, according to the FBI.

    Meanwhile, North Dakota was near the bottom in its firearm homicide, firearm robbery and firearm assault rates, but also had some of the loosest gun laws and worst compliance with turning over mental health records to the background check system.

    Analysts said the data underscore that there are no simple or easy broad answers to combating gun violence, which is a complex equation involving gun-ownership rates, how ready authorities are to prosecute gun crimes and how widely they ban ownership.

    Now wasn’t Cliff saying something about associating just one factor with crime — even ‘gun crime’ funny how you have to restrict your cherry picked statistics to just ‘gun’ crime, eh Richard.

    I’m sure the people who are robbed, raped or murdered by a criminal without a firearm feel so much better about it, right?

  140. #142 by cav on January 31, 2013 - 12:57 pm

    Fallujah was resistance to an invasion. They didn’t submit quite fast enough, so they had to be slaughtered. Again, we thank the Bush admin..

  141. #143 by cav on January 31, 2013 - 1:45 pm

    I need a nap in the sunlight. I might come back.

  142. #144 by brewski on January 31, 2013 - 1:53 pm

    “I find it hilarious that you are quoting a science fiction show to make a point.”
    Richard loves fiction. He quotes Rachel Maddow all the time.

  143. #145 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2013 - 3:00 pm

    I love science fiction. But there’s so much on TV/movies now, it’s hard to keep up with it all.

    The Washington Times got it wrong. The Atlantic’s Richard Florida got it right (emphasis added):

    Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

    The Washington Times used the by-now-very-tired-old trick of only counting gun homicides, not suicides or accidents.

  144. #146 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 3:25 pm

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFHuqdhc8CQ&version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0

    Let’s see if this embeds or if it will make it through the spam filter

  145. #147 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 3:26 pm

    Richard,

    Re: Singular correlations between guns and gun violence is an utterly flawed method that cannot stand up to the weakest acceptable statistical method. You embarrass yourself to suggest otherwise. To exclude the time factor renders you subject to claims of fraud.

  146. #148 by Larry Bergan on January 31, 2013 - 7:12 pm

    Bob S.:

    I didn’t attempt to tell a lie. My memory is definitely not photographic and you have been absent for a long time on this blog until the gun issue hit the fan recently. I’m not going to say you never discussed other issues here, but I don’t remember.

    However, above, you alluded to knowing something about ALEC and then say that because it has a Wikipedia page, everybody has known what that organization has been doing all along. It was disingenuous for you to say that.

    I still think it would be an excellent topic which is perfect for this thread, but you obviously don’t want to go there. I wanted to bring it up because, like every other REALLY BIG issue that comes up, it has disappeared. In fact ALL of the media were willing to bring up Trayvon and his killer, but almost totally ignored ALEC’s complicity in the matter.

  147. #149 by Larry Bergan on January 31, 2013 - 7:36 pm

    I think it’s funny that brewski and Bob S. constantly call Richard a liar. The fact that I have been called a liar now, makes me feel sort of important. :)

    Richard deserves a job in the publishing business somewhere. His posts are important and the research he puts into them is impeccable. His comments always hit the nail on the head and are often very funny.

    I figure I’m here because I sometimes go up and cause trouble on Capitol Hill from time to time, when I get a chance. It gets harder as I get older and I should try harder, but it seems like every issue I tackle just fizzles out somehow.

    I have to admit, these wingers are good at what they do, but they have funding and we little people DO NOT!

    Not to leave Shane, Glenden, Cliff and a sea of other very intelligent and thoughtful people who have posted here.

    We need more great commenters like cav, who tend to stay around, but what can you do.

  148. #150 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2013 - 8:25 pm

    Larry–

    I’ve been involved at a low level in two winning electoral campaigns (both for Republicans BTW), and a losing one (also Republican – McCain vs. Bush in 2000).

    I’m grateful to have been involved in the successful lobbying for the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, because I joined up with a terrific bunch of people at the Utah Wilderness Association at just the right time.

    All my other lobbying efforts have been a failure. I usually don’t even try to lobby the Utah legislature, because the hearings up there are so tightly controlled all I can do is sit in the back of the room (you have to get there early).

    I have to admire the sheer determination of anyone who tries to make democracy work in Utah.

  149. #151 by Bob S. on January 31, 2013 - 8:33 pm

    Larry,

    Let me address your comments point by point.

    I didn’t attempt to tell a lie. My memory is definitely not photographic and you have been absent for a long time on this blog until the gun issue hit the fan recently.

    While I visit this site often and do comment on other issues, I have made no effort to hide the fact my main focus here is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. However — this is important, it doesn’t take a photographic memory to do a little basic research or read the recent comments list and find where I’ve commented lately.
    Also, you might consider that I have a blog of my own and often discuss many issues there. I find it interesting that so few, if any authors here, have ever ventured out of their safe zone to discuss things there.

    Cliff said Richard is a ‘journalist’ and by extension since you are an author here, aren’t you one also?
    If you are going to hang out as a ‘journalist’ do what it takes to be one.
    Second, if you state something as an opinion I may challenge you on that but I won’t call you a liar. When you state something as a bald fact, I will call you on your lies. You, Richard and Cliff have done the same thing to others.

    Do you think you deserve more respect than what you give?

    However, above, you alluded to knowing something about ALEC and then say that because it has a Wikipedia page, everybody has known what that organization has been doing all along. It was disingenuous for you to say that.

    You seem to be twisting or misremembering what I wrote. Maybe you should work on some memory exercises.

    I told you I was not familiar with ALEC and pointed out that an organization with a ‘secret agenda’ had a wikipedia page spelling out that very agenda.

    I still think it would be an excellent topic which is perfect for this thread, but you obviously don’t want to go there. In fact ALL of the media were willing to bring up Trayvon and his killer, but almost totally ignored ALEC’s complicity in the matter.

    I find it interesting that you, who have posting privileges, aren’t interested in starting another thread on the subject but want to highjack another author’s post. Isn’t that poor etiquette?

    Next, Don’t you think it is a little premature to determine if ALEC is complicit in a crime until there is proof that Zimmerman (and not Trayvon) committed a crime?

    There is substantial media bias in the issue — from the edited 911 call to a near complete lack of coverage of Trayvon’s past behaviour. Funny how Zimmerman’s past behavior ( domestic violence charges that were dropped) is relevant but Trayvon’s probably drug use, fighting and burglary history isn’t.

    Richard deserves a job in the publishing business somewhere. His posts are important and the research he puts into them is impeccable. His comments always hit the nail on the head and are often very funny.

    Richard may research his articles but as I’ve noted repeatedly he doesn’t put the same effort into his comments. I don’t expect people to believe just my word on statistics, facts or data — I cite my sources and provide links often. Can you truly say that Richard does the same level of research?

    I have pointed out his repeated use of logical fallacies (misleading vivid event, vigorous assertion, etc) and repeatedly asked for links. He provides a few but usually just one.

    It gets harder as I get older and I should try harder, but it seems like every issue I tackle just fizzles out somehow.

    Maybe that should tell you something, eh? How about examining whether or not the issues you are focused on really matters in the long run.

    I have to admit, these wingers are good at what they do, but they have funding and we little people DO NOT!

    Isn’t it always the case, I’m glad I’m so bloody rich. Oh Wait. I’m not. I’m just a little people myself. You can make excuse or you can make progress. I guess you need to decide which you want.

    We need more great commenters like cav, who tend to stay around, but what can you do.

    Might want to consider how commenters are treated around here. Do you want an echo chamber or do you want to have intelligent debate.
    Cav is a great commenter but if you folks treat most people like I’m treated, it is no wonder they don’t stick around.
    I do it because a.) I’m stubborn and b.) I’m talking to your audience, not necessarily just you.
    I would love to convince you of my views, I truly would but I find most people like you, Richard, or Cliff are too set in your views to change.

    Think I’m joking. I’ll use Richard’s own words to make my point.

    Thanks for the “Battle of Athens” link. I don’t keep up with Gun Lobby propaganda, so I’d never heard of it. I read it when I have time.

    Let’s deconstruct that statement –

    1. He calls it “Gun Lobby propaganda”.
    2. He admits he has never heard of it before this.
    3. He admits he has not read it.

    So before he knows the facts of what happened, he seems to have already dismissed it as ‘propaganda’.

    How’s that for someone whose research is impeccable?

  150. #152 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2013 - 9:55 pm

    Bob S.–

    I note that you continue to ignore the numerous studies that prove the obvious – where there are more firearms, more people get shot. Instead, you pointed out truthfully, but irrelevantly, that gun violence has declined overall. Since you claim I don’t provide links, here is yet another link for you:

    10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

    The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership.

    You linked to “The Battle of Athens” on Wikipedia without making any particular point. I did quickly read as far as the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article, where it says:

    The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.

    But the rest of the article doesn’t really make that argument, although it’s an interesting story of crusading WW II veterans that reminds me of the plot of the hit movie “Gangster Squad.”

  151. #153 by Larry Bergan on January 31, 2013 - 11:09 pm

    Bob S.:

    No, I absolutely do not consider myself to be a journalist, but I get terribly embarrassed when I post something that isn’t truthful. Wish Fox “news” would.

    So your comment:

    I’m impressed that you know and care about ALEC’s secretive agenda — an agenda so secretive it is on Wikipedia.

    Which seemed awfully sarcastic to me and appeared to be making fun of my knowledge of ALEC’s secrecy, turns into:

    I told you I was not familiar with ALEC and pointed out that an organization with a ‘secret agenda’ had a wikipedia page spelling out that very agenda.

    Come on Bob S., you were defending ALEC there, weren’t you?

    If you want respect from me, you’ll stop acting like a politician trying to get out of something.

  152. #154 by Larry Bergan on January 31, 2013 - 11:23 pm

    Bob S.:

    I wouldn’t say ALEC was complicit in a crime; I would say ALEC was complicit in a LOT of crimes.

    From “Pro Publica”:

    But as a recent Tampa Bay Times investigation indicates, the Martin incident is far from the only example of the law’s reach in Florida. The paper identified nearly 200 instances since 2005 where the state’s Stand Your Ground law has played a factor in prosecutors’ decisions, jury acquittals or a judge’s call to throw out the charges. (Not all the cases involved killings. Some involved assaults where the person didn’t die.)

    The law removes a person’s duty to retreat before using deadly force against another in any place he has the legal right to be – so long as he reasonably believed he or someone else faced imminent death or great bodily harm. Among the Stand Your Ground cases identified by the paper, defendants went free nearly 70 percent of the time.

    Notice how many guns were involved in these tragedies. That is just ONE STATE that has ALEC’s loosened gun laws.

    I’m not saying all of these people who walked were wealthy, but it’s undeniable that the effect would be to make it easier for rich people to get out of hurting or killing somebody.

  153. #155 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 6:15 am

    Richard,

    Correlation is not causation.

    To disprove the notion that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” the piece notes that there’s a correlation on the state level between gun ownership and gun deaths. Aside from the fact that correlation is not causation, and the fact that it’s misguided to evaluate gun control based solely on its effects on gun homicides, the major problem here is that the graph seems to include suicides. The two states with the highest gun ownership, Wyoming and Montana, also have high rates of gun deaths — but they have murder rates significantly below the national average. It seems likely to me that gun ownership increases the chance of suicide, but I don’t think the common understanding of the “kill people” in “guns don’t kill people” includes suicides.

    Take away firearms and people still find a way to commit suicide, it is called the substitution effect. Look at Japan, very few guns and a suicide rate that is astronomical. Many other countries have suicide rates higher then ours also, Many other countries also have homicide — even firearm related homicide rates higher then ours.

    Correlation is not causation — http://www.paradigmpr.ca/index.php/our-clients/case-studies/schick-quattro-for-women

    And why do you continue to focus only on firearms. I thought you wanted to reduce crime and death.

    Guess I was wrong. You only seem to want to reduce ‘gun death’, eh. Guess you don’t care that others die by poisoning or stabbing or fist/feet — as long as they don’t die by a gun are you happy?

    Larry,

    Yes I was being very sarcastic in my comment. I was not defending ALEC I was poking fun at your conspiracy theories. You have to admit you are out there on many of them.

    Please explain to me – in simply terms because I’m a simple guy — exactly what you want instead of a “Stand your ground law”.

    Honestly, Please top post it and make it a separate thread. I promise to comment on it.
    Because I don’t get it. I honestly don’t understand the mindset that says a person should have to run away instead of defending himself or herself.

    That a person should be forced to abandon her home to a burglar or rapist instead of using self defense.

    So explain to me what you want people to do. Meekly submit to who ever demands money, sex, their life?

  154. #156 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 8:00 am

    Bob S –

    I’ve taken statistics courses, so of course I’m familiar with the difference between correlation and causation. But I notice you aren’t actually trying to deny that more guns = more gun deaths.

    The reason we are focused on firearms, is that mass shootings are made easier by semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines. America is not experiencing a surge in mass poisonings, for example.

  155. #157 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 8:14 am

    Yes, Richard I am denying it.

    There are a couple of things going on here.
    First, there is evidence contradicting your claim – and since your claim is the basis for the infringement of my rights showing that contradictory evidence is enough.

    Second — stop focusing on just ‘gun deaths’. It is a made up statistic that is absolutely invalid. Are you truly saying that no other deaths matter?
    Are you saying that lives saved by the use of guns don’t matter? Rapes stopped don’t matter?

    The reason we are focused on firearms, is that mass shootings are made easier by semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines

    That is your opinion. It could be that mass shootings are made easier by people like you trying to disarm everyone else. Ever notice the trend that “mass shootings” primarily happen in ‘gun free zones’?

    Zones where people are legally obligated to not carry firearms.
    But where people are allowed to carry firearms; the rate of victims in shootings decrease.

    Your singular fixation on the negative blinds you to the reality of other factors it appears.

    While you may be familiar with correlation is not causation NOTHING you’ve shown indicates causation. So why do you repeatedly point to simple correlation. The Schick Index correlates with stock market fluctuations doesn’t it?
    So according to your logic if we simply mandated hemlines rise we could improve the economy.

    Your logic fails.

  156. #158 by brewski on February 1, 2013 - 8:39 am

    “I’ve taken statistics courses, so of course I’m familiar with the difference between correlation and causation.”

    I am waiting for evidence of this.

  157. #159 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 9:08 am

    Bob S.–

    (1) There is nothing that contradicts the obvious correlation more guns = more gun violence. Only by cherry-picking homicides can you muddy up the stats. When I was in the Army, we kept weapons locked up in the arms room when not signed out for training, because that was the safest place for them.

    (2) Nobody supporting gun safety legislation is proposing any “infringement” whatsoever of anyone’s constitutional rights.

    (3) Sure, deaths from all causes matter. You ought to be concerned that in 10 states in 2009 the gun death rate was higher than the automobile death rate, despite much higher rates of car ownership.

    (4) Do you have evidence that mass shootings happen in so-called “gun-free zones”? There was a police officer assigned to Columbine High School. Another officer was on scene quickly. Both exchanged fire with one of the shooters. Did you know that gun shows prohibit visitors from bringing in loaded firearms?

    (5) If I’m fixated on the negative effects of guns, what are the positives? I don’t count planning the violent overthrow of the government as a positive, by the way.

  158. #160 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 9:29 am

    Richard,

    1. Support your statement or retract it.
    If your opinion is correct, then how to you explain this information here — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    El Salvador, Jamaica, Honduras, even Mexico — all with fewer firearms then America yet decidely more gun violence and death.

    2. STOP LYING – If a person has a right to privacy, tell that person they have to check with the state before they can buy or sell a legal product is an infringement on my rights.
    Diane Feinstein’s bill would make it illegal for me to pass down ownership of my private legally owned property to my heirs – that is an infringement on my right.
    You may not FEEL it is an infringement on my rights but as the Supreme Court has decided twice in recent years that keeping people from possessing an entire class of weapons in an infringement of our Constitutionally protected rights, your argument is simply false.

    3. And more people are killed by fist, feet or other object than are rifles — should we ban those?

    I find it contradictory you want to protect cars — that nationally are involved in more deaths and injuries to people then firearms. Stop cherry picking your data set.

    The map above charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes. As of 2007, 10.2 out of every 100,000 people were killed by firearms across the United States, but that rate varies dramatically from state to state. In Hawaii, at the low end, it was 2.6 per 100,000; in New York and New Jersey it was 5.0 and 5.2 respectively. At the high end, 21.7 out of every 100,000 residents of the District of Columbia were killed by guns, 20.2 in Louisiana, 18.5 in Mississippi, and 17.8 in Alaska. Arizona ranked eighth nationally, with 15.1 deaths per 100,000.
    ….
    So what are the factors that are associated with firearm deaths at the state level?

    Poverty is one. The correlation between death by gun and poverty at the state level is .59.

    An economy dominated by working class jobs is another. Having a high percentage of working class jobs is closely associated with firearm deaths (.55).

    And, not surprisingly, firearm-related deaths are positively correlated with the rates of high school students that carry weapons on school property (.54).

    What about politics? It’s hard to quantify political rhetoric, but we can distinguish blue from red states. Taking the voting patterns from the 2008 presidential election, we found a striking pattern: Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66). Though this association is likely to infuriate many people, the statistics are unmistakable. Partisan affiliations alone cannot explain them; most likely they stem from two broader, underlying factors – the economic and employment makeup of the states and their policies toward guns and gun ownership.

    Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with higher levels of college graduates (-.64) and more creative class jobs (-.52).

    Gun deaths were also less likely in states with higher levels of economic development (with a correlation of -.32 to economic output) and higher levels of happiness and well-being (-.41).

    And for all the terrifying talk about violence-prone immigrants, states with more immigrants have lower levels of gun-related deaths (the correlation between the two being -.34).

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

    You want to reduce gun deaths — reduce poverty — I notice you still aren’t giving all your fair share to that effort, right. So you personally can be held responsible for the higher death rates.

  159. #161 by Cliff Lyon on February 1, 2013 - 9:30 am

    Hey Bob S,

    Tell ya what. Make a list of all the ways we try to reduce rape or the myriad of risks that kill people. Pick like any three (Hint: I would avoid transportation, public buildings, industrial accidents and public facilities as these lists will require more time than you have left).

    Then, make me a list of all the rules and laws we’ve implemented to reduce gun violence (hint: this one wont take long)

    Then stop whining.

  160. #162 by brewski on February 1, 2013 - 9:30 am

    Richard, whenever you use the word “obvious” I hold my breath for whatever the next thing that comes. You can conclude that more guns = more violence. But one could easily conclude that more violence = more guns. Or maybe more precisely, more people committed to violence = more guns. So you might have your correlation backwards.

    Sort of like my favorite correlation, higher ratings for “Dr Quinn Medicine Woman” = less crime. Does watching Dr Quinn Medicine Woman lead people to commit fewer crimes? Or is it the other way around? Or is it something else?

    I was born and raised in L.A. You know, just like in my favorite movie “Colors”. There is no way that passing a law banning guns or banning some types of guns or banning high capacity magazines is going to make one whit of difference to gangs or criminals. They will gets their guns anyway. Not like they are concerned with the niceties of the law.

  161. #163 by cav on February 1, 2013 - 9:37 am

    Neither do the ‘niceties of law’ have much impact on our Overlords. But, now that I think of it, that’s all probably a result of gang-banger hard-headedness.

  162. #164 by Cliff Lyon on February 1, 2013 - 9:39 am

    Bob S. When you are done with that ^^^, lets talk about banning assault feet.

    Preview of discussion:

    1. Well trained foot killer can immobilize his victim in under 60 seconds.

    2. Leg strength can increase foot lethality giving the criminal an unfair advantage.

    3. At what level of fire power is the average foot lethal?

    4. Should be ban golf shoes? Nowhere in 2A does it mention putters.

    3.

  163. #165 by cav on February 1, 2013 - 9:42 am

    6. Strangling on one’s own foot.

  164. #166 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 9:46 am

    Richard,

    I would really appreciate it if you didn’t stealthy edit your comments. When I started my reply your comment at #160 only had 4 points, now it has 5. Isn’t it a little unethical do to so?

    To address your points

    #4 — Gun free zone refers to the fact that the average person can not carry a firearm in that location.
    Not that the cops can’t. Most every state (except for the screw up in New York State) law concerning carrying of firearms exempts law enforcement officers.

    Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

    Now please refute the facts not John Lott. I know you don’t like the man but the fact is what matters, right?

    Here is some more information
    The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

    The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33
    http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

    And for the positive benefits.
    Well, there is that little thing called Self Defense – Are you against that?
    I mean if it saves just one life we should do everything we can right?

    Works well on the Right to Keep and Bear arms.Not to mention the number rapes stopped — are you wanting to increase the number of people raped each year?

    Then there is hunting — managing wildlife, paying millions and millions of taxes

    Beyer said that, from 1939 through federal fiscal year 2012, Pittman-Robertson funds have provided the states and territories with $7.2 billion for wildlife conservation, restoration and hunter education.

    Correction, make that BILLIONS of dollars

    and lastly and not least, there is the sheer fun of shooting. MILLIONs of people each and every year – monthly really, enjoy recreational shooting.

  165. #167 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 9:50 am

    Cliff,

    Make a list of the things the Government isn’t supposed to infringe upon.

    Shouldn’t take you long.

  166. #168 by cav on February 1, 2013 - 10:03 am

    “Condemned to drift or else be kept from drifting.”

  167. #169 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 10:05 am

    Bob S.–

    It takes me a while to finish writing comments sometimes. I’m at work, and can’t ignore stuff that comes up in the office.

    Here’s a list of 33 mass shootings since 1975 that took place in locations where everyone was allowed to carry firearms.

    In addition to Lott, I hope we can agree that John Fund has no credibility. He’s a professional liar, in fact.

    Here’s an intelligent piece
    that discusses Lott and the Gun Lobby premise that it’s a good idea to encourage citizens to arm themselves in anticipation of a shooting rampage.

    Is it the “sheer fun of shooting” that the Gun Lobby promotes, or are they trying to make people live in fear?

  168. #170 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 10:13 am

    Richard,

    You are attacking the person, not the facts.
    Typical technique when you can not or will not refute the facts.

    I would request a favor. I spent considerable effort to answer your questions and concerns. However I notice you often ignore mine.

    Given that if the Right to Keep and Bear arms can save even just one life, shouldn’t we do all we can to encourage it?

    Please answer that question.

  169. #171 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 10:19 am

    Bob S.–

    If you would be more patient, I could finish writing my comments before you reply to them. I linked to a list of 33 mass shootings that conclusively disproves Lott’s false claim that almost every such incident since 1950 took place in a so-called “gun-free zone.”

    On balance, the more guns there are the more people are going to get shot. That’s a public health issue. With regard to mass shootings, these are comparatively rare, attention-getting events but the availability of mass-murder weapons and large-capacity magazines seems to be a contributing factor. So let’s do the right thing.

    Former Rep. Giffords:

    “Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important.

    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. Thank you.”

    BTW there was an armed bystander present at the Tucson mass shooting, but the incident was ended by an unarmed person when the shooter stopped to reload.

    By the way, if we had the wisdom and foresight to allow natural predators such as wolves, coyotes, and mountain lions to play their ecological role, there would be no need for “wildlife management” via hunting. That’s a whole other issue, of course. Hunters have the same attitude as gun rights activists, they think they own the whole freaking world.

  170. #172 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 12:02 pm

    Okay Richard,

    You asked for it. Let’s go through your list of 33 mass shootings -

    1975 – Easter Sunday Massacre – James Urban Ruppert murdered 11 family members in his mother’s house at 635 Minor Avenue in Hamilton, Ohio.

    Valid criticism. Reminds people of the need to carry at home. Washington D.C. and Chicago only recently changed their laws allowing people to own firearms in their own homes. But the common perception of mass shootings is in public….I won’t quibble though

    1982 – George Emil Banks, a former Camp Hill prison guard, shot 13 people to death in Wilkes-Barre City and Jenkins Township, Pennsylvania, including five of his own children.

    Hmm, state sponsored criminal here but lets not focus on a government employee going crazy. And more of a spree killer — mass usually means 4 or more at 1 location — then mass murderer.

    But what gun control law would have stopped him?

    1985 – Springfield Mall, PA, Sylvia Seegrist killed 3, injured 7, was stopped by unarmed mall store employee who thought her gun wasn’t real.

    Doesn’t not meet definition of 4 or murdered but let’s not quibble. So your answer to stopping a murderer is to have unarmed guards confront them?

    1987 – Ronald Gene Simmons, Sr., (July 15, 1940 – June 25, 1990) was a retired United States Air Force master sergeant who killed 16 people over a weeklong period in 1987. Fourteen of the victims were members of his family, including a daughter he had sexually abused and the child he had fathered with her. He also wounded four others, Arkansas.

    Again a spree killer, family arrived separately, others were kill at widely spread locations.
    And half his victims he strangled or drowned. So again — not sure if this qualifies but points out that people need to carry at family homes and work doesn’t it?

    1993 – Branch Davidians mass murder of numerous members in compound by firearm to prevent flight when building caught on fire. Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14.

    The Branch Davidians — really? You are including this in a list of Mass Murderers that could be stopped by gun control laws? Wasn’t the ATF there to arrest them for breaking those laws?

    2000 – Whicita Horror/Massacre, spree perpetrated by brothers Reginald and Jonathan Carr, killing 5 and wounding a 5th over a period several days including committing assault, rape, and robbery.

    Spree killing not mass murder. If you want to look at that, tell me how gun control law is working out in Chicago.

    2004 Chai Soua Vang, a 35-year-old Hmong immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen, shot eight people while deer hunting east of Birchwood in northern Wisconsin.

    valid instance

    2004 – McKinney, Texas, three robbers (Eddie Williams, Javier Cortez, and Raul Cortez) killed a check cashing store employee, her nephew, and his two friends in the home of the employee, Rosa Barbosa.

    Mass Murderers are usually not associated with robberies — again this was a private residence. So we don’t know if they wanted no guns in the home or not but I’ll take it as valid.

    2005 – Seven people were killed and four wounded when Terry Michael Ratzmann opened fire at a Living Church of God service at the Sheraton Hotel in Brookfield. Ratzmann, a 44-year-old computer technician, then committed suicide (Wisconsin) (hotel not posted).

    This one is a stretch that I would have to research. Many state laws consider any place a church service is being held as part of that church…and prohibit carrying at churches.
    Also Wisconsin prohibited Concealed Carry at the time,correct?

    Let’s call it mixed.

    2005 – Tacoma Mall, Dominick Maldonado injured 6, then kidnapped 4. CCW responded by yelling at Maldonado, but with no gun deployed. The CCW was subsequently shot multiple times.

    Not valid, no murder – your definition… and isn’t it just possible that the murders were prevented by a legally carried firearm?

    2005 – Courthouse Square, Tyler, Texas, David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. killing 2 and wounding 4. Mark Wilson responded from his residence above the square and was killed after wounding Arroyo and being credited with saving lives. As this happened outside of the courthouse, Arroyo expected law enforcement and wore a fragmentation vest and ballistic vest.

    Not valid, not 4 or more murdered because an armed citizen responded perhaps?

    2006 – The Hamilton Avenue Murders is the colloquial name for the mass murder of seven people in a house at 560 North Hamilton Avenue in Indianapolis, Indiana by James Stewart and Desmond Turner during a murder-robbery.

    2007 – Six were killed in Delavan when Ambrosio Analco entered an upper flat and shot his twin infant boys, his estranged wife, her sister and a friend. Analco, 23, then shot and killed himself (Wisconsin).

    Another murder in a residency…so tell me how will banning assault weapons stop this? How will preventing people from carrying in public stop it? Magazine restrictions?

    2007 – a woman and her boyfriend shot dead six members of her family on Christmas Eve in Carnation, Washington.

    Another residency killing — Andrea Yates killed 5 kids in her bath tub at home…your point?

    2007 – Youth with a Mission Center and New Life Church shootings by Matthew J. Murray (Colorado), killing 2 and injuring 2 at YWAM and later that day killing 3 (including self) and injuring 3 at New Life. Before the suicide, was shot by former police officer and volunteer security for the church).

    Spree killer/mass murderer stopped by an armed citizen –not a cop, not a paid security guard — PROVING THE POINT. Where people are allowed to carry firearms the casualty count is less.

    2008 – Dallas’ LBJ Freeway Shooting Spree happened 3 days before Christmas. Jorge Lopez and William Scott Miller were killed by former Utah highway patrolman Brian Smith. Smith attempted to shoot people in several vehicles, injuring at least two others. He later shot himself and died the next day.

    Notice again — two people killed — not four as by definition a mass murder — so no gun free zone fewer deaths.

    What is hard to understand about that?

    2008 – Skagit County Shooting Spree, Isaac Zamora killed 6 including a deputy and injured two more during a shooting spree near his home and during a high speed chase on I-5.

    Valid but note:

    The suspect, 28-year-old Isaac Zamora of Alger, has a criminal record and a history of mental problems and had been living in the woods

    Shouldn’t we focus on the known mental problems that were not addressed?

    2008 – Santa Claus (Jeffrey Pardo) opened fire at a party of his exwife and ex-inlaws in Covina, CA, set the house on fire, committed suicide (8+1)

    Another home instead of a public place but California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country right? Did that stop him from using a flame thrower to murder people much less a handgun?

    2009 – Lakewood, WA, four cops killed in coffee shop by Maurice Clemmons.

    Valid.
    A surprise attack can catch anyone off guard — so your solution is to make it easier for the people to fight back ?

    2009 – Pittsburgh, PA 3 cops killed and 2 wounded by Richard Poplawski who ambushed officers arriving on scene for a domestic dispute. Cops fired more than 600 rounds at Poplawski who was wearing a ballistic vest.

    Again, no 4 or more — padding the count seems obvious here. Notice that he ambushed cops right?
    So how will disarming me stop this type of incident?

    2009 – Michael Kenneth McLendon went on a shooting spree spanning 2 counties in southern Alabama, killing 10 other than himself. Along the way, he shot at various people and vehicles and even stories such as Wal-mart and Piggly Wiggly.

    Spree killing / mass murder – again mostly at a home. Where according to you fewer and fewer people are keeping guns – does that make them gun free zones be default?

    2009 – Cathouse Murders where 4 people were shot and killed including 2 pregnant women (making 6 murders), purportedly by Denny Edward Phillips and 3 accomplices, Oklahoma City, OK.

    Hmm, counting two unborn children as murdered — guess we better stop abortions, eh?
    Was there a gun used here? I couldn’t tell – but there did appear to be drugs involved as well as prostitution and more — let’s focus on fixing the obvious issues eh?

    2009 – Six killed in apartment building in Santa Clara, CA.

    Hmm, well there is the fact that many landlords prohibited firearms but that didn’t seem to stop the murderer from buying 2 pistols and killing his family.

    Again — how does an assault weapon ban (Oh LOOK, California has one of the toughest Assault Weapon BANS Around, in addition to their stringent other gun control laws) stop this crime?
    Unless your goal is total firearm disarmament, tell me how we stop people from breaking the law at home?

    2009 – Carthage, NC, Robert Stewart killed 8 in nursing home shooting (where his wife worked) and 3 officers were injured as well.

    Not valid — the nursing home was marked as required as a gun free zone
    http://www.examiner.com/article/pinelake-health-and-rehab-more-killings-gun-free-zones-new-video

    2009 – Six people, including one student, were shot in a drive-by shooting at a community rally on the campus of Texas Southern University, Houston. (outside areas, streets, etc. not gun-free zones).

    Not valid. It is against the Law to have a firearm on College Campus in Texas — GUN FREE ZONE. The article is incorrect. You can have a firearm in the car and the sidewalk around the campus but not inside it.

    2010 – Christopher Speight killed 8 in Virginia home.

    Another home

    2011 – Giffords shooting, Tucson, AZ. Jared Loughner opened fire, killing 6, wounding 13, plus there was 1 additional non-gunfire injury that resulted. CCW person responded to late to be of any use with a gun.

    Valid — but note that the concealed carrier didn’t harm anyone, didn’t shoot anyone by mistake, wasn’t shot by police, etc.
    In other words, none of the usual tripe that comes out of gun control advocates mouths happened.

    2011 – Mass shooting of family in Wheatland, WY by Everett Conant, killing his 3 sons, brother, and wounding his wife.

    Another home — why is it that homes are included in this list. They are as you claim mostly gun free, right?

    2011 – Eduardo Sencion killed 5 (including self), wounded 7 at a Carson City, NV IHOP.

    Valid

    2011 – Copley Community, Ohio, Michael E. Hance, killed 7 in two houses. All were shot in the head.

    Another shooting in homes but note also the murderer used a revolver in part of the crime — going after those next?

    2011 – Detroit Police Station, Lamar Moore opened fire from in front of the counter, then hopped the counter, shooting 4 officers (none died).

    Not VALID, not a mass murder — no one died — why is that? Because they shot him !!

    And again your answer is to disarm people.

    2012 – Binh Thai Luc killed 5 in a home robbery in San Francisco.

    Hmm, what does gun control have to do with this?

    Investigators said that the victims suffered from blunt trauma, and ruled out gunshot wounds as the cause of death. Police believe an “edged weapon” was involved in the slayings

    Thought this was a list of mass shootings that happen in GUN FREE ZONES !!! Guess you have to pad the count to make your case. WEAK

    2012 – Café Racer, Ian Stawicki killed 4 and wounded the chef before leaving and later attempting to carjack a woman, killing her.

    Valid.

    From now on I’ll state that most but not all mass shootings take place in gun free zones.

  171. #173 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 12:04 pm

    And Richard?

    If you would be more patient, I could finish writing my comments before you reply to them.

    That is why you are supposed to review and edit your comments before you publish them. NOT AFTER.

    If you edit them after, please state so — it is unethical not to do so.

  172. #174 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 12:22 pm

    Bob S.–

    Let’s review. John Lott stated:

    “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

    So that statement is incorrect. Like everything else Lott has said on the subject of firearms, I might add.

    BTW the armed bystander in Tucson was honest in saying how very close he came to shooting the wrong person.

    John Fund also wrote:

    “Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades… In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929…”

    Also demonstrably untrue. The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre was the only mass shooting that took place n 1929, and it shocked the nation.

    More info: US Mass Shootings, 1982-2012

    If you compare the incidence of mass shootings in the most heavily armed country with the rest of the world, it’s hard to conclude that the solution to the problem is MORE GUNS.

    I don’t have the tools to add links and blockquotes before a comment is posted and I go back to edit it. So I’ll keep doing it my way even though it apparently violates YOUR code of ethics. The same code of ethics that lets you call someone a liar for presenting an opinion backed up by facts you don’t like.

  173. #175 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 12:55 pm

    Richard,

    Look at his words carefully. I know you can read even if you chose not to comprehend often.

    Public — a shooting in the home is not public.
    3 or more — many of your proof do not meet that requirement.

    If you have a problem with John Lott, take it up with him. But the point is valid is it not?
    Where guns are prohibited or restricted, the number of casualties is higher.

    Do you deny that?
    Stop attacking the messenger and focus on the issue — should we restrict the right of the people to defend themselves or not?

    Also demonstrably untrue. The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre was the only mass shooting that took place n 1929, and it shocked the nation.

    Please provide your evidence that the St. Valentines day massacre was the only mass shooting. Really it seems as if you simply skim headlines or google to do your research sir.

    The same code of ethics that lets you call someone a liar for presenting an opinion backed up by facts you don’t like.

    If you say something like “machine guns are banned” that isn’t an opinion. That is a statement of fact.

    If you said “I think machine guns are banned” then it is opinion.

    I call you out on your lies when you lie. It isn’t if I don’t like it or not.

    Machine guns are not banned – correct?
    Machine guns manufactured after 1986 are banned for purchase by individuals – that is also correct.

    One is a blanket — provably false statement — the other is an accurate statement of fact. IF YOU were to be accurate in your facts, you wouldn’t be called out on your lies.

    It is the same when you say “People have no right to own an AR-15. That is an absolute falsehood. You may feel people don’t have a right…but your feeling doesn’t change the current state of law.

    As the old saying goes “Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing”. Don’t lie, don’t get called a liar.

  174. #176 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 1:15 pm

    Bob S.–

    No matter how deceptively-worded Lott’s statement may have been, he still had his facts wrong. The Tucson shooting was not the only exception, it was actually quite typical of mass shootings because it took place where guns were NOT prohibited. Thanks for conceding that.

    “Where guns are prohibited or restricted, the number of casualties is higher.” Where do you find that correlation?

    You know I always said there were exceptions to the ban on automatic weapons, but it’s called the “machine gun ban.” Are we going to get back on that merry-go-round?

    There is no legal right to own an AR-15. Fact. Justice Scalia, the most right-wing member of the most right-wing Supreme Court in a hundred years, agrees with me.

  175. #177 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 1:31 pm

    I agree it wasn’t the only exception but stop trying to paint him as ‘deceptive’.

    YOU blatantly misrepresent the truth “machine guns are banned’ and it is your opinion. So why don’t you give the same grace to him?

    Oh maybe because you don’t like the thrust of his argument. Most of your list failed to meet the criteria Lott specified.
    Public, 3 or more people SHOT in gun free Zones. Several were in California where Carry Licenses are as rare as hens teeth. Some were in Gun Free Zones like the Texas College campus – I know the law in my own state…want chapter and verse on it?

    “Where guns are prohibited or restricted, the number of casualties is higher.” Where do you find that correlation?

    Tired of spoon feeding you Richard. Figure it out.

    You know I always said there were exceptions to the ban on automatic weapons, but it’s called the “machine gun ban.” Are we going to get back on that merry-go-round?

    You can call it a banana doesn’t make it long and yellow. Details matter sir or does your journalistic research not cover the fact.

    Did the “Assault Weapon Ban” ban assault weapons — NOPE, it didn’t. They were still for sale, they were still owned, and they were still manufactured. Reality is different from what the politicians or liars would have us believe.

    There is no legal right to own an AR-15. Fact. Justice Scalia, the most right-wing member of the most right-wing Supreme Court in a hundred years, agrees with me.

    You are blatantly distorting what was said by Scalia and what is worse you know it. We’ve been through this and you lost that debate.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to prohibit the ownership of AR-15s. NOTHING in the Constitution nor any subsequent law on the books.

    The Constitution isn’t a list of rights we have — it is a list of power the government has. EVEN the Miller Supreme Court Decision could be read to especially support ownership of AR-15s.
    See that is how you state an opinion.

    So I ask, instead of debating the issue honestly — why do you feel the need to distort and lie so often?

  176. #178 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 2:12 pm

    Bob S.–

    Good example. This country “banned” mass-murder weapons for ten years without doing a lot of the things you think are necessary to ban weapons. But everyone called it a ban.

    It’s as absurd and illogical to say I have a constitutional right to own an AR-15 as it would be to claim a constitutional right to own anything else I don’t need that’s a danger to others. The Bill of Rights doesn’t prohibit the government from restricting my freedom in order to promote public safety.

  177. #179 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 3:04 pm

    Hey Richard,

    So all we have to do is “ban” murder, rape, robbery, assault and crime will vanish just like all those assault weapons did, right?

  178. #180 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2013 - 3:16 pm

    Bob S.–

    The ban on mass-murder weapons definitely had an effect, and since it expired gun massacres have become more frequent.

    The Gun Lobby says we ought to have laws that are 100 percent effective, or else no laws at all. That’s absurd.

  179. #181 by Bob S. on February 1, 2013 - 3:50 pm

    Richard,

    You don’t NEED a car and you can not deny it is a danger to others.

    You don’t need cleaning supplies; those are so dangerous the government mandates warning labels (yet strangely many kids use them safely).

    You don’t NEED to speak in public yet here you are.

    Sure you want to let the government go down that route?

  180. #182 by Larry Bergan on February 1, 2013 - 7:32 pm

    Richard:

    Thanks for standing up for our wilderness so many years ago.

    When I was working to get the voting machines banned from 2003 to 2006, they did let us speak at the hearings, but that didn’t mean anybody listened. They were only patting us on the head.

    It was a real learning experience though. They’ve got every trick in the book to foil the public; things like announcing meetings and changing them at the last minute, accusing organizers of being nutty, ect. The first time I spoke, they asked us to put our names on a list so they could call on us. I wrote my name perfectly legibly but the guy presiding acted like he couldn’t read it.

    I do think we accomplished one thing, and that was to require a paper receipt on the voting machines. They didn’t want that at all and sent one person to a meeting to talk about paper jams, (Thad Hall). The other forty of us there wanted machines that could tabulate hand marked ballots.

    All the paper receipts ended up accomplishing was to make it harder on the poll workers because they are never used to verify anything.

  181. #183 by Larry Bergan on February 1, 2013 - 7:40 pm

    Bob S, said:

    Larry,

    Yes I was being very sarcastic in my comment. I was not defending ALEC I was poking fun at your conspiracy theories. You have to admit you are out there on many of them.

    So I guess Walmart, Coke, Pepsi, John Deere, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and and the other 20-odd giant corporations who pulled out thought it was a conspiracy theory too.

    Please stop it.

  182. #184 by Bob S. on February 2, 2013 - 8:02 am

    Larry,

    I didn’t say your theory on ALEC was out there, just that you were out there on many of them.

    By the way, still waiting for you to answer how people should defend themselves or respond since you don’t like Stand Your Ground laws or Castle Doctrine.

    So….what steps should a person have to take, what actions should be legal in your mind?
    How do you write the law?

  183. #185 by Larry Bergan on February 2, 2013 - 8:32 am

    karate

  184. #186 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2013 - 9:48 am

    I fought my way through a traffic jam in Sandy on Saturday, because the Crossroads of the West Gun Show was at the expo center and Utah’s gun nuts are in panic mode.

    The joke is on them, because there is approximately a zero chance Congress will enact a mass-murder weapon ban.

  185. #187 by Richard Warnick on February 4, 2013 - 10:33 am

    Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA): Don’t ban mass-murder weapons, it would be like banning spoons to stop obesity.

    Another shameful helping of Gun Lobby propaganda.

  186. #188 by cav on February 4, 2013 - 10:41 am

    Face it Richard, if mass murder, and the implements for it’s delivery are good enough for the National- culture-at-large, there’s likely something appreciable for the individual.

    In the same way National budgetary concerns are practically identical to household budgeting, you might say.

    Hold the spoon…I have a shovel.

  187. #189 by Mark on August 12, 2013 - 5:08 pm

    Cliff you state your extremely left of center opinion as fact an unempeachable fact at that. The sherrif’s
    is the traditional interpretation of the 2 ammendment as it was never in question until the 1960′s. You talk about people’s education yet you struggle with “The right of the individual shall not be infringed” meaning. If you had an ounce of honesty or integrity you would have to cede that point. No other ammendment has ever been interpreted by it’s “preamble” which is the entire thesis of your pathetic arguement

  188. #190 by Wow wee.. on August 14, 2013 - 5:53 pm

    Cliff has as much honesty and integrity as a rat cross bred with a somnambulistic stinkbug..

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: