• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

No Justice Stevens, We Don’t Need To “Fix” The Second Amendment

gun-constitutionFormer Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a Gerald Ford appointee who ended up becoming a stalwart of the Court’s liberal wing, is out with a new book in which, among other things, he proposes various changes to the Constitution. Scott Lemieux discusses each of those proposals at length in this post at The American Prospect, but it’s Stevens’s comments about the Second Amendment, which expands upon in Washington Post Op-Ed, that are getting the most attention:

As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

Given the fact that former Associate Justice Stevens was in the minority in both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, it’s not surprising to see that he continues to support the arguments that were used in that decision. However, with all due respect to the former Justice, the interpretation of history on which her relies for his position on the 2nd Amendment is by no means the only one, nor it is necessarily accurate. The majority opinions in both cases go into extraordinary detail, with supporting citations, in discussion the history behind the Amendment, for example. From that history, it is fairly obvious that the Amendment was intended to protect a right belonging to individuals not, as Stevens and the other dissenting Justices contended, a collective right belonging to the states. Indeed, if that had been the case then the drafters of the Bill of Rights would have obviously used the term “the states” in place of “the People,” as they did when they drafted the 10th Amendment. Stevens is correct that, up until Heller, there is a paucity of Federal Court decisions on the 2nd Amendment prior to the Heller case, but that’s hardly support for the argument that the majority in that case was incorrect. Instead, it’s more an indication of the simple fact that, prior to Heller and McDonald, few people had the idea to pursue the arguments made in those cases in the Courts. Additionally, those few cases dealing with the Second Amendment that did make it to the Supreme Court are so fundamentally different from the issues in Heller and McDonald  that they really don’t provide any help in evaluating those cases. Stevens disagrees with the holding in Heller and McDonald, of course, but that in and of itself doesn’t mean that the majority in those cases were wrong. Indeed, it appears that both of those cases were correctly decided.

As for the substance of Stevens’s proposed revision to the Second Amendment, it’s a proposal that no doubt would be supported by gun control advocates. After all, if that’s what the amendment actually said then there would seemingly be no legal bar to pretty much any gun control law you could think of. Indeed, a state or locality could enact a law forbidding individuals from keeping weapons in their own, or having them on their persons except when serving as part of the militia. There’s just one problem with that idea. When the 2nd Amendment was adopted, the “militia” was essentially considered to be every able bodied man over the age of 18 and was not something that was centrally authorized, or even organized, by the governments of the individual states. Indeed, this definition is set forth specifically in the Constitutions of several states including that of Illinois, as Dave Schuler notes in a post at The Glittering Eye.  This early 18th Century concept of the “militia” is discussed at great length in the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald and is far different from the modern conception of most gun control advocates that the “militia” is the National Guard or the police force. Thus, even Justice Stevens’s efforts to restrict the right granted by the Second Amendment doesn’t really work the way he seems to think it does once you understand what a “militia” actually is.

In the end, of course, Justice Stevens’s proposal is little more than an intellectual exercise. Taking into account what it takes amend the Constitution and the fact that gun rights proponents are among the most politically vocal Americans out there, there’s no chance at all that an amendment changing the Second Amendment in the manner that he proposes would ever be ratified. Even if it were politically possible, however, it would still be a bad idea. First of all, it strikes me that there’s something dangerous about the idea of amending the Bill of Rights, which have been part of the Constitution for some 223 years now. If the Second Amendment is open to being changed, then how about the First, or the Fourth, or those pesky amendments that give people accused of crimes the rights we’ve all come to recognize? Secondly, there’s simply no reason to believe that denying law abiding Americans the right to own guns would have any impact on actions committed by criminals or people who are mentally ill. Finally, the fact that the Second Amendment is inconvenient to the people who would restrict the rights of the people means that it is doing exactly what it was supposed to do. Let’s keep it that way.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. RockThisTown says:

    OK, JP, perhaps if we need to “fix” the Second Amendment, we need to “fix” some of the others, too. Whattya say we start with the 16th?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

  2. Tillman says:

    First of all, it strikes me that there’s something dangerous about the idea of amending the Bill of Rights, which have been part of the Constitution for some 223 years now. If the Second Amendment is open to being changed, then how about the First, or the Fourth, or those pesky amendments that give people accused of crimes the rights we’ve all come to recognize?

    Well, uhh, that’s why the Constitution has an amendment process to begin with. To change any part of it, not just the parts not deemed “sacred” enough.

    If you can muster the majorities in enough state legislatures and in Congress, you can ban free speech in this country, or unreasonable search and seizure. Doug, the beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2

  3. pajarosucio says:

    The majority opinions in both cases go into extraordinary detail, with supporting citations, in discussion the history behind the Amendment, for example.

    I think this is a more accurate descriptor of Stevens’ dissent in Heller than it is of Scalia’s majority opinion. That Steven’s historical discussion of the amendment is ignored and his concluding interpretation is flatly dismissed as incorrect, while Scalia’s arguably less historically meaty interpretation (at least his focus on precedent and more recent time periods than the founding area is, I think, significant, considering his outspoken judicial philosophy) is held up as “obvious” is an indictment of the author. Not only does it reflect what I gather to be an ideological bias, but more damningly, a rather hollow attempt at clickbait.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1

  4. Tillman says:

    Secondly, there’s simply no reason to believe that denying law abiding Americans the right to own guns would have any impact on actions committed by criminals or people who are mentally ill.

    So, if I make it harder for the average dude to get a gun, I somehow simultaneously don’t make it harder for a criminal or mentally-deranged dude to get a gun? Explain your logic here, because this is another common assertion in the right-wing argument about gun control which makes no sense on its face.

    You’re not arguing that a sufficiently-determined person will skirt any law to get what they want. You’re arguing the laws themselves have no impact on anyone.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 3

  5. Paul L. says:

    I think the Democrats should restart their Newtown National conversation on Guns with Obama front and center on the issue and make John Paul Stevens’ idea a major Campaign issue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10

  6. Jack says:

    And this is why we have a separation of powers. Shut up you old windbag.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 21

  7. Jack says:

    In the Heller decision ALL 9 judges agreed that the 2nd amendent protects an individual right. The 5 justice majority said the 2nd amendment “protects the right of all law-abiding persons to own, use and carry firearms for all legitimate purposes, especially for self-defense.” While the 4 member minority found “individuals have Second Amendment rights, but only in connection with service in a well-regulated militia.”

    Stevens himself said “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an ‘individual right.’ Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.”

    So, there is no debate. in a 9-0 decision, the USSC decided that the 2nd amendment protects the right of an individual to own a gun.

    To Stevens I would ask, if the framers believed one should only have a gun as part of a militia, please explain why the framers of the Constitution, in the middle of an article titled “Bill of Rights,” suddenly inserted a provision that had nothing to do with rights but that instead tautologically expressed a power of the government—in essence, “the government’s will decide who is a militia and who gets to bear arms.”

    As a side note, to all those that say the modern militia is the military or the National Guard, please. Military only get to carry weapons they are issued, and during the time when they are allowed. What kind of “right” is that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10

  8. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    And this is why we have a separation of powers. Shut up you old windbag.

    Yeah, that “a well-regulated militia” part was just so much filler, and as such has no relevance today.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1

  9. wr says:

    It’s not broken.

    It’s an anachronistic abomination.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3

  10. mantis says:

    This early 18th Century concept of the “militia” is discussed at great length in the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald and is far different from the modern conception of most gun control advocates that the “militia” is the National Guard or the police force.

    Indeed, and that is why the 2nd should be changed, though not how Stevens says. We no longer have, nor have need of militias. We are no longer a frontier nation, and we no longer war with neighbors over territory. We have a modern military and live in the age of nuclear weapons. A gun rights amendment justified by the need for militias is archaic and unfit for these times.

    First of all, it strikes me that there’s something dangerous about the idea of amending the Bill of Rights, which have been part of the Constitution for some 223 years now.

    Amendments have been themselves amended, and the original text has been altered as well. That’s how it’s designed. It could be “dangerous,” I guess, but that’s why it’s so hard to do.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2

  11. Tillman says:

    @al-Ameda: That’s something that bothers me about the concept of every able-bodied individual being in the militia by default. If that was the common and widespread understanding of a militia, why bother putting that dependent clause in there in the first place?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  12. al-Ameda says:

    All of this is coming down to whether or not the Second Amendment expressly prohibits any regulation whatsoever.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  13. Paul L. says:

    @al-Ameda:
    Where as progressives ignore the Right of People part.

    Next up applying collective rights to other amendments like the first.
    Justice Breyer Pens a Remarkable Dissent in the Campaign Finance Case, Arguing that Free Expression is a Collective Right to be Permitted Only to the Extent It Furthers the “Will of the People”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12

  14. al-Ameda says:

    @Paul L.:

    Where as progressives ignore the Right of People part.

    So, do you agree or disagree with the notion that that the Second Amendment prohibits all regulation?

    I happen to believe that the people have the right, within reasonable regulation, to own guns, and to have them in their homes. As for open or concealed carry in public, I think the public has the right to regulate that. For example, I do not want people carrying guns in public places – schools, libraries, court houses, etc. Why can’t the public regulate that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2

  15. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    Military only get to carry weapons they are issued, and during the time when they are allowed. What kind of “right” is that?

    And I don’t get to take my trusty Baretta to the office. What’s your point? Rights are not infinite.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1

  16. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: The point is, why insist that the military is the modern day militia and therefore only they have the right to keep and bear arms? The military can only carry what is issued to them with a multitude of time and place restrictions. That then, is not a right. Therefore, the military is not what this amendment is about.

    With regard to your trusty Beretta, employers may make those restrictions. The Bill of Rights limits what the government may do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

  17. PD Shaw says:

    @Jack: Perhaps state and local governments should start calling up the “militia” for mandatory monthly training; that way we can separate the originalists from the libertines, that loudly demand freedoms without any responsibilities.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1

  18. Jack says:

    @PD Shaw: “The Second Amendment PROTECTS an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, SUCH AS self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.” – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8

  19. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: What do you understand to be the meaning of “shall not be infringed”? While the courts have said that the 2nd is subject to reasonable regulation, do you really believe the framers who wrote the 2nd believed that?

    in·fringe
    inˈfrinj/
    verb
    verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing

    1.
    actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
    “making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright”
    synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach;
    disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
    disregard, ignore, neglect;
    go beyond, overstep, exceed;
    infract
    “the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights”
    antonyms: obey, comply with
    act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
    “his legal rights were being infringed”
    synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More
    undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise
    “the surveillance infringed on his rights”
    antonyms: preserve

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12

  20. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    “The Second Amendment PROTECTS an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, SUCH AS self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.”

    Interesting, nothing there prohibiting all regulation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  21. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: Repeat after me: “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.” If a person cannot be trusted with a gun then they cannot be trusted without a custodian.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13

  22. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    If a person cannot be trusted with a gun then they cannot be trusted without a custodian.

    Wow. You must know about six people tops.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2

  23. Andy says:

    @al-Ameda:

    I happen to believe that the people have the right, within reasonable regulation, to own guns, and to have them in their homes. As for open or concealed carry in public, I think the public has the right to regulate that. For example, I do not want people carrying guns in public places – schools, libraries, court houses, etc. Why can’t the public regulate that?

    Then you must love Heller and McDonald, because that’s exactly what they did. I think pretty much every state and locality has regulations restricting guns in certain places, like schools. Except for a minority of the pro-gun crowd, such regulations are uncontroversial. I think the point is that DC and Chicago went far beyond mere regulation by attempting to ban weapons entirely.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  24. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    Repeat after me:

    “a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health choices is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

    Repeat after me:

    “the freedom to marry the person of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

    But I forget, the conservative definition of freedom is “free to do things I approve of”…

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1

  25. C. Clavin says:

    The 2nd is fine…but we need better, smarter regulation that is allowed by the 2nd as it exists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  26. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    @al-Ameda: Repeat after me: “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.” If a person cannot be trusted with a gun then they cannot be trusted without a custodian.

    Back then the people were the militia, why do you suppose that they used language like “well-regulated militia being necessary?” prior to that “not be infringed”? That clearly suggests regulation, doesn’t it?

    By the way Jack, I have no problem with Heller generally.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  27. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: I have no problem with either of those points. Now, will you concede to my statement?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  28. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda:

    So you believe that reasonable regulations apply to the Second Amendment?

    While I understand the drive for such regulations, I do not believe in them, No. Most regulations just make it more difficult for average joe sixpack to purchase a weapon and do nothing to prevent so called “gun violence”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

  29. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: Regulation back then was understood as well operating, NOT more government bureaucracy.

    The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

    1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
    1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
    1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
    1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
    1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

    As you can see, none of those refer to government “regulation”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  30. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:
    So basically “well-regulated’ has no meaning in the Second Amendment? Absurd.

    Please – “well-regulated Appetites” and “well-regulated clock” a “well-regulated person” and “well-regulated mind” – have nothing to do with government rules and regulations.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

  31. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: That’s my point! A well operating militia means one that operates properly, not something that requires an 18 wheeler to transport in all of the laws governing it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

  32. M. Bouffant says:

    I recently read that the phrase “bear arms” in its 18th century, originalist meaning, means “military service,” not merely wandering the streets w/ a flintlock terrorizing law enforcement.

    I wonder what Scalia says to that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  33. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    That’s my point! A well operating militia means one that operates properly, not something that requires an 18 wheeler to transport in all of the laws governing it.

    So well-regulated means well-regulated, not unregulated.
    Okay, I agree.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  34. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: Well regulated means well operating. Why are you being so obtuse?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  35. Shirt says:

    @ M. Bouffant

    Indeed, article 3, section 2 of the constitution says “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States..”. Why doesn’t anybody ever recall that part? See that word “Militia?” A well regulated militia? Who does the regulating?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  36. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    Well regulated means well operating. Why are you being so obtuse?

    Again, we’re not talking about “well-regulated clocks” and expressions of that type.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  37. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: That was the meaning when it was written. It’s no different than someone 50 years ago saying “give me a fag”. The meaning has changed over time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  38. Grewgills says:

    @Jack:

    “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

    So we should all be allowed chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles etc? After all, maybe I want a tank or a mobile missile platform. Why should the government be able to prevent me from owning them?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  39. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:
    I doubt that well-regulated had nothing to do with the law.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  40. Jack says:

    @Grewgills:

    So we should all be allowed chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles etc? After all, maybe I want a tank or a mobile missile platform. Why should the government be able to prevent me from owning them?

    First of all, Tanks, flamethrowers, automatic weapons, and such are all legal to own and operate. Second, you conveniently left off the rest of my paragraph, “If a person cannot be trusted with a gun then they cannot be trusted without a custodian.” I am specifically talking about guns.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  41. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: Yet, you can clearly read the dates next to each example provided. This isn’t rocket science.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  42. Grewgills says:

    @Jack:
    You said, “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.” That would indicate that you feel there should be no restrictions or regulations on ANY weapon that anyone would choose.
    Flamethrowers, tanks, etc have considerable regulations on them such that VERY FEW people can own them even in the limited contexts in which they are allowed. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are strictly prohibited. Do you think that is infringing on our fundamental and inalienable rights?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  43. LC says:

    I just want to make sure I understand — your argument is that there’s no need to change the 2nd amendment because the jurisprudence based on the interpretation of the current wording of said amendment is well-established.

    Wouldn’t that be why we need to ‘fix’ the second amendment? To make better public policy via elected officials, instead of supposedly unaccountable judges?

    How can anyone make these arguments with a straight face?

    Also,

    First of all, it strikes me that there’s something dangerous about the idea of amending the Bill of Rights, which have been part of the Constitution for some 223 years now.

    Because the founders were magic omniscient beings who created a document that was going to always be right no matter what circumstances may change? No, that can’t be it. How is there not even the slightest bit of grappling with the very possibility that maybe, JUST MAYBE, some of the first ten amendments might need further amending? Not even considering that maybe the seventh amendment should still count $20 as its threshold, or the eighth amendment should be amended to explicitly add the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  44. Jc says:

    The 2nd amendment infringes on my 9th amendment rights, and why do we even need the 3rd amendment. Should crazy people be allowed to have a gun or have that right a little bit more difficult to exercise? I would think the founding fathers would contemplate that reasonably. And this is during a time where “bleeding” people was acceptable medical procedure.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  45. DrDaveT says:

    Secondly, there’s simply no reason to believe that denying law abiding Americans the right to own guns would have any impact on actions committed by criminals

    They weren’t criminals until they used their legally-owned handguns to off their spouses, children, neighbors, etc.

    But that misses the point; you’ve committed a cheap rhetorical trick by changing the subject from “what do gun owners do with their guns?” to “what do criminals and the deranged do with guns?”. If gun crimes committed by already-criminals were the big problem here, gun control wouldn’t be the solution. But criminals with guns are not the only target of gun control laws. Law-abiding citizens with guns are a threat, both through crimes of passion and accident, and that threat can be greatly reduced by sensible gun ownership laws.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  46. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    First of all, Tanks, flamethrowers, automatic weapons, and such are all legal to own and operate.

    Flatly untrue. Private citizens cannot own and operate most fully automatic weapons and can’t own and operate numerous other weapons such as chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons, surface to air missiles, advanced missiles, recoilless rifles, etc.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  47. Tyrell says:

    @Tillman: A while back I saw a sticker that said something like “If guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns”. Look at it this way: I am paying more for car insurance because some people refuse to obey the law requiring liability insurance. They get into a wreck and the law abiding citizens have to cover the damages.
    Gang members, thugs, hoodlums, and career criminals are not going to obey gun laws, unless they are locked up.
    Here is another one: “Ban crimnals, not guns”. While these sayings may seem simplistic, they do make a lot of common sense. They are realistic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  48. Jack says:

    @Rafer Janders: ANYONE can own a flamethrower, without a background check or government interferance. Anyone that can own a gun can own an automatic weapon, there are simply too few willing to foot $10k to do so. This requires that a person recieving a full auto firearm undergo a background check, have approval of local law enforcement, and pay a $200 per gun transfer tax. Legal full autos that can be transferred to a private citizen must already have been registered by May 1986- no new full autos can be registerered. Since the supply is finite, prices are VERY high. A LEGAL M16 rifle is about $16,000. Beyond that, nearly anyone can “operate” a fully automatic firearm. Go to Vegas and see all of the opportunites available to shoot fully automatic weapons. Finally, I wasn’t talking about biological/chemical, anti-aircraft, etc., weapons. Please stay on point.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  49. Jack says:

    @Rafer Janders: “If you feel the need to throw some fire around, you are legally allowed to purchase a flamethrower under federal law, and 40 states have no laws against owning the weapon. Though it’s restricted in some states, such as California, unlicensed possession is only considered a misdemeanor.”

    Cannons and Grenade Launchers are also on the list of “Legal Weapons”.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2013/03/28/10-Weapons-You-Wont-Believe-Are-Legal

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  50. Senyordave says:

    My weapon of choice would be a pipe bomb. Where is the NRA to support my right to own pipe bombs. I guess when Smith & Wesson prepares to manufacture and maket pipe bombs is when the NRA push to legalize them begins.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  51. RLEmery says:

    @pajarosucio: So please do demonstrate how you, or in your inference SCALIA have changed basic english composition of a complex sentence, amking the dependent clause “well regulated…” an incomplete sentence incapable of conveying clear meaning, the controlling determiator of a complex sentence instead of the independent clause “shall not be infringed…” a complete sentence that does convey a clear meaning, which has done so for all of history…do tell!

    Of course you can also demonstrate that the militia existed before the armed individual and the individuals pre-existing rights eh sunshine!

    Then when one actually reads the dissent in Heller, we see the dissenters agreeing that the right has and always will be seperate of the miltiia…and I quote:

    Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 1 BREYER, J., dissenting

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    _________________
    No. 07–290
    _________________
    No. 07–290
    _________________
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

    [June 26, 2008]

    JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.

    Page 3

    Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the 
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment,
I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I
believe the entire Court subscribes:

    (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and May be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See,
e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS,
J., dissenting).

    Funny how only Stevens, is the one of 9 justices who doesnt understand affirmed rights that pre-existed the BOR, then again, progressives are inherently insane to begin with!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  52. RLEmery says:

    @DrDaveT:

    Ignorance can be fixed, lets start….

    Lets identify who exactly is responsible for the majority of that violence first.

    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

    For several decades, studies have been conducted on crime and causalities by various bodies including major universities, criminologists and even the U.S. Department of Justice. These studies have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals. Some of the studies have provided slightly different numbers but all of them have found that a small group of criminals commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes than their peers.

    Wolfgang et al ., 1972;
    Petersilia et al ., 1978;
    Williams, 1979;
    Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982;
    Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982,
    Martin and Sherman,1986.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/gun-violence-significantly-increased-by-social-interactions?s_cid=rss:gun-violence-significantly-increased-by-social-interactions

    Andrew Papachristos, an associate professor of sociology at Yale, analyzed police and gun homicide records from 2006 to 2011 for people living in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago.

    He found that 41 percent of all gun homicides occurred within a network of less than 4 percent of the neighborhood’s population, and that the closer one is connected to a homicide victim, the greater that person’s chances were for becoming a victim.

    Each social tie removed from a homicide victim decreased a person’s odds of becoming a victim by 57 percent.

    “What the findings essentially tell you is that the people who are most at risk of becoming a victim are sort of surrounded by victims within a few handshakes,” Papachristos says. “These are young men who are actively engaged in the behaviors that got them in this network.”

    The network in question consists of more than 3,700 high-risk individuals – young, African-American males from a poor neighborhood – who were clustered into a network by instances of co-offending, meaning each person in the group had been arrested with another person.

    Overall, the community’s five-year homicide rate was 39.7 per 100,000 people, which was still much higher than the averages of other areas of Chicago (14.7 per 100,000). But being a part of that network of co-offenders, essentially just being arrested, raised the rate to by nearly 50 percent, to 55.2 per 100,000. What’s more, being in a network with a homicide victim increased the homicide rate by 900 percent, to 554.1 per 100,000.

    “You’re at a risk for living in this [certain] community, but if you’re in the network, your risk is astronomical,” Papachristos says. “That rate is beyond epidemic proportion, that’s actually scary.”

    Funny how USDOJ & FBI data show 30% of the population, not white, commit 87% of all the violent crimes in the US, and geez, that 30% votes predominantly democrat…..making lefties inherently more violent!

    http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2011/Pew_State_of_Recidivism.pdf

    Recidivism rates being over 40% as well!

    2.7 mil prisoners

    1.4 mil active gang members

    2.5-3.5 mil active criminals

    1.043 mil plus open felony warrants

    Hence add in the career criminals.

    CDC -Suicidal people speak for them-selves as suicide is a felony.

    Shall we review police firearm discharge reports in Chicago and NYC where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.

    http://www.popcenter.org/problems/drive_by_shooting/PDFs/Block_and_Block_1993.pdf,
    http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/2007_firearms_discharge_report.pdf,
    http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_102207.pdf

    Yeah, review of all the govt. data above shows over 96% of all killings by illegal use of a firearm are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders & crazies w approximately 50% of the remainder due to domestic violence incidents.

    A sane person would normally address the largest problem first don’t you agree?

    Oh you want numbers, ok!

    Since suicides are illegal, murder is illegal that means accidental deaths, justifiable homicides and the % of murders not committed by FELONS or any of the other 9 categories of people banned can be removed from the 31,084 total, which as noted in the multiple USDOJ studies and reports 80% of the most violent crimes are committed by career criminals, gang members.

    Do the numbers now that you have the premise, here are the numbers for 2011.

    31,084 killings by use of gun
    9,892 murders
    19,766 suicides
    591 justifiable homicides (209 by civilians using a gun, 270 total)
    835 accidental deaths

    ((9,892 x .8)+19,766)/31,084 -(591+835) = 27,860/29,658 = 93.9%.

    Oh darn, forgot the FBI not reporting the correct number of justifiable homicides, so since 209 justifiable homicides were by firearm alone by civilians, 5 times 209 = 1,045.

    So 29,658-1,045 = 28,613

    Redone = 27,860/28,613 = 97.3% darn, that’s more than 96%, my bad!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  53. Jack says:

    @Senyordave: So, you are saying you want to defend yourself with pipe bombs? Please, explain how a pipe bomb is a good defensive weapon and the plausible situation in which you would use them without causing injury to bystanders. Please, do tell.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  54. mantis says:

    Obviously patriotic Americans need pipe bombs to defend their ranches from the Feds when those patriots are doing nothing wrong (except illegally refusing to pay their bills for decades, but screw that because freedom!).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  55. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    Finally, I wasn’t talking about biological/chemical, anti-aircraft, etc., weapons.

    Why weren’t you? They’re “arms”, after all, and the right to bear them shall not be infringed. Where do you think the government gets it authority to ban you and me from bearing such arms?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  56. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    This requires that a person recieving a full auto firearm undergo a background check, have approval of local law enforcement, and pay a $200 per gun transfer tax. Legal full autos that can be transferred to a private citizen must already have been registered by May 1986- no new full autos can be registerered.

    So, effectively, ownership of these weapons is heavily legislated, subject to numerous regulations, and can be withheld at the whim of local law enforcement, etc. And yet somehow this isn’t an infringement?

    Your argument seems to be that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility — unless, however, you fail a background check, local law enforcement doesn’t like you, you don’t have $200 for a gun transfer tax, or the weapon of your choice was not registered by May 1986.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  57. mantis says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    If they agree there are limits, they implicitly agree the government has a role in regulating arms. Since they must insist that the right to bear arms is absolute and cannot be restricted in any way, they cannot admit the government has such a role. Hence, Jack’s continued insistence that we’re “not talking” about certain types of arms (even though you are asking about them). Cognitive dissonance requires dancing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  58. al-Ameda says:

    @RLEmery:

    Funny how only Stevens, is the one of 9 justices who doesnt understand affirmed rights that pre-existed the BOR, then again, progressives are inherently insane to begin with!

    Funny, and sad, how armchair gun ownership enthusiasts think that they know more about constitutional antecedents, history and law than Justice Stevens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  59. Jack says:

    @Rafer Janders: I was refuting your announcement that owning said arms is illegal. I was not making an argument for or aginst regulation in that post. You keep wanting to change the topic. First guns, then bio weapons, then tanks, then flamewthrowers. Pick a topic and I will refute you on it. Then we can more onto another topic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  60. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: I disagree. Stevens understands affirmed rights and knows that the RTKABA is fundamental. But instead of admitting it, he wants to go on a crusade shrouded under the umbrella of Juror’s Prudence. Again, this is why we have a separation of powers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  61. Rick DeMent says:

    @Tillman:

    That’s something that bothers me about the concept of every able-bodied individual being in the militia by default. If that was the common and widespread understanding of a militia, why bother putting that dependent clause in there in the first place?

    Because no one seems to understand that the entire argument at the time revolved around how we should protect the nation from foreign attack. There were two competing thought on the matter.

    One: have a large standing armed force. The anti-federalists didn’t like the idea of the federal government having an army sitting around waiting for an invasion with nothing to do. If you have not read the ant-federalist papers then you only know half of the debate put forth by the more famous Federalist papers. The anti-federalists devoted five essays to the subject.

    It is admitted then, that a standing army in time of peace is an evil. I ask then, why should this government be authorised (sic) to do evil? If the principles and habits of the people of this country are opposed to standing armies in time of peace, if they do not contribute to the public good, but would endanger the public liberty and happiness, why should the government be vested with the power?

    On the other hand the Federalists were not opposed to a strong defense (sound familiar?). So the constitutional compromise that was reached was outlined in two places in the constitution…

    Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12-16 Giving congress the power to …

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    To provide and maintain a Navy;
    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Notice that the congress was only authorized to appropriate defense funds for no more then two years, a provision that is to this day followed only in the flimsiest of technical terms. It has been, for all intents purposes, been rendered moot. However, I’m pretty sure not on of our brave defender of the letter of the Constitution will ever get upset that this provision is being subverted by our Socialist, Kenyan usurper in chief. Further I’m betting Scalia has never event mentioned it in any of his origionalist rants.

    The second relevant passage was, of course, the 2nd Amendment and after you read the Anti-Federalist essays it become crystal clear that the Militia clause meant. I was to insure that the federal government could not prevent citizens from arming themselves in defense of the country, because without them we would have no way to repel an invasion because we weren’t suppose to have a freaking army.

    It is also interesting that the founders used the word infringed with regard to the 2nd rather then abridged as they did with freedom of speech and religion.

    Personally I believe that what all of this means is the whole debate around the notion of whether or not it’s a personal or group right is angels dancing on the head of a pin. Clearly it’s an individual right. The problem is that the entire reason to have the 2nd amendment in the first place is as anachronistic as the 3rd amendment; it’s irreverent. Further any argument regarding concealed carry, open carry, or anything that has to do with carrying a loaded weapon in the public square is irrelevant under the 2nd amendment as understood by the founders.

    I believe the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment as understood by the founders should be something like whatever you want in your home and property, as long as it’s not an interment of foreign policy (nukes, battleships, tanks what have you) should be protected. However anything in the public sphere would be subject to any state or local regulation deemed appropriate by the relevant elected governing body including CCW, registration, and licensing.

    Having said that, I think the whole Idea of the 2nd amendment as interpreted by the NRA and those of an even more radical strip, where they think that hauling around loaded rifles slung to their back is just crackers, even those people who carry side arms (unless they have a job in law enforcement or related security) are just plain nuts and if mine were the world to run I would amendment the constitution to severely throttle back the right to bear arms and give law enforcement the tools to deal with criminals and insure the right of people to have what they need for home and property protection within established limits.

    Or we could just keep it the way it is and send every man woman and child who chooses to own a gun off to fight the next war wherever it may be in accordance with the wishes of the founders.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  62. Jack says:

    @Rick DeMent: So, like NY and Connecticut, you would effectively make a huge swath of your citizens who, heretofore were law abiding, into felons overnight. Yeah, I’m sure you’ll be running and winning a legislative seat real soon!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  63. Rick DeMent says:

    @Jack:

    Not sure what you are referring to, if you mean establish regulations for open and CCW yes, I would but let not be so dramatic, rules like that are made all the time, there was once a time when drinking and driving was perfectly legal, now it’s not, are you butt hurt over that too?

    And you are right, my opinion is not a popular winner because Rambo type neanderthals who simply don’t have the imagination to understand the predictable outcomes of their policy choices.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  64. Jack says:

    @Rick DeMent: o, you didn’t write this…

    I would amendment the constitution to severely throttle back the right to bear arms

    ? Even a neanderthal understands the meaning of that statement.

    Repeat after me: “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.” If a person cannot be trusted with a gun then they cannot be trusted without a custodian.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  65. stonetools says:

    Guess its Second Amendment time again, where those who argue gun saferty argue logic, evidence and history, and the gun nuts argue “I want to be able to buy, own, and carry any gun anywhere, cost to society be damned, because I like guns!”
    Doug argues that the problem is that liberals don’t like guns, which is why we can’t recognize that the Second Amendment confers a near absolute right to own, buy, carry, and use guns, regardless of the social cost (30,000-half a Vietnam War -deaths every single year.)
    Here’s an alternate view: liberals can actually read the Second Amendment, including the parts that conservatives want to skip over. A straightforward reading of the Second Amendment, cast in modern English would be :
    Because A well regulated militia is necessary to the existence of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
    Now read like that is obvious the that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on the need for the states to raise “well regulated” militias.The focus of the Second Amendment is therefore militias.
    Now I agree with mantis and others is really an anachronism. Let’s be blunt: the Second Aendment is based on a falsehood. Militias in fact are NOT necessary to the existence of a free, i.e democratic states. There are plenty of democratic governments all over the world that don’t have militias, well-regulated or otherwise. The founding fathers were simply wrong about that, as in 2+2=5 wrong.These means that the uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms is based on a falsehood.
    The Second Amendment has been twisted from its original purpose and meaning to serve the purposes of the gun lobby, which is to enshrine a doctrine of gun owner supremacy into the Constitution. The Roberts court did that by importing the right to self defense into the Second Amendment (although neither the words or concept of self defense appears anywhere in the Constitution). Justice Scalia( Mr. Originalist) did that by looking to the Glorious Revolution, English common law, the Magna Carta-everywhere but the plain text of the Constitution. Having imported the right to self defense by the judicial equivalent of sprinkling magic pixie dust on the 2nd Am, Scalia went on to sprinkle more pixie dust by limiting that right to the NRA’s favorite werapon-guns. There is no reason why the right to self defence should exclude the right to freely use flamethrowers, hand grenades, landmines, chemical gas,artillery, or fully automatic weapons. Scalia found a government right to regulate “dangerous and unusual weapons” (I believe he found it in Blackstone) and thus saved his self defense doctine from absurdity.
    As for fixing the 2nd Am, I think the best chance is to change the Court. Let’s say Scalia chokes on a canoli in 2017 and President Hillary gets to appoint, say, Justice Cass Sunstein. In a gun rights case, Sunstein reads the 2ndAm the way it was always read pre Heller and disappears the right of self defense from the Constiution. I bet at that time Doug, Jack annd others would entertain thoughts of putting an explicit right to self defence “back” into the 2nd Am…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  66. Jack says:

    Why do people continue this to promote magical thinking: laws stop bad guys! Gun control laws in particular. Only they don’t, do they? Why are you blind to gun control’s consistently obvious failure? In fact, you view this failure as rationale to continue your quixotic crusade.

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    Albert Einstein

    A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
    Sigmund Freud

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  67. Rick DeMent says:

    @Jack:

    Repeat after me: “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

    Repeat after me: rights under the constitution are neither natural, fundamental or inalienable, they are agreed upon by consensus and can be amended at anytime using the procedures established in the constitution itself. You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence which was a war document written by an institution that does not exist anymore. Evidence if this is in the constitution itself, at one time consumption of alcohol was constitutionally banned, not it’s not. At one time State legislatures elected senators, now they are elected by popular vote.

    I’m curious why you would think that anything in the constitution in inviolate and written in stone, there is ample evidence that the founders didn’t think so.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  68. rudderpedals says:

    @stonetools:

    As for fixing the 2nd Am, I think the best chance is to change the Court.

    This. The key is composition. The bottom line is that the Constitution means what the Court says it means, nothing more and nothing less.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  69. Jack says:

    @stonetools: Seems you don’t like the Heller decision and deride Roberts because of it. Well, try this for size:

    The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. United States v. Cruikshank – 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

    Let me guess, that goes against your opinion too, so obviously that court was just a bunch of liars, activists and GOP supporters as well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  70. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    Why do people continue this to promote magical thinking: laws stop bad guys! Gun control laws in particular. Only they don’t, do they? Why are you blind to gun control’s consistently obvious failure?

    Except that it isn’t always “bad guys” who use guns. Spousal and family violence come to mind. The Newton shooter wasn’t a “bad guy” until he decided to murder adults and children at the school. The same is true with respect to the Columbine and Aurora Theater killers. And on and on, etcetera, et cetera.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  71. Jack says:

    @Rick DeMent: The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. United States v. Cruikshank – 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

    You try to ammend all you want. Get 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate, and 3/4 of all states to agree. I’ll wait. And afterward, I’ll be jsut like those people in Connecticut and NY that refuse to register, turn in, or get rid of my gun/magazines.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  72. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: You cannot enforce prior restraint on a rights just because someone may commit a crime. You seem to have no problem stomping all over rights you deem inferior.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  73. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    We have levels of gun violence that are truly shocking when compared to those of the rest of the advanced world.I’m curious, what do you attribute that to?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  74. stonetools says:

    @Jack:

    Why do people continue this to promote magical thinking: laws stop bad guys! Gun control laws in particular. Only they don’t, do they?

    Actually they do: all over the world where gun safety laws are passed and effectively enforced, with no huge loopholes like the gun show exception. In 2011, Canada had 144 gun homicides: the USA 9,369.That’s 65 times as many, in case you need help with math.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  75. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    You keep wanting to change the topic. First guns, then bio weapons, then tanks, then flamewthrowers. Pick a topic and I will refute you on it. Then we can more onto another topic.

    The topic is “Arms”, which includes guns, bio weapons, tanks, flamethrowers, and many other weapons. You seem to simultaneously believe that the right to bear arms is unlimited and yet can be defeated by a $200 transfer tax.

    Explain: why, under the 2nd Amendment, am I not allowed to maintain a personal arsenal of chemical and biological weapons? Why can’t I have a Stinger surface-to-air missile capable of bringing down a 747?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  76. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Japan has levels of suicide that are truly shocking when compared to those of the rest of the advanced world. I’m curious, what do you attribute that to?

    Say it with me kids; Correlation does not equal Causation!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

  77. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. Sigmund Freud

    As Freud also said, you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet:

    This is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud’s works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the essay “Guns, Murders, and the Constitution” (February 1990) by Don B. Kates, Jr. where Kates summarizes his views of passages in Dreams in Folklore (1958) by Freud and David E. Oppenheim, while disputing statements by Emmanuel Tanay in “Neurotic Attachment to Guns” in a 1976 edition of The Fifty Minute Hour: A Collection of True Psychoanalytic Tales (1955) by Robert Mitchell Lindner: Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of — in any event, he does not cite — other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons. The probative importance that ought to be attached to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion. The point here is only that those views provide no support for the penis theory of gun ownership. Due to misreading of this essay and its citations, this paraphrase of an opinion about Freud’s ideas has been wrongly attributed to Freud himself, and specifically to his 10th Lecture “Symbolism in Dreams” in General Introduction to Psychoanalysis….

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  78. Rick DeMent says:

    @Jack:

    Why do people continue this to promote magical thinking: laws stop bad guys! Gun control laws in particular. Only they don’t, do they?

    Laws don’t stop anyone from doing anything, they are tools. If murder was not a crime then no one could go to jail for murder.

    Why are you blind to gun control’s consistently obvious failure? In fact, you view this failure as rationale to continue your quixotic crusade.

    Why do you think that gun control doesn’t work, there are clear and obvious successes that you seem to just ignore. How many of the shootings over the years going back to University of Texas in 1966 were perpetrated with a fully automatic weapon? Answer … 0 and full auto isn’t even fully banned just highly regulated. After all full autos, by your own logic, should be readily available on the street right? But not one had been used in all of those mass shootings going back 50 years.

    I don’t fear weapons I fear people who are too drunk with their own false confidence that they would do anything other then wet themselves if they ever had to actually face a live fire situation. For crying out loud just google road rage and gun fire.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  79. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: Funny how this esteemed Jurist you hold in such high regard started his Op Ed with “Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered automatic weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents.” I appreciate that he does not agree with Scalia about the nature of the Second Amendment, but at least get your facts right. Perhaps the bow tie was a little too tight the day he penned this chapter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  80. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    You cannot enforce prior restraint on a rights just because someone may commit a crime.

    Which is why we’re all allowed to carry guns onto an airplane. You can’t restrict the right to bear arms just because someone may hijack a flight….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  81. Jack says:

    @Rick DeMent:

    For crying out loud just google road rage and gun fire.

    Road Rage is illegal, firing from a moving vehicle is illegal, firing into a moving vehicle is illegal. How many more laws do you want? There are over 20000 laws/regulations on guns. Guns are more regulated than the nuclear industry. What 1 more law is going to keep criminals from using guns? What one more law is going to keep someone from committing suicide? What one more law is going to prevent some guy from going off in his school, place of work, place of worship, or some other gathering place like a mall or political event? What one more law do you want that will seemingy fix all of societies ills and make everyone love everyone else while singing Kumbaya and eating smores? Because heaven knows, after that particular law you propose goes into effect, man’s inhumanity to man will magicall cease.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  82. Jack says:

    @Rafer Janders: I can avoid that infringement in the same way I avoid getting felt up by TSA, by simply not flying. Therefore no one is infringing on my rights. The courts have agreed, you have no right to fly. Next, cupcake?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

  83. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    I’m curious, what do you attribute that to?

    There is no mystery about Japan’s high suicide rate, it is deeply embedded in their culture. Suicide is an acceptable way out for an individual who has been disgraced. Keep in mind that they define “disgrace” differently than we do.

    So are you saying that massive gun violence is simply deeply ingrained in our culture, and we should accept it? Do you accept the Newton slaughter? Children dying in drive-buys?

    At any rate, it is telling that you ducked my question.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  84. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    I can avoid that infringement in the same way I avoid getting felt up by TSA, by simply not flying. Therefore no one is infringing on my rights.

    So we could ban all private gun ownership, and you could avoid that infringement simply by never going outside and staying home with your guns. Therefore, gun regulation doesn’t infringe on your rights. Brilliant.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  85. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    That is some…impressive mental gymnastics there. Doublethink to make the Ministry proud, I’m sure.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  86. Rafer Janders says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Once again: explain why, under the 2nd Amendment, am I not allowed to maintain a personal arsenal of chemical and biological weapons? Why can’t I have a Stinger surface-to-air missile capable of bringing down a 747?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  87. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Yet over half of the 30,000 firearm death numbers you use come from suicide. Another 40% or so come from criminal on criminal crime and you know this. It’s telling that you and others want to inflate the real numbers by including suicides and criminal on criminal deaths. Once you get down to the real number which is likely less than 2,000, out of a population of over 330 million. It’s not that bad, especially compared to car accidents, falling deaths, blunt object deaths, etc.

    There are much better places to start if your TRUE intention is reducing death. But of course, that’s not your true intention, that is just a wrench you like to batter opponents with.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  88. Jack says:

    @Rafer Janders: I suggest you read Heller. The answer is there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  89. mantis says:

    Jack,

    Simple question you keep ducking: what limits, if any, do you think the government can impose on the ownership of arms? Keep in mind that “arms” includes everything from a bow/arrow to a nuclear ICBM.

    Can you answer that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  90. Jack says:

    @Rafer Janders: Again, go for it. 2/3 house, 2/3 senate, 3/4 of all states. My grandchildren, who have not yet been conceived, will live to a ripe old age before that happens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  91. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    It’s telling that you and others want to inflate the real numbers by including suicides and criminal on criminal deaths.

    Those deaths aren’t real? Interesting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  92. Jack says:

    @mantis: A nuclear warhead is not an Arm. Again, read Heller.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  93. Jack says:

    Scalia stipulated, “if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right to “bear arms”:”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  94. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    Once you get down to the real number which is likely less than 2,000, out of a population of over 330 million. It’s not that bad,

    Sure, just like the September 11th attack…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  95. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    A nuclear warhead is not an Arm.

    First, I notice you ducked the question of all other arms – chemical, biological, Stingers, RPGs, etc. — below nuclear. Whenever you don’t like a question, you ignore it and hope no one notices.

    Second, “arms” can indeed refer to nuclear weapons. Remember the “arm control talks” between the US and USSR? That referred to nuclear warheads. Or per Wikipedia: “Arms control is a term for restrictions upon the development, production, stockpiling, proliferation and usage of weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  96. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    of course, that’s not your true intention,

    Really, I’m curious, what is my true intention?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  97. BHirsh says:

    Justice Stevens has inadvertently done gun-rights advocates and the Constitution a huge favor.

    By proposing adding these five words, he is tacitly admitting that his (progressive) interpretation of the Second Amendment is facially incorrect, else why would such an adjustment be necessary?

    Justice Stevens has exposed the Emperor’s invisible clothes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  98. Rafer Janders says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Nor did “arms” refer only to hand-held individual weapons in the 18th century usage you’re so fond of. In Federalist 46, James Madison (author of the 2nd Amendment) referred to “the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms.” Here, plainly the term “arms” means the whole British armed forces and all their combined weaponry, including foot, cavalry, artillery, and naval ships.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  99. Rafer Janders says:

    @Jack:

    I suggest you read Heller. The answer is there.

    I’ve read Heller. I’m asking you. Stop ducking.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  100. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Your true intent is no different than that of Bloomburg, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, or Moms Demand Action, to simply ban civilian ownership of firearms in an effort to reduce deaths.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  101. Jack says:

    @Rafer Janders: Since you refuse to do your own research, here.

    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

    The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

    This limits “arms” to those things that can or are typically carried by a person.
    Since all of the things you list are not typically carried by people, they are not arms and are listed as “destructive devices”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

  102. stonetools says:

    @Jack:

    I’ve read Heller, and the answer is certainly not there. An RPG launcher and a Stinger are both shoulder fired weapons, and so could be thought of as hand held.
    A handgrenade, a land mine, a brick of C4 explosive, a poison gas canister are all “handheld.
    Basically, Scalia’s limitations on “dangerous and unusual weapons” is just so much argle bargle, meant to put his favorite weapon-guns- in a special category , so that guns could be regulated less restrictively than other lethal weapons.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  103. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    to simply ban civilian ownership of firearms

    I believe I mentioned earlier in the thread that I have been shooting for over 40 years, and that I am shopping for new grips for my Beretta.

    Try harder. You are not impressing anyone by serving up warmed over right wing talking points.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  104. stonetools says:

    @anjin-san:

    One of things that Doug anbd the gun nuts can’t quite grasp that you can understand guns, like guns, even own and use guns, and still think that background checks, waiting periods, safety training requirements, and other regulations meant to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible users are good and sensible ideas.
    And Jack,for the record, Justice Stevens enlisted and served in the US Navy 1942-45(do you remember what was going on then?), earning a Bronze Star. I am betting he knows and understands more about guns than any other Justice on the Supreme Court, and maybe more than the average gun nut.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  105. Jack says:

    @stonetools: Extract from Heller. Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333.

    With the exception of hand grenades, none of those are in use by the typical person, even those associate with military service. Additionally, these are classified as offensive weapons. And all of your examples could also be considered “mass casualty” weapons. For this reason, the government and courts have not considered them as traditiditional arms protected by the second amendment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  106. Jack says:

    @stonetools: argle bargle….sounds like the ACA case to me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  107. wr says:

    @Jack: “My grandchildren, who have not yet been conceived, will live to a ripe old age before that happens.”

    Unless one of them finds your freedom weapons and accidentally kills the other ones.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  108. Jack says:

    @stonetools:

    One of things that Doug anbd the gun nuts can’t quite grasp that you can understand guns, like guns, even own and use guns, and still think that background checks, waiting periods, safety training requirements, and other regulations meant to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible users are good and sensible ideas.

    How does a waiting period or training keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible users? These simply make it more difficult for law abiding to get them. What other rights can I apply waiting periods and training to? Voting? Speech? How about religion? I know, illegal searches and seizures. If the police can prove I didn’t have training or I didn’t wait long enough, I shouldn’t get protection of the 4th.

    How about waiting periods on abortions? I know, we should pass a law requiring 9-month waiting periods on abortion.

    You suggest these ideas but all you are doing is trying to reduce the exercise of a right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  109. anjin-san says:

    @ stonetools

    As someone who has a family member with severe mental health problems, I have very strong feelings about the need for competent, responsible members of society to take responsibility for keeping guns out of the hands of irresponsible and incompetent users.

    Background checks, waiting periods, safety training requirements are all good things, and as a gun owner, I don’t feel that they infringe on my rights in the slightest.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  110. stonetools says:

    @Jack:

    So the distinction thats drawn is not that guns can be carried, but it’s that guns are typically carried by a person? TSeriously, that’s just gibberish. Most of the people I meet do not typically wear a gun, so how does that work?
    If what Scalia is saying that lots of people own guns, whereas few own and use land mines-that’s a function of the fact that high explosives are closely regulated-precisely so as to keep use of land mines and other high explosive weapons from becoming “typical.”
    Frankly, Scalia’s attempt to seperate out guns from other lethal weapons capable of being carried is unconvincing to those who don’t share his goal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  111. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    How does a waiting period or training keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible users?

    This is not rocket science. An untrained person handling a gun is inherently dangerous, both to the person handing the gun, and anyone nearby. Every year the tragedies that result from people who do not know how to handle guns handling guns are played out again and again. It is irresponsible for an untrained person to handle a gun. By training them, you remove the element of irresponsibility, or at the very least one aspect of it.

    Waiting periods? Well, many shootings are heat of the moment types of things. Two weeks is a good amount of time for the heat of the moment to dissipate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  112. stonetools says:

    @Jack:

    How does a waiting period or training keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible users

    These and other measures seem to work just fine in other countries, where you don’t have mass shootings by deranged persons every other week and 30, 000 gun deaths every year. You see, that’s the difference between gun safety proponents and gun cultists; we can actually point to countries who have gun safety laws and which have much lower rates of gun deaths than we do, including culturally similar countries like Canada and Australia. We can point to a country like Israel, which actually has a well regulated militia, universal military service, and an ongoing terrorist threat, yet has strict handgun control legislation and a much lower homicide rate than the USA.
    IOW, we actually have facts and logic on our side, not just speculation and an insistence that we should have all the guns we want any time we want, if it causes thousands of preventable deaths per year.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  113. KM says:

    @Jack:

    How does a waiting period or training keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible users? These simply make it more difficult for law abiding to get them.

    Since one is law abiding citizen by default until one does something stupid/tragic/illegal to make one an irresponsible user, making it difficult for one makes it difficult for the other. Your problem is you seem to think “irresponsible” is somehow stamped on a person’s forehead to give warning to the general populace. ANYONE and EVERYONE is a potential irresponsible user given the right circumstances.

    I support individual gun rights. I also support reasonable restrictions because it’s a tool and a terrible privilege that your average citizen isn’t really capable of handling. You should have to go through extensive training and be re-certified every year. You should be background-checked with each certification and have to wait (what the hell do you need it for immediately, anyways, that a few days is a problem?) Why is any of this a problem other then you think you won’t pass? When you have the power to kill in your hands, why is taking the time to prove to your community that you can be safely trusted with it such an unbearable hassle for you?

    If a person cannot be trusted with a gun then they cannot be trusted without a custodian.

    Flip this and you’ve got it right. Responsibility leads to good ownership, not the other way around.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  114. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Yet, the waiting period does not keep a gun out of the hands of an “irresponsible” person. Nor does training force an irresponsible person to be responsible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  115. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    Requiring a perspective driver to undergo written and behind the wheel training in order to become licensed and lawfully operate a motor vehicle does not force them to become a responsible driver.

    Yet we do it anyway, because it is most certainly better than just telling everyone “You want to drive? Go for it – there are no rules”

    The fact that we do not live in a perfect world does not mean that we can’t take prudent steps to help ensure public safety.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  116. Jack says:

    @KM You use the example of “irresponsibility” that causes gun deaths, yet compared to criminals (known criminals) that kill people with a gun the numbers are infinitesimal. How do any of these suggestions (training, waiting periods) keep a gun out of the hands of criminals that do most of the damage?

    I am not against NICS because it is practically instant. It took me less than 20 minutes to buy my AR15. Why should I have to wait for days/weeks/months? There is no evidence that a waiting period reduces crime, it’s simply speculation. It’s a feel good law.

    I encourage training when buying a firearm with which a person is unfamiliar and provide training to family members. What you suggest is that if I have trainined a family member of the rules of gun safety and practiced with them, that is insufficient, but when someone pays to receive the exact same training, it’s now OK.

    Again, what other rights should we impose these same requirements on?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  117. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Diriving is not a right, it’s a priviledge. Additionally, a person who limits driving to private land does not need a license. Next?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  118. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    Why do we require 20+ folks to take tests and have a license in order to drive? Teenagers are by far the most dangerous drivers.

    Why do we have any training standards or requirements at all? Can’t I just train my wife to do dental work? Why should we have to pay a school to do that?

    Sorry, but you are simply serving up serial logic fails.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  119. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    As I pointed out earlier, rights are not infinite. I don’t have a “right” to take a gun to the office when I go to work, in fact if I do, I will be fired, and rightly so.

    So you add another logic fail to your tally. Don’t stain anything patting yourself on the back. So far, you have impressed no one but yourself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  120. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Again, none of those are rights?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  121. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    Again, rights are not infinite. If you can’t grasp that concept, I am not wasting any more time on you.

    I have probably been shooting longer than you have, and I doubt that your love of freedom is any greater than mine. The problem is that the modern conservative movement worships rights, but rejects responsibility.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  122. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    You cannot enforce prior restraint on a rights just because someone may commit a crime. You seem to have no problem stomping all over rights you deem inferior.

    Do you consider a background check to be prior restraint?

    Clearly, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk or probability that people who should not have guns will be able to obtain a gun. To me, that does not mean that we should not take reasonable measures to prevent such people from obtaining firearms.

    Our pervasive cult of gun ownership is just something we have to live with and hope for the best. I believe that (like alcohol-related dysfunction) it is a public health problem, and statistically we’re going to have occasional mass killings, and there is not much we, as a society, want to do about it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  123. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: I have not rejected responsibility. I flat out said that I encourage training and I personally like NICS because I don’t have to wait. I own 2 gun safes. I am the definition of a responsible gun owner. But none of your suggestions will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Do you think the guy selling guns out of the back of his car will care is Universal Background Checks gets passed? Do you think one less criminal will send his girlfriend, who has a clean background, in to buy a gun if there is a waiting period?

    Everyone wants compromise from the right, yet the definition of compromise means give and take. The left doesn’t want to give anything back. NICS checks were the compromise. We are done until the left wants to compromise in good faith and not just take, take, take.

    I have to fill out an ATF form 4473 every time I buy a firearm, provide two forms of ID, and risk prison if anything on that form is incorrect, yet try that with voting. We can’t even get a requirement for valid ID passed in most states. Can you imagine if the government mandated you fill out a form punishable with felony charges to vote? There would be upheaval beyond belief!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  124. Jack says:

    @al-Ameda: I personally do not consider background checks to be a prior restraint anymore than I feel regulating CCW is prior restraint. Mind you, Open Carry is legal in VA, so you don’t have to have a CCW to carry. A CCW simply allows me to put on a jacket when I’m carrying and is good in multiple states in which I travel where having a loaded weapon in a vehicle is a crime without a CCW. I do however find the requirment to have a CCW to carry in those states that do not allow Open Carry an infringement. I believe TX, FL, and CA to name a few, will soon be changing their laws based upon recent cases and popular support for Open Carry.

    Additionally, a background check is only needed in most states when purchasing from a licensed dealer. So, even people that feel background checks are a prior restraint can still exercise their rights.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  125. KM says:

    @Jack:

    Irresponsible is your word – you keep using it. I was quoting you.

    A death by gun is still a death, regardless of who died or how. You keep trying to isolate certain subcategories in an effort to downplay them to insinuate “Oh it’s not really that many, quit whining”. What makes a suicide any less tragic of a death then an accidental gun discharge? Families still lost a member either way, a life is still gone.

    I encourage training when buying a firearm with which a person is unfamiliar and provide training to family members. What you suggest is that if I have trainined a family member of the rules of gun safety and practiced with them, that is insufficient, but when someone pays to receive the exact same training, it’s now OK.

    And we’re just supposed to believe you? Who are you? No really, who are you and why the hell do you think we should just take your word for it when lives could be at stake? How do we know you did it right and weren’t just “Point it at the bad guy!”? Society is trusting you to know what you’re doing with the safety of the whole community at risk. Would you get on a commercial airliner with a pilot who was trained by a family member but no official certification or training? How about go under the knife with a surgeon who’s dad taught him everything he knows but didn’t bother with that pesky MD?

    Seriously, this kind of argument just makes people think all gun owners are nuts. It really just sounds like you’re a cheap SOB trying to skip out on paying for training. Feel free to instruct family all you want but when it comes to this, but official certification and training, vigorous and often, is one easy way to allay public concern and fears about the types and skills of people handling guns. People trust the military because they drill and practice often – they are associated with discipline. Billy Bob Joe, however, they might know from down the street and they have no such assurances.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  126. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    I encourage training

    Training without standards. We don’t accept that for someone that does manicures. It hardly seems sufficient for handling a deadly weapon.

    I personally like NICS because I don’t have to wait.

    How does waiting two weeks harm you? Be specific. So far all I see is that you “like” being able to get a gun quickly, and that you disregard the possible consequences to society flowing from this rapid access to weapons.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  127. anjin-san says:

    when I’m carrying

    I’m curious, why do you feel the need to carry a gun?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  128. Jack says:

    @KM: Again, you are trying to stipulate more requirements to simply exercise a right. Even if no one was ever trained, simply carrying a gun in a holster in public makes them no more or no less dangerous than the next guy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  129. KM says:

    @Jack:

    I have to fill out an ATF form 4473 every time I buy a firearm, provide two forms of ID, and risk prison if anything on that form is incorrect

    And this is why.

    A jury has returned a guilty verdict in the trial of a woman charged with buying the guns a man used to kill two suburban Rochester volunteer firefighters on Christmas Eve 2012. The state Supreme Court jury found 25-year-old Dawn Nguyen of Greece guilty Tuesday of falsifying a business record because she lied when she said on a gun purchase form that the weapon was for her own use. She also faces federal charges.

    Prosecutors say Nguyen bought two guns for her neighbor William Spengler Jr., who set fire to his Webster home early on the morning of Dec. 24, 2012, then shot at responding firefighters. Two died and two were wounded before Spengler committed suicide. As a convicted felon, Spengler was barred from owning firearms.

    Bad guys get guns from “law abiding citizens”. You’re damn right you better fill out the paperwork that can send you to jail when you can and will turn right around and sell them to nutcases who kill. These are tools that have no purpose other then to injure or kill living things. Poor you that you have to sign your name on the dotted line and be held legally accountable – how traumatizing.

    Liberty has a price – personal responsibility. Guns are not toys and should not be as easy to get as one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  130. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    Even if no one was ever trained, simply carrying a gun in a holster in public makes them no more or no less dangerous than the next guy.

    This statement suggests either that your real world experience with human beings is quite limited, or that your thinking is entirely ideological.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  131. KM says:

    @Jack:

    Even if no one was ever trained, simply carrying a gun in a holster in public makes them no more or no less dangerous than the next guy.

    True enough. And when they go to use it, good sir? What then? Unless it’s a really heavy decorative choice, most who carry expect to use at some point.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  132. Jack says:

    @anjin-san: Funny, you keep asking me querstions but never answer any of mine.

    Let’s review, shall we?

    Again, what other rights should we impose these same requirements on?
    Do you think the guy selling guns out of the back of his car will care is Universal Background Checks gets passed?
    Do you think one less criminal will send his girlfriend, who has a clean background, in to buy a gun if there is a waiting period?
    Can you imagine if the government mandated you fill out a form punishable with felony charges to vote?
    What other rights can I apply waiting periods and training to? Voting? Speech? How about religion? I know, illegal searches and seizures. If the police can prove I didn’t have training or I didn’t wait long enough, I shouldn’t get protection of the 4th.
    How about waiting periods on abortions?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  133. Jack says:

    @KM: @KM: So, obviously, the background check did not work! You are proving my points for me!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  134. anjin-san says:

    @ KM

    Unless it’s a really heavy decorative choice

    I can’t help thinking that it’s that nice manly feeling of strength and power that flows from a gun that is the real attraction for many that carry, or want to carry. I like guns, and I would not carry in pubic if you offered me $1000 to do so.

    One of the problems is that the feeling of power holds a strong attraction for a certain personality type, and they are exactly the sort that I don’t want to have anywhere near me if they are armed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  135. KM says:

    So, obviously, the background check did not work! You are proving my points for me!

    Actually, I’m proving “law abiding” isn’t always so there needs to be very heavy penalties involved for all. Like accessory to murder at the bare minimum. Maybe automatic 10 years, no parole. Read up on the case – they sounds an awful lot like you with your tirade about infringement of rights and the evils of paper trails.

    “I got the Bushmaster and Mossberg cruiser from her for cost plus $1000.00,” Spengler wrote. “But heres where it gets tricky, she sent her daughter to get them because she doesn’t like to leave a paper trail. … So the dummy will take the heat for the weapons while the person who set it up and made the profit skates, if you let it go that way.”

    Dawn Nguyen had a legal right to buy those guns and according to you, we should have done nothing to impede her. A waiting period would have been too much, an indepth background check of her life would have revealed the association with Spengler. But no – infringement!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  136. stonetools says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Our pervasive cult of gun ownership is just something we have to live with and hope for the best. I believe that (like alcohol-related dysfunction) it is a public health problem, and statistically we’re going to have occasional mass killings, and there is not much we, as a society, want to do about it

    Bingo. I note that neither Doiug, Jack or any of the gun cultists ever even try to engage the scientific studies on gun ownership and gun violence. (Indeed, the NRA tries hard to supress the scientific study of gun violence)
    IMO, the reason they do so is simple: the science does not support and often refutes the guncultists’ most cherithed myths about gun deaths and gun violence.
    Thus, having a gun in the house doesn’t increase safety, since most people who are hurt by guns are hurt by the gun legally in the house.
    People who legally buy guns (the “responsible gun owners) often are responsible for shooting accidents., either by mishandling guns, or leaving guns around for toddlers to pick up.
    Those”so called responsible gun owners are responsible till they pick up a gun in the heat of an argument, or when drunk or high-then they of all a sudden become “criminals.”
    “Responsible” gun owners get depressed and commit suicide by the thousand, occassionally taking others with them.
    Gun safety legislation actually does work in other countries , when its actually enforced and where there aren’t giant loopholes.
    Now the studies do show that drawing or brandishing guns can prevent crime by driving off criminals , but then there are lots of ways to deter and drive off potential offenders.Guns are just one way, and that has to be weighed against the tragic cases of people shooting what they think are home intruders but who are people who are drunk or just lost.
    The good thing is that scientific studies can only be ignored for so long. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, “The good thing about science is that it’s true, whether you believe it or not.” Eventually the gun cultists are going to have to come to terms with the science, the way the Catholic Church had to come to terms with Galileo.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  137. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    Here, I will play your little game for a minute:

    Again, what other rights should we impose these same requirements on?

    None, because they are different things. I have an approach, and a certain set of self-imposed rules and guidelines I follow in order to have a successful marriage. I do not apply the same approach, rules, and guidelines to playing golf, because marriage and golf are two different things.

    Do you think the guy selling guns out of the back of his car will care is Universal Background Checks gets passed?

    No. I also don’t think that having laws against murder will end murder. In spite of that, I still think we should have laws against murder.

    I am sure your list of “questions” seems clever in the context of right wing politics. “Hey liberal wussy, have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

    At any rate, you don’t seem to have a clue just how completely your arguments have been shredded in this thread, and that is kind of sad.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  138. Jack says:

    You keep equating gun training and drivers training, yet there are more automobile deaths by far. So, obviously, training does nothing for those that are irresponsible.

    You’ve no more shredded my arguments than Stevens shredded the individual rights argument.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  139. anjin-san says:

    @ Jack

    You keep equating gun training and drivers training, yet there are more automobile deaths by far. So, obviously, training does nothing for those that are irresponsible.

    It’s statements like this that make me not want to be around people who make the most noise about gun rights when they are armed. Clearly, reasoning is not one of your strong suits.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  140. mantis says:

    @Jack:

    You keep equating gun training and drivers training, yet there are more automobile deaths by far. So, obviously, training does nothing for those that are irresponsible.

    So because training doesn’t prevent all car crashes, it prevents none? You’re an idiot.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  141. DrDaveT says:

    @RLEmery:

    9,892 murders
    19,766 suicides
    591 justifiable homicides (209 by civilians using a gun, 270 total)
    835 accidental deaths

    So that’s
    209 correct uses of a personal gun
    20,601 collateral damage from law-abiding gun ownership
    9,892 murders

    Those proportions give you no pause? None? Especially when the evidence from every other country on Earth makes it clear that the murder rate is not necessary; it’s a choice we are making.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  142. RLEmery says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Funny how you or stevens isnt smart enough to prove the facts above wrong…end of story!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  143. RLEmery says:

    @DrDaveT:

    So what is your major brain fart that makes you mentally defective to where you cant understand the 97.3% of killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies like you, and domestic violence abusers?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  144. RLEmery says:

    @DrDaveT:

    You mean the murder rates that were never changed after they implemented strict gun control….do tell!

    Oh thats right, the mathematically illiterate claim that when one does a comparison, one data point is accurate…hmmm…NOPE!
    England -rates per 100k people

    1898 1.0 murder rate no gun control
    1997 1.3 murder rate, strict gun control implemented, 820 VCR
    2011 1.0 murder rate 1,5867 VCR, murders have reduced to 1993 levels after a 25% increase. (ref Home Office UK) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/?view=Standard&pubID=1056123

    Their murders have always been low, not due to gun control, and strict gun control didn’t reduce the murders, much less the violence, such a consistent trend in gun ban countries.

    Lets compare England to US 2011 (rate fallen/risen since 1991)

    England 987,666 Violent Crime / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 1,583.21 per 100k (78.67%)
    US 1,203, 506 Violent Crime /311,591,917 X 100,000 =383.6 per 100k (-49.04%)

    England 818,301 Assault / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 1,295.15 per 100k (-36.15%)
    US 751,131 Assault /311,591,917 X 100,000 = 241.06 per 100k (-44.36%)

    England 77,684 Robbery / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 122.95 per 100k (32.9%)
    US 354,396 Robbery /311,591,917 X 100,000 =113.73 per 100k (-58.31%)

    England 54,919 Rape / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 86.92 per 100k (2.23%)
    US 83,425 Rape /311,591,917 X 100,000 = 26.77 per 100k (-36.59%)

    England 638 murder / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = 1.01 per 100k (-30.9%)
    US 14,612 Murder /311,591,917 X 100,000 = 4.69 per 100k (-31.1%)

    England 60 Murder w gun / 63,181,775 x 100,000 = .095 per 100k (114%)
    US 9,982 Murder w gun /311,591,917 X 100,000 = 3.17 per 100k (-52.51%)

    Now the real problem irving has is showing how little Englands violent crime rates have fallen during their gun ban years, vs the US which has added 42% more firearms in law abiding civilians hands, but whose violent crime has fallen.

    Man how is it that England, with 1/200th of our civilian owned firearms, can’t reduce their violent crime like the US did during the same time frame, while the US added another 42% in guns in law abiding civilians hands!

    So much for less guns in law abiding civilians hands = less violence BS

    So much for more guns in law abiding civilians hands = more violence BS

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  145. RLEmery says:

    Amazing how one goes to an anti gun website that actually shows the failure of gun control, especially registration.

    Why is it that this small sample of gun control countries (206 total countries in the list) have less than a 25% registration of their guns?

    Explain again with any logic how one gets the criminals to register their guns, is it like a buy back with blanket amnesty, do tell?

    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/153/rate_of_privately_owned_firearms_-_world_ranking/

    Guns / Registered / % of registered



    Brazil 16,200,000 / 5,200,000 / 32.1%

    Canada 14,450,688 / 7,514,358 / 52.0%

    China 40,000,000 / 680,000 / 1.7%

    Cuba 545,000 / 58,150 / 10.7%

    Guatemala 1,650,000 / 393,996 / 23.9%
    
Japan 710,000 / 413,096 / 58.2%

    Mexico 15,500,000 / 2,824,231 / 18.2%

    N Ireland 380,000 / 141,393 / 37.2%
    
Netherlands 510,000 / 333,000 / 65.3%

    Russia 12,750,000 / 5,000,000 / 39.2% 

    S Africa 5,950,000 / 3,737,676 / 62.8%

    Venezuela 2,825,000 / 925,000 / 32.7%




    Totals & avg. 111,470,688 / 27,220,900 / 24.4%

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  146. RLEmery says:

    Canada 1997 958 VCR per 100k people 2010 1,282 VCR per 100k people, murder rose from 560 to 610 (Ref Statcan) http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/subject-sujet/subtheme-soustheme.action;jsessionid=8D2AA1C6360138D81357F63393EC6C97?pid=2693&id=2102&lang=eng&more=0

    Canada $2 billion dollar plus registry, 52% compliance for pistols, less than 30% for long guns, that hasn’t solved one crime, has traced 47 firearms to prove, yes they were stolen, and the long gun portion of the registry was defunded in 2012, such a common trend.

    http://www.lufa.ca/quickfacts.asp

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/07/high-river-residents-still-baffled-by-police-actions-after-rcmp-return-most-of-539-guns-seized-during-flood/

    Co-BIS, a fired shell database implemented by MD, NJ, NY 1997 at $4 mil per year cost to tax payers, traced 2 firearms as stolen, solved no violent crimes nor prevented them, also defunded in summer 2012 after $44 mil cost to taxpayers for verifying yep, them firearms was stolen, how pathetic and useless registrations are.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  147. RLEmery says:

    By the way, what is a country, with gun bans suicide rate vs the US? Australia has 1/100th of our firearms, so they should have 1/100th of our suicide rate, uh dude, their 2010 suicide rate is 11.14 per 100k people.

    What about murders, lets compare that as well.

    1996 Australia 1.7 murders per 100k people 2011 1.08 murders per 100k people a -36.5% reduction

    1996 US 7.4 murders per 100k people 2011 4.7 murders per 100k people a -36.5% reduction.

    How is it again, that a country with a 42% increase in civilian firearm ownership and 100 times more firearms in law abiding civilian hands than Australia, have the same reduction in murders as they did?

    Now if one breaks it down into weapons used if you take and look at the normal trend, one see’s Australia reduction in murder by illegal use of firearms only reduced -4.41% from 1996 to 2011, the US from 1996 to 2011 was reduced -26.5%.

    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02011?OpenDocument

    http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/B/%7bFFB9E49F-160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7dmr01.pdf

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  148. RLEmery says:

    Oh wait, you forgot to mention the increases in weapons being used to commit murders or VIOLENT CRIME which the Australian government acknowledges in their reports, and reflect that indeed as noted, more WEAPONS and more KNIVES are being used to commit a crime REPLACING the use of a firearm. But hey dont let govt. FACTS get in the way of your fantasy.

    Since you already have a functioning link to the Australian crime database, you can try and refute their data again!

    “A Transcript of the Police Interview With Martin Bryant” http : // loveforlife . com . au / content / 07 / 10 / 30 / transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant

    Funny, how even before 1996, you needed a LICENSE to purchase a firearm, yet the Port Arthur killer didnt have one, yet that is somehow the LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS FAULT AGAIN EH?

    So without the Port Arthur killings using a firearm only 65 occurred in 1996, which was 40 in 2011, wow thats impressive, NOT.

    Geez, didnt the Port Author killings occur in 1996 making a spike in their killings, yeah it did. So is it a true reflection upon normal crime trends to add that anomaly/spike into the trends as a rational comparison to see what effect a law had on a result, no it isnt!

    See that is where the gun banners like to use % to look impressive and quote the % of firearms used in murders has dropped SO DRAMATICALLy.

    Lets see 311 murders, 65 using firearm in 1996 65/311 = 20.9%
Lets see 244 murders, 44 using firearm in 2011 40/244 = 16.39%

    Amazing how when one digs into the details, the ACTUAL TREND for reduction in killings using a firearm is rather puny!

    Yet the number of assaults with weapons keeps rising, hmmmm. Sure appears that the level of violence isnt being reduced, but just luck of the draw some of those arent killings, so sad.

    Oh and as noted in GOVT. and recorded history, there was indeed a NASTY gang war going on in the 1980’s to early 2000’s. Has that ended matey, oh yes, it has hasnt it.

    Oh whats this page #31,Homicide in Australia: 2007–08 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report

    http://aic.gov.au/documents/8/9/D/ %7b89DEDC2D-3349-457C-9B3A-9AD9DAFA7256%7dmr13_004.pdf

    “…………. The majority of firearms used in homicides were unregistered and/or unlicensed” hmmm, such a consistent trend all over the world that the bad guys dont obey the law to begin with!

    All the while also refusing to acknowledge the effect of the baby boomers age subgroup as it affects crime rates. Geez, THE Aussies had the Baby Boomers (born 1947-1964) also didn’t you, yeah you did!

    Criminologists the world over all agree the most active criminal ages are 15-24 and 25-34, then the criminal activity declines the older a subgroup gets. Amazing how that actually mirrors identically the trend in murders DECREASING, a trend that Australian government shows began occurring back in the mid 1980’s and continues to this day. Not to mention the ending of those gang turf battles.

    Hence yet again, no valid proof that gun control had anything relevant to causing that reduction in murders., a near 42% drop in actual murders using a firearm in the US versus a 39% drop in murders using a firearm in Australia.

    Uh dude, there is no statistical difference is there, geez shuckey darn!

    Yet again proof that less firearms doesn’t equal less violence, much less more guns equal more violence BS.

    You were saying?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  149. RLEmery says:

    Review of Self-defense incidents collated at Guns Save Lives dot net (many more incidents exist, takes time to collate) from February 2012-present shows….



    602 = Total Incidents

    1679 = Total People Defended

    970 = Total attackers

    8 = Attacked in car (car jacking)

    137 = Attacked at Business

    395 = Attacked at Home

    50 = Attacked Other (churches, parking lots, etc…)

    65.6% = % of attacks at home

    2.55 = Avg. # of attackers when more than 1

    60.3% = % of incidents 1 attacker

    39.5% = % of incidents more than 1 attacker

    60.3% = % of bad guys armed



    Hmmmm, where were all the police to protect these victims eh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  150. RLEmery says:

    Oh darn, here is just a sample of the countries, all of whom have strict gun control, and their murder rates by illegal use of a gun, care to do the 206 countries in the following link?

    

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf



    Rate per 100k people

    
Honduras 68.4

    El Salvador 39.9

    Jamiaca 39.4

    Venezuela 39

    Guatemala 34.8

    Columbia 27.1

    Brazil 18.1

    South Africa 17

    Dominican Republic 16.3

    Panama 16.1

    Ecuador 12.7

    Mexico 10
    
Paraguay 7.3

    Haiti 6.09

    Nicaragua 5.9

    USA 3.6

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  151. RLEmery says:

    Man the US is so violent….uh wait….the GOVERNMENT DATA doesnt say that…hmmmm!

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_04.pdf
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1997/97sec2.pdf
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/mv41_12.pdf
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764212.html

    Per FBI UCR & CDC in 1991 24,700 murders, consistent % where firearms used is 67.8% =16,747 murders by illegal use of firearm, 15,383 suicides by firearms, 657 justifiable homicides, 1,463 accidental firearms deaths =34,250 deaths where firearms were used

    2011 14,612 murders 67.7% used a firearm = 9,892, 591 justifiable homicides, 835 accidental deaths, 19,766 suicides = 31,084 deaths where a firearm was used.

    Since 1991 to 2011, that is a reduction in…..


    Totals / Rate


    Violent Crime -37.04% / -49.04%
    
Murder w gun -41.31% / -52.51%
    
Rape -21.73% / -36.59% 

    Robbery -48.47% / -58.31%

    Assault -31.26% /-44.36%
    Accidental deaths -41.9% / -52.14%

    Amazing how those are the highest total reductions of ANY country in the world during that time!

    So explain again how since 1991 there has been a 42% increase in firearms in civilian hands there hasn’t been a 42% increase in violence or suicide?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  152. RLEmery says:

    Civilians Justifiable homicides – USDOJ/FBI UCR



    Year /justifiable homicides/gun used

    
1980 / 467 / 380

    1981 / 495 / 402

    1982 / 423 / 344

    1983 / 334 / 272

    1984 / 265 / 215

    1985 / 265 / 215

    1986 / 289 / 235

    1987 / 246 / 200

    1988 / 233 / 189

    1989 / 273 / 222

    1990 / 328 / 267

    1991 / 331 / 269

    1992 / 351 / 285

    1993 / 357 / 290

    1994 / 353 / 287

    1995 / 268 / 218

    1996 / 261 / 212

    1997 / 280 / 238 

    1998 / 196 / 170 

    1999 / 192 / 158 

    2000 / 164 / 138 

    2001 / 215 / 176 

    2002 / 233 / 189

    2003 / 247 / 203

    2004 / 222 / 166

    2005 / 196 / 147

    2006 / 241 / 195

    2007 / 257 / 202

    2008 / 265 / 219

    2009 / 266 / 218

    2010 / 285 / 236

    2011 / 270 / 209

    2012 / 310 / 258

    Thought you anti guntards claimed the # of justifiable homicides were rising, when the facts show they have been down from the average.

    Funny how we increased the # of guns in law abiding hands by over 42% during that same time frame, so why aren’t there 42% more justifiable homicides eh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  153. RLEmery says:

    Well the 1 mil police are known to be 11 times more likely to shoot you accidentally in a collateral damage incident than are the 100 mil law abiding gun owners or the 10 mil plus of those who carry concealed.

    Anti gun nuts have squealed BLOOD WILL FLOW every time a law was rescinded and a right restored….

    41 times states, reinstated concealed carry, the blood didn’t flow!

    35 times, states reinstated concealed carry in eateries serving alcohol the blood didn’t flow!

    26 times states reinstated SYG outside ones own home, the blood didn’t flow!

    24 times, states reinstated no duty to retreat within ones own home the blood didn’t flow!

    18 states w 200+ school districts reinstated concealed/open carry over 10 years the blood didn’t flow!

    306 different times anti gun nuts have squealed the blood would flow from law abiding gun owners, yet violent crime has dropped -39%, murders with a gun have dropped -52.21% all while there has been an increase of 42% of guns in law abiding civilians hands!

    So either start posting all those thousands of collateral shootings you are so worried about or be labeled a chicken little squawking the sky is falling the sky is falling as no one believed chicken little, and no one believes you and your 306 failed predictions of violence sunshine!

    http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/14/16468754-guns-already-allowed-in-schools-with-little-restriction-in-many-states

    Here are the 18 states that allow adults to carry loaded weapons onto school grounds with few or minor conditions:

    Alabama (which bans possessing a weapon on school grounds only if the carrier has “intent to do bodily harm”)
    California (with approval of the superintendent)
    Connecticut (with approval of “school officials”)
    Hawaii (no specific law)
    Idaho (with school trustees’ approval)
    Iowa (with “authorization”)
    Kentucky (with school board approval)
    Massachusetts (with approval of the school board or principal)
    Mississippi (with school board approval)
    Montana (with school trustees’ permission)
    New Hampshire (ban applies only to pupils, not adults)
    New Jersey (with approval from the school’s “governing officer”)
    New York (with the school’s approval)
    Oregon (with school board approval)
    Rhode Island (with a state concealed weapons permit)
    Texas (with the school’s permission)
    Utah (with approval of the “responsible school administrator”)
    Wyoming (as long as it’s not concealed)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  154. RLEmery says:

    1,024 deaths/injuries in 63 gun free zone mass shootings since 1982 avg. 16.24 per incident

    63 deaths/injuries in 26 incidents in gun free zones since 1991 where armed self defense occurred, avg. 2.44 per incident!

    30 plus years trying it the anti gun nuts way isn’t working, and armed self defense had it occurred in those 63 gun free zone incidents where no defense occurred, could have prevented up to 857 deaths/injuries!

    16.24/2.42 = 6.7 times more people killed in a mass shooting where no armed resistance occurs!

    We challenge the anti gun nuts to go to the families of those 1,024 victims, look them in they eye, and say you supported disarming their family members when the data clearly shows armed self defense could have saved up to 857 people from being injured!

    My money bet is they dont make it out of the 3rd home before being re-educated Gulag style!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  155. RLEmery says:

    Hey, lets review how many mass shootings in gun free paradises we have eh!

    Location Number killed Date



    Norway attacks 77 7/22/2011

    Westgate Mall, Nairobi Kenya 67 9/21/2013

    Sang-Namdo, South Korea 57 Apr-82


    Agricultural College, Potiskum Nigeria 50 9/29/2013

    Yobe State Boarding School Nigeria 40-60 2/25/14
    Port Aurthur, Australia 35 4/28/1996
    VA Tech 33 4/16/2007

    Cave of the Patriarchs, Hebron Israel 29 2/24/1994

    Sandy Hook 28 12/14/2012

    Luby’s Cafeteria 24 10/16/1991

    San Ysidro Massacre 22 7/18/1984

    Dunblane, Scotland 18 3/13/1996

    Erfurt, Germany 18 4/26/2002

    Hungerford, UK 17 8/19/1987

    Cuers, France 17 Sep-95

    Kandahar, Afghanistan 16 3/11/2012

    Texas Tower Sniper 16 8/1/1966

    Winnenden, Germany 16 3/11/2009

    Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal 15 12/6/1989

    Columbine High 15 4/20/1999

    Edmond, OK 15 8/20/1986

    Zug, Switzerland 15 9/27/2001

    Aramoana, New Zealand 14 11/13/1990

    Binghampton, NY 14 4/3/2009
    
Luxiol, France 14 Jul-89

    Fort Hood 13 11/5/2009

    Cumbria, England 13 6/2/2010

    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 13 4/7/2011
    
Aurora, CO 12 7/20/2012

    Azerbaijan State Oil Academy 12 4/30/2009

    Emsdetten Germany 11 11/6/2006
    McClendon, AL 10 3/10/2009

    Kauhajoki, Finland 10 9/23/2008

    GMAC, FL 10 6/18/1990
    
Red Lake, MN 10 3/21/2005

    Adelaide, Australia 10 9/6/1991


    The world 590 dead in 25 incidents = 23.6 dead
    The US 176 dead in 11 incidents = 16 dead

    A quick perusal by even the most numerically challenged shows that the US only has 6 of the top 25 shootings. And out of the top 36 we only account for 11 incidents and 22.9% of the dead.

    Of course that’s not counting terrorist attacks like the one at the school in Russia in 2004.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  156. RLEmery says:

    Oh you want data, hey lets review the following.

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm FBI UCR Database

    You know, the government database showing in 2008 that 1.38 mil violent crimes were reported and that of those 381,000 involved a firearm, 15% of the incidents were shots fired.

    Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 Hmmmm, where were all the police to protect these victims eh?

    http://www.data.gov/details/1526 USDOJ National Victimization Report 2008

    You know, the government agency sub annual report showing in 2008 alone that 70% of all violent crimes committed each year were not reported. Funny how we see Canada & England perform this same study and get the same results, go figure eh!

    Oh wait, what’s this, annual firearm discharge reports that show the police only hit their targets 15% of the time, such a common trend.

    http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Sho
    http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni
    http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/p
    http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms

    Uh just an fyi there were approximately 12,252 murders and 70,000 injuries by firearms in 2008.

    So using the standard shooting percentages, and hit % provided by all that government data these antis cant refute, lets calculate and see how many people self defense has saved the US per year, and we will only concentrate on the law abiding to start with. Even though the anti’s wont admit that even felons, who are citizens, have the right to defend themselves.
    Self Defense saves lives

    FBI UCR 2010

    278 documented justifiable homicides and since there are oh 2.5 people per household per US Census, almost 6 injuries per death we will calculate from that point.

    278 incidents + (6 x 278 = injured) = 15% of shots hit target /15 = 1% x 100 = # of shots fired = 12,973 incidents shots fired by law abiding citizens.

    12,973/15 = 1% x 100 = total number of self defense incidents just of people not involved in a criminal activity =86,488 incidents.

    Since 70% of all violent crimes are not reported, do you have any data that self defenses aren’t reported at the same rate, no you don’t, so……
    86,488 / 30 = 1% X 100 = 288,293 total incidents of self-defense in 2010

    288,293 x 2.5 people per household = 720,723 people defended or defending themselves.

    Now we know that of 381,000 violent crimes in 2008, there were 12,252 murders, and 70,000 injuries, and assuming the same rate of injuries = 3.2% deaths 18.4% injuries.

    12,252/381,000 = 3.2% and 70,000/381,000 = 18.4%

    288,293 x .032 = # of deaths saved 9,225
    288,293 x .184 = # of injuries prevented 53,045

    So sad we can using this government data show law abiding civilians preventedsince 1960 over 1.131 mil murders and prevented over 6.5 mil injuries.

    If it saves just one life, it is justified.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  157. RLEmery says:

    If you rely on the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for numbers of justifiable homicides, the numbers will always be significantly under reported. First, in many years, many states simply do not submit numbers, so they are not counted. Not all police jurisdictions in other states submit numbers, so the total is always going to be low.

    The definition of justifiable homicides vary from state to state. What is reported is often politically determined.

    Here is the FBI UCR definition for justifiable homicides, from pages 17 and 18 of the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook:

    Justifiable Homicide
    Certain willful killings must be classified as justifiable or excusable. In UCR, Justifiable Homicide is defined as and limited to:
    • The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.
    • The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

    NOTE: To submit offense data to the UCR Program, law enforcement agencies must report the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one individual by another, not the criminal liability of the person or persons involved.

    The following scenarios illustrate incidents known to law enforcement that reporting agencies would consider Justifiable Homicide:
    15. A police officer answered a bank alarm and surprised the robber coming out of the bank. The robber saw the responding officer and fired at him. The officer returned fire, killing the robber. The officer was charged in a court of record as a matter of routine in such cases.
    16. When a gunman entered a store and attempted to rob the proprietor, the storekeeper shot and killed the felon

    NOTE: Justifiable homicide, by definition, occurs in conjunction with other offenses. Therefore, the crime being committed when the justifiable homicide took place must be reported as a separate offense. Reporting agencies should take care to ensure that they do not classify a killing as justifiable or excusable solely on the claims of self-defense or on the action of a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court.

    The following scenario illustrates an incident known to law enforcement that reporting agencies would not consider Justifiable Homicide:

    17. While playing cards, two men got into an argument. The first man attacked the second with a broken bottle. The second man pulled a gun and killed his attacker. The police arrested the shooter; he claimed self-defense.

    By this definition, many justifiable homicides will never be reported to the FBI.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  158. RLEmery says:

    Were you aware of this study? It’s not done by a pro-gun think-tank , it’s the CDC.

    “Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994.”

    The CDC estimated that “497,646 incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm… ”

    And that is an annual number.

    Almost 500k defensive uses of a gun in one year, only in homes. So you going to prove not one single violent crime is committed outside the home, lol!

    Many defenses uses of guns are never reported because the defender simply shows the gun and the criminal ceases.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354

    Really sucks when your own anti gun pundits start putting up numbers you cant refute.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  159. RLEmery says:

    Based only on reported justifiable homicides…

    1960-2012

    Rate of violent crime reported involving a gun 26.8 (1990-2012 FBI UCR)
    11,474,391 defensive gun uses (avg. per year 220,661)
    35,368,382 people defended (avg. per year 680,161)
    1,131,788 murders prevented (avg. per year 21,765)
    6,507,782 injuries prevented (avg. per year, 125,149)

    Oh wait, based on just FBI DATA we are UNDERCOUNTING how many murder and injuries are prevented…hmmm!

    Cost saved by law abiding civilians armed self defense!



    Jens Ludwig, an avid anti gun professor claimed gun violence cost the US $100 Billion a year in 2000 report using the whack-a-loons logic of basing their stimation on how much the public would be willing to pay to eliminate gun violence at 100 million households, or $1,000 dollars apiece, how stupid can one be, well guess the anti gunturds do continually demonstrated how stupid they truly are!



    Since these quacks can’t disprove that the 97.3% of killings are by career criminals, gang members, suicider and doemstic violence abusers, it is safe to assume that the massive costs to the public are the direct result of criminal acts.

    Yet all he and the CDC proposes affects the law abiding, such is the circle jerk of their illogic to blame all that on the law abiding gun owners to begin with, how rude and uncivil.



    Now lets look at what the PHANTOM average cost is as referenced in Ludwig’s interesting one sided biased study.



    nytimes.com/1999/08/04/us/annual-cost-of-treating-gunshot-wounds-is-put-at-2.3-billion.html



    Now lets put more realistic $ numbers to the equation. So assuming emergency room care for each death and lost income of one year at $63,600, we can calculate approximately how much law abiding civilians have saved the public since 1960.



    So assuming emergency room care for each injury and ongoing health care afterwards, but no data on how to add in lost wages (avg. age dependent to each incident), will leave that out for the moment = $50,000



    Totals 1960-2012



    Law abiding civilians

    

Murders Prevented: 1,131,788 = $2,087,275,125,883 saved

    Injuries prevented: 6,507,782 = $1,067,305,771,958 saved



    Criminals/gangs/crazies/domestic violence abusers



    Murders: 482,794 = $859,307,807,299 cost incurred on public
    
Injuries: 2,896,762 = $120,532,214,103 cost incurred on
public



    Suicide by illegal use of a gun


    Deaths: 372,584 = $2,743,319,039 cost incurred to public

    Injuries: 37,258 = $274,331,094 cost incurred to public



    Accidental Firearm Discharge


    Deaths: 54,019 = $$657,003,517 cost incurred to public
    
Injuries: 100,313 = $1,220,055,532 cost incurred to public

    

Benefit to public



    Injuries prevented: 7,639,570 = $3,154,580, 897,842



    Cost to public by criminals/suicides/accidents

    

Injuries: 3,943,730 = $984,734,731,394



    Cost analysis



    So law abiding gun owners provided a cost benefit to the public of 

+$3,154,580,897,842 Self defense saves lives cost benefit

    

-$984,734,731,934 Bad guys cost

    
+$2,169,846,166,448 Trillion dollars cost benefit to the public of law abiding gun owners self defense actions.

    

Amazing how law abiding armed self defense prevented murders and injuries that double the number of people killed and injured by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies, domestic violence abusers and accidental deaths.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  160. RLEmery says:

    BATF prosecutes less than 1% of the 2.043 mil rejected since 1997.

    BATF doesnt do anything about the 95.52% of bad guys (21 mil + since 1997) who dont even try to buy from a licensed source to begin with.

    BATF doesnt allow civilians access to NICS for background checks on provate sales.

    BATF out of 139,651 rejected in 2010 only prosecuted 44, 26 straw buyers, 11 felons, 7 domestic violence abusers, no crazies.

    BATF let over 297,577 straw buyers pass the background check and buy over 446,363 guns in 2010 (over 2.23 mil+ since 1997)

    Govt. refused to resource to input the mentally ill & felons into NICS database with only 4.865 mil severely mentally ill and felons in NICS database as of Mar 2013 while there are over 31.793 mil of both in the US.

    Govt. refuses to resource people and moneys to pursue the 1.043 mil + people wanted on open felony warrant of whom 50% are probably severely mentally ill as are 50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners.

    Man them are some nasty loopholes the government & BATF have created.

    When are you lefties going to fix these BATF & Govt. loopholes instead of making more useless laws that per Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 & Freed vs US 401, 601, 1971 which affirm the 5th amendment right of no self incrimnation, makes 85% of all gun control laws not applicable as a prosecutable charge eh?

    You know, licenses, registrations, background checks etc, etc, etc…all require someone to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

    So explain again how a law, you cant punish a bad guy with, will reduce violence by said bad guy eh?

    Oh thats right, you lefties will wave your magic fairy wand and sprinkle your magic fairy dust and wish it to happen, LOL!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  161. RLEmery says:

    Then of course one must also look at how many people the background check supposedly saves.

    

Since physically stopping a person from acquiring a gun, is only accomplished by putting them in jail, one only has to work from the avg number of incidents a gun is used by a bad guy in a crime and calculate against the number of bad guys actually put away!

    Of course you anti guntards can prove that people stop trying to lie, do evil by comparing the 4.48% of bad guys who are supposedly stopped from buying a gun results in the well publicized and proven human trait of giving up, as you anti guntards have clearly demonstrated how you give up your pathological lies, hate and ridicule after being stopped in oh so many of your gun control anti rights efforts!

    

In 2010 using NICS, FBI, USDOJ, Police Firearm Dishcharge reports, CDC data, we see…..

1.248 mil violent crimes reported, 74.65% not reported, 322,000 involved a gun, 85% of incidents no shots fired, 15% of shots fired hit target 1 in 7 injuries fatal.



    Which if one calculates out the multiple USDOJ studies showing that over 80% of all violent crimes are committed by career criminals, gang members, crazies & domestic
 violence abusers..we see the following.

    

(total successfully prosecuted by BATF in 2010) 44 x 15% = 6.6 total people involved with shots fired

6.6 x 15% = 1 person hit by shots fired

1 x 20% = .2 people hit by shots fired by non criminals, .8 people hit by shots fired by bad guys



    Wow, you do realize that the cost of the near 3,000 plus people employed by BATF, FBI and state agencies for background check process cost the US over $300 million each year, dang.



    So explain again how that $300 mil in background checks is justifiable to save maybe just 1 person?



    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  162. RLEmery says:

    So waiting for you antis to show how maybe saving one injury from bad guys a year at a cost of over $300 mil a year is justifiable!

    http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2014justification/pdf/fbi-justification.pdf
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report

    So in 2012-2013 the FBI spent over $68 million on salaries 2-1, and shows an increase of $100 million in salaries and benefits for expansion to support the massive increases in NICS transactions run in 2014!

    So we see that us $168 million in salaries, but wait, that doesn’t cover the entire NICS operations cost to tax payers.

    See, 13 States contact only state, 7 states contact state for handgun & FBI for long guns (80% of all guns purchased are handguns) and the remainder use NICS for both handguns and long guns.

    That means roughly that $168 million (just in salaries and benefits) are being spent in 2014 for 30 states operations of the NICS…hmmm!

    So there must be a way to figure out what cost there is accrued in the states who don’t use the NICS, yeah, we can.

    Can anyone claim government is any more efficient in those 20 states than it is in the 30 states using the federal NICS, no, didn’t think so!

    In 2012 there were 8,725,425 million background checks processed by federal (1,143,049 by e-check)

    10,866,878 transactions were processed by state users

    So lets see $168 mil/30 states = $5.6 mil average cost per state using federal NICS
    20 states x $5.6 mil = $112 mil cost for 20 states not using federal NICS!

    Oh wait, that is only $280 mil cost to tax payers to run the NICS for both federal & states…hmmmm.

    How much does it cost to run all the facilities, and support functions of their daily operations….

    Amazing how one can easily show that taxpayers foot the bill of $330 million a year for NICS, and only show maybe 1 or 2 injuries prevented each year, WOW ISNT THAT SUCH A GREAT THING, well, maybe to a moron socialist it is!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  163. RLEmery says:

    Let the squealing with no facts by the anti gun nuts begin in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  164. RLEmery says:

    @stonetools:

    in 1997 cana had 65 killings by illegal use of a gun, in 2012 canada had 65 killings by illegal use of a gun, so why didnt gun control reduce murders…oh thats right, it is only gun control of the law abiding, not the actual criminals……..DOOOH!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  165. RLEmery says:
  166. RLEmery says:

    In the adult world, the word “COMPROMISE” means that each side in an issue, gives something up they value in order to meet in the middle and resolve the issue.

    So the question to the anti gun nuts is rather simple 2 parts:

    1) what have you given up in compromise that you valued for all the previous 22,417 gun control laws implemented?

    2) what right do you value that you intend to give up for these new proposed laws?

    Some fantasy made up right doesn’t count in the real world, a right affirmed in the BOR and the reason must be measurable in real math and GOVT. evidence and not in some wacked out Kenyesian fantasy math!

    Since you anti gun nuts don’t value the 2A, you can’t lie and say that is what you give up.

    After all, if we who are pro-gun give up in compromise the same as anti gun nuts have, which is nothing, how then can we in any sense of the word be called unreasonable?

    Love how the anti gun nuts refuse to compromise and give up anything they value to get gun control.

    In fact history has show everyone how words, the freedom of speech, can be abused. We see how religious beliefs have been the greatest intiator of wars in all of history, one person god having a bigger tallywhacker than the other guys god, over 800 million killed.

    Then we see how the next most dangerous idea, based on a collection of words to form a belief called socilaism, has led to over 200 million deaths in the last century or so, because many civilians resisted such attempts.

    So based on irrefutable history words and beliefs, allowed by the use of freedom of speech, is the greatest danger to safety of our children.

    In the spirit of comrpomise, we suggest the Anti gun nuts give up some of their 1st amendment right.

    They would be required to be licensed every 4 years.

    They would be open to random inspections by the govt.

    They will be required to pay a tax for everytime they use their freedom of speech in a public forum.

    A paper work error in their submitting for more use of said right will be construed as a felony.

    Letting a family member borrow their portion of that right, will require a background check before they receive permission to exercise their right.

    They will not be allowed to lie in their exercise of their right.

    Three time offenders will be deemed incurable and jailed for life.

    Every different media forum they wish to exercise their right will require government permission, and further taxation.

    Any and all electronic devices will be registered and audited at any time the government so chooses.

    If one person in a household abuses that right and breaks the law, everyone in that family and household loses their rights and are guilty!

    See, you really wouldnt be giving up your right, you would just be infrgined upon a little, this year, a little more the next year, and the year after, and the year after.

    But its for the safety of the children.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  167. Tillman says:

    @RLEmery: Tell me, did that same exact blithering work on the guys at the Washington Square News?

    By the way, flooding a thread with pre-written drivel is usually given away by the time stamps.

    Also, your understanding of how to read and interpret data is lacking, and I don’t even do it for a living.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  168. RLEmery says:

    @Tillman: Your squealing and inherent inability to disprove all that GOVERNMENT data marks you as a progressive troll, nothing more!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  169. RLEmery says:

    Funny, how is it that a media outlet, claims that accidental firearm discharges are 1 in a million, do tell.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/living/guns-parenting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    Lets use government data and compare someone supposedly safe, a doctor, to the chance of your children being killed by an accidental firearm discharge and again, we won’t use one single NRA generated data source.


    CDC Death Data 1930’s, over 3,000 accidental deaths by firearm discharge


    CDC Death & Data 2010 835 deaths by accidental firearm discharge, right at 107 age 0-18 yrs old.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf



    US Census 1930’s 112.8 mil

    US Census 2010 312 mil


    BATF 1930 TO 2009 150 Million more firearms in civilian hands



    JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415 

700,000 doctors in US kill 98,000 to 195,000 by medical malpractice every year or .135 to.278 per physician. 



    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/254341.php



    Since kids = 1/3 of population, will adjust deaths to reflect = 13,200 to 65,000 deaths. (0188 to .0926)

107 / 100,000,000 = .0000011 deaths per 100 mil gun owners.

    Physician is .045 or .0927 /.00000011 = 44,909 to 84,272 times more likely to harm your child than they being accidently harmed by misuse of a lawfully owned firearm and that is only in homes with a firearm, ah wow, thats soooooooo scarey, well, to an idiot maybe its scarey!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  170. RLEmery says:

    The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals:


    Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

    Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
    Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  171. RLEmery says:

    Why is it, that the police, whose best response times are 4 minutes, avg 15-20 minutes can only solve 8.06% of all violent crimes committed on a yearly basis?

    FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 45.1% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate.

    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.htm

    But oh wait, we have to remember those on avg. for the last 10 years 73.95% of all violent crimes committed each year the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

    http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2224
    http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2008/tables/D04Mar08.pdf
    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf
    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/bcs1011tech1?view=Binary


    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm

    So based on that (1.38 mil x 45.1%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.06% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

    Oh thats right, someone planning and being prepared for the worst case is insane in your opinion. So why weren’t you the one leading the health care reform for Obama?

    I mean since being prepared is insane, there really is no need for car, home, life or medical insurance right?

    Yeah, since choosing to be prepared is so insane, you can save the nation billions by stopping any organization and such practicing for natural disasters and man made disasters isn’t necessary.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  172. RLEmery says:

    So sad the police aren’t really incompetent, the reality is they are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, go after the really bad ones, and let the average bad ones go free.

    http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/crime-law/fugitives-among-usmore-than-1-million-active-felon/nR48B/

    In an ever increasing trend, there are over 1.043 million outstanding felony warrants for everything from drug dealing to murder, yet the various police, bail bond agencies and such just don’t have the money or resources as they did in previous decades to pursue them all, letting crack dealers like James Scott go free for 6 plus years, free to commit more crimes unless accidently intercepted by a police officer as James Scott was when pulled over for a traffic violation.

    Many of these people are set free from a short jail term when they have a warrant from another state, due to lack of communication between states and local police levels.

    One would think the anti gun extremists would use their financial gains to help reduce the number of violent felons on the loose, but no, they would rather waste their finances on persecuting the innocent law abiding gun owner’s with useless legislative BS.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  173. RLEmery says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/03/21/national/main280557.shtml
    Undercover congressional investigators using fake IDs were able to skirt mandatory background checks and purchase guns in all of the five states where they tried, according to a report issued Wednesday.

    The General Accounting Office study concluded that the national background check system for purchasing guns “cannot ensure that the prospective purchaser is not a felon.”

    The system checks only whether the gun buyer had a criminal history but does not require any check to see whether the name or identification being used by the buyer is real.

    ATF rules require that potential gun buyers provide photo identification issued by a government agency to gun dealers and fill out a form with basic identification information and answers to 12 background questions.

    The Brady Law requires that the gun buyer’s name then be run through three databases: the National Instant Check System, which contains the names of felons; the FBI’s National Criminal Information Center, which identifies people who are subject to outstanding warrants and protective orders, as well as those who have been deported for a felony; and the Interstate Identification Index of criminal histories.

    The NICS has three days to report a problem. If it hasn’t reported one by then, or if it reports that the name clears the database, the gun may be sold.

    Officials at the GAO used off-the-shelf software to create counterfeit drivers licenses for the five states, inventing fictitious names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth.

    Two undercover GAO agents then went to randomly selected gun stores and gun shops where they filmed their purchases of rifles, handguns, semiautomatic weapons, pistols, ammunition clips and hollow point bullets.

    The undercover investigators were able to make the purchases 100 percent of the time, the report said.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  174. RLEmery says:

    The second amendment (1 comma version) as RATIFIED by the state’s.

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause, a complete sentence capable of conveying a clear meaning, and must first exist for a dependent clause to have meaning, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)

    Yet some now infer the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, incapable of conveying a clear meaning (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.

    http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/sntstrct.html

    Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.

    So reality is, the only regulation that really is allowed by the govt., is to the unorganized militia. But as govt. is responsible for the call up and muster of the unorganized militia, we see they are consistent in their failure to do their jobs in not doing so.

    http://www.rain.org/%7Ekarpeles/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  175. RLEmery says:

    Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today.

    original proposed draft 
of 
the right to keep and bear arms 
of the 
BILL of RIGHTS 
(17 TH of 20 amendments) on display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library 
Santa Ana, California

    “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

    Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted?

    Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.

    http://www.wemett.net/2nd_amendment_(original_draft).html

    Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They always fail to prove, that the militia existed before the armed individual.

    The anti’s always fail to prove that a collective right can exist without the individual right first existing as how does a collective begin, oh that’s right, pre-existing individuals come together to form said collective, DOOOHH!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  176. RLEmery says:

    Thirsty for more….or do you have the guts to try and prove all that government data wrong…we havent all millenia……but no, we will only hear squealing and pathetic attempts at childish demonization from the lefties….its how blood thirsty heathens like they roll!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  177. Tillman says:

    @RLEmery: So, uhh, how many Notepads do you have open at any given time for this?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  178. anjin-san says:

    So this is what guys who can’t get dates do in the internet age. In my day they sat at home by themselves watching reruns of crappy TV shows.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  179. KansasMom says:

    @anjin-san: Hey now anjin-san, I’m pretty sure “self-stimulation” predates the internet age.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  180. stonetools says:

    @RLEmery:

    Mr. Emery, you’ve done a lot of work but really you’ve not really explained away the fact that gun homicide rates are far higher in the USA than in other countries like Canada,Germany, and Switzerland.

    Gun Deaths in 2011: Japan 48, Great Britain 8, Switzerland 34, Canada 52, Israel 58, Sweden 21, Germany 42, UNITED STATES 10,728

    Nobody honestly buys the argument that western Europe has more of a mass shootings problem than the USA. In the USA, there is some sort of mass shooting every few weeks. In countries like Germany and Norway, they go years, if not decades without such incidents. Your data dump is interesting, but it can’t really obscure that. Good try, though: shows that the NRA is trying hard to manufacture false statistics.
    As I’ve said, the CDC shows that displaying firearms sometimes works to scare off criminal offenders. But then, lot of other things also work, from calling for help to dogs barking. This, btw, is the entirety of the abstract at the link you cited:

    To estimate the frequency of firearm retrieval because of a known or presumed intruder, the authors analyzed data from a 1994 national random digit dialing telephone survey (n = 5,238 interviews). Three mutually exclusive definitions of firearm retrieval were constructed: (1) retrieved a firearm because there might be an intruder, (2) retrieved a firearm and saw an intruder, and (3) retrieved a firearm, saw an intruder, and believed the intruder was frightened away by the gun. Of 1,678 (34%) households with firearms, 105 (6%) retrieved a firearm in the previous 12 months because of an intruder. National projections based on these self-reports reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035) incidents in which a firearm was retrieved, but no intruder was seen; 503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm. Estimates of the protective use of firearms are sensitive to the definitions used. Researchers should carefully consider both how these events are defined and the study methods used.

    Put bluntly, I don’t think the abstract means what you think it means. I think it means that we can’t rely on this kind of data, because the people who self -report have different definitions of what they are reporting.
    If this is typical of the links you cite, well…I’ll just say you have a credibility problem. Thanks for playing, though. At least, you are willing to cite statistics although you have no idea of what they actually mean.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  181. wr says:

    I’ve never had any desire to own a gun, but I suspect if I found myself trapped on an airplane next to this RLEmery I’d change my mind.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  182. george says:

    @Jack:

    Repeat after me: “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

    So everyone has the right to carry a nuclear weapon, if that happens to be the weapon of their choice?

    I doubt even the NRA is going to back you on that one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  183. anjin-san says:

    @ george

    I want a flamethrower. When I was a kid watching ww2 movies, I always thought flamethrowers were pretty bitchin’

    Certainly muggers (and 17 year old kids walking home from candy runs) will think twice before tangling with me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  184. RLEmery says:

    @Tillman: See, smart people save relavent facts for ease of access and consistent focus, anti gun nuts just squeal!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  185. RLEmery says:

    @anjin-san:
    Squeal, squeal and say nothing relevant, such is the anti gun nuts only and most pathetic of illiterate and nonsensical whimperings!

    Still waiting for the video of a gun loading and aiming and pulling its own trigger sunshine, chop, chop, we havent all millenia!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  186. RLEmery says:

    @stonetools:

    Already have explained WHOM is responsible, its the 97.3% of career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazy (mostly progressives) and domestic violence abusers which unfortunately for those with a negative IQ intellect, isnt all the law abiding gun owners as you pathological lie and infer.

    Would these figures, courtesy of Eric Holder, surprise most Americans? Between 1976 and 2005, African-Americans, 12.6% of the population in the last census, committed 52.2% of all homicides.

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

    That is, over the 30-year period, African-Americans committed murder at about 7.33 times the white rate. (Whites here include Hispanics.)

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

    Of homicides committed by strangers, on average, 18.77% involved blacks killing whites, while in 5.08% of the cases, whites killed blacks. African-Americans were therefore nearly 3.7 times more likely to kill a white than a white to kill a black
    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

    To provide some raw numbers, in 2005, the last year for which the DOJ statistics are available, 10,285 African-Americans committed murders. As 8.8% of these were “black on white,” there were, assuming only one death per murderer, 905 whites killed, almost 2.5 per day. In the same year, again assuming one killing per perpetrator, 267 blacks were murdered by whites (3.2% of 8,350 killings).

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o
    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/o

    So maybe you should pull your head out of your rectum and prove the law abiding gun owners are such a risk…which you cant!

    See, the FBI UCR database, doesnt identify if the person committing the murder, was already a felon.

    But then all those police firearm discharge reports, and all those USDOJ studies by criminologists, do indeed point out that 80% of all shootings not suicide releated, are committed by career criminals and people with a repeated felony history, and there is nothing you can squeal, moan, wail, stomp your feet or lie to prove otherwise, as we have already posted the links to such data above, and you refuse to read and accept them for what they are,

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  187. RLEmery says:

    @wr:

    Funny, a person totally ignorant of firearms, or anything related to them, wouldnt have the experience or intellect to recognize when all those people who are carrying around you, and you cant see them….such is the impotent squealing of the mentally ill claiming what if, and projecting the subliminal fears of the mythical boogeyman you have built in your mental illness ravaged mind.

    So start proving the law abiding gun owners are such risk sunshine.

    Oh wait, speaking of risks, how risky was it allowing so many of these leftiest leaders, to disarm their citizens, darn, not many left who survivied for you to ask that question now are there!

    Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
    Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
    Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
    Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 6,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine’s famine)
    Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
    Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
    Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
    Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
    Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
    Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
    Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
    Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
    Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
    Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
    Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
    Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
    Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
    Mullah Omar – Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
    Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
    Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
    Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
    Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
    Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000 …See More

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  188. RLEmery says:

    @stonetools:

    So sunshine, please revel everyone with the murder totals at the beginning of their implementation of strct gun control, and then those countries murder totals as of 2012.

    Money bets, (well thats what sane people call a suckers bet), they are the same numbers, if not higher, as already pointed out in numerous country government database links, and you havent proven otherwise!

    I mean after all, how in the hell could the US murder rate drop -52.1% with a 42% increase in guns in law abiding civilians hands since 1991 eh sunshine….man it is amazing how you ignore facts you cant prove wrong!

    Oh and since you have no credibility, your belief the CDC study is wrong, is the pointless irrelevent posturing of the ignorant!

    You have no proof the study methodology is wrong!

    You have no proof the data is wrong!

    You have no proof the trend doesnt exist today at the same rate as then!

    See as noted earlier, you have no relevant proof that any sane person who actually passed simple math or statistics understands…..all you have is the one point data comparisons of the perpetual imbecile!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  189. RLEmery says:

    @george:

    So since maybe two or three people in the US have sufficient monies to own and maintain a nuclear weapon, we see the irrational insane comparisons to firearms once again by an anti gun nut who is unqualified to comment on a subject it knows nothing about!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  190. RLEmery says:

    Amazing how even blind people have the right, and are capable of defending themselves, where were the police eh?

    Oh thats right, police have no legal liability to protect the individual!

    Oct 27, 2007 GAINESVILLE, Fla. —A Gainesville man’s lack of sight didn’t stop him from defending his home from an intruder.

    According to police, Cevaughn Curtis Jr., 28, broke into Arthur Williams’ house in Gainesville at around 3 a.m.

    Curtis, police said, knocked on the door, asked to be let inside but Williams refused. Curtis then tried to force his way into the home.

    The 75-year-old retired taxi dispatcher, who’s been legally blind for the past 61 years, opened fire on the would-be-thief who kicked down his door, police said.

    Police said Williams shot Curtis, who tried to flee but collapsed on the front porch, inthe left side of the neck. He was taken to a hospital in stable condition.

    Police said Curtis was charged with burglary of an occupied residence and battery on a person over the age of 65.

    Officials are praising Williams for protecting himself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  191. RLEmery says:

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
    http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-163470793/would-banning-firearms-reduce-murder-and-suicide

    Shall we look at the FBI report from several years ago?

    Violent Encounters – A study of Felonious Assaults on our nations law enforcement officers USDOJ, FBI, National Institute of Justice August 2006

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49014330/Violent-Encounters-A-Study-of-Felonious-Assaults-on-Our-Nation-s-Law-Enforcement-Officers-by-DOJ

    You should read the National Sciences Foundation report from 2004 on gun control laws, a study that was formed by the anti gun Clinton Administration so just like the Ludgwig & Cooke study noted below, doesn’t prove any causality theory, much less any effect of gun control laws on violent crime.

    An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, National Institute of Justice, June 2004 http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

    E.G. Government admits the ban didnt do didley squat

    Firearm Violence, a critical Review” 2004 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=R2

    How about this verified as authentic from the NIJ memo the NRA got their hands on, stating clearly that no AWB or Mag ban would reduce violence!

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

    From: Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies, Dr. Greg Ridgeway, Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice, January 4, 2013
    • Gun Buybacks – Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban
    • Large Capacity Magazine Restriction – In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. This would take decades to realize.
    • Universal Background Checks – Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process.
    • Require All Transfers to be Done at an FFL – Some states, such as California, require all transfers of guns to be properly documented (since 1923). This usually requires the involvement of a federally licensed dealer in the transaction. Despite this, straw purchasing continues largely unabated.
    • Assault Weapons Ban – Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions.
    • Smart Guns – Unlikely to affect gun crime.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  192. RLEmery says:

    Even more hilarious is the fact the antis try to manufacture a mountain out of a molehill.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

    2010 FBI UCR database shows 1.25 mil violent crimes reported (4 mil not reported USDOJ National Victimization report), 322,691 involved a firearm, 14,748 murders, 358 by illegal use of any type of rifle, 162 by use of a semi-auto rifle banned because they look evil.

    (firearms were used in 67.5 % of the Nation’s murders 14,748 = 9,955, 41.4 % of 367,832 robberies =152,282, and 20.6 % of aggravated assaults 778,901 =160,453.)

    All while in 2010 FBI UCR, we see deaths committed by illegal use of hands, fists, feet, blunt objects and knives accounted over 3,259 deaths, each by themselves accounting for far more deaths than the anti’s mythical boogeyman, the semi-auto rifle banned because they look evil.

    The anti’s really should get going on registering and banning hands, fist, feet, all type of blunt objects and all knives as clearly they are a more serious threat in the real world.

    Better make sure to ban clenching ones fist and flipping the bird as well as by legal definition, that is indeed brandishing of a lethal weapon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  193. RLEmery says:

    We have found the perfect solution for suicide in the US, all based on your progressives penchant for everyone shares responsibility for everyone else’s actions! This based on a N Korean defectors response to what is the suicide rate in N Korea!

    http://hangukstory.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-north-korea-has-lowest-suicide-rate.html

    North Korea is known to be the country with the lowest suicide rate on earth. Why is this, for this nation with the worst world economy, human rights violations, and highest number of defectors in the world? It is because there is a mental pressure far stronger than suicide itself.

    North Korea defines, “Every citizens of DPRK is a family member of ‘Kim Il Sung People’ and a child of ‘Ocean-like Kim Jong Il comrade’.” Because of this, every citizen is a member of this larger society; therefore, committing suicide is considered a treason, marking the person as a traitor to the leader, the party, the nation, and the people.

    If someone in your family committed suicide, everyone in the family gets purged by North Korea’s infamous ‘implicated crime law’. This is why a North Korean citizen can end his/her poor life by starving/freezing/beaten to death, but not suicide. However, even with this kind of strict and unforgiving social pressure on suicide, some people kill themselves with much contempt for their government.

    Suicide may let the dead rest, but the rest of the family would be socially and politically ostracized for the rest of their lives, with no hope for success or career.

    So in reality, you anti gun nuts should be all over this kind of law, punish those not responsible, collectively, the kommie lovers way.

    Convicted of suicide or violent felony, your entire family will never have welfare, food stamps, free school, no citizenship, etc, etc…no trial to decide this, automatic and no repeals!

    That would be a constitutional law as we already see law abiding people not guilty of committing a crime being taxed, registered, banned because of the criminals actions.

    So when are you anti gun nuts going to buy into such an obvious good law that would reduce suicides and violence in just a couple months time eh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  194. george says:

    @RLEmery:

    So since maybe two or three people in the US have sufficient monies to own and maintain a nuclear weapon, we see the irrational insane comparisons to firearms once again by an anti gun nut who is unqualified to comment on a subject it knows nothing about!

    Actually I have a rifle and a shotgun, and use both regularly – keeps my freezer well stocked. I just don’t think that my right extends to Jack’s statement of weapon of my choice. Society puts limits on what weapons we are allowed to carry, and its silly to pretend otherwise.

    Knives are weapons, firearms are weapons, baseball bats are weapons, pipe bombs are weapons, nuke’s are weapons. Society decides which are to be regulated and which aren’t, and its an equation which can change over time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  195. RLEmery says:

    @george: Funny, the BOR disagrees with you, and you havent proven it wrong!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  196. al-Ameda says:

    @george:

    So everyone has the right to carry a nuclear weapon, if that happens to be the weapon of their choice?

    My weapon of choice – and one that I highly recommend when I’m in San Francisco in Dolores, Precita, or Golden Gate parks – is a shoulder-mounted surface to air missile apparatus. It has deterred many people (I can’t verfiy the exact number) who intended to do harm to me. It comes in many colors, and women I know prefer the sleek titanium prada model. I suppose one could outfit the missile with a nuclear warhead – would that satisfy your needs?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  197. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    @al-Ameda: Funny how this esteemed Jurist you hold in such high regard started his Op Ed with “Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered automatic weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents.”

    Unlike you. I have no problem believing that Justice Stevens knows more about the Constitution than 99.99999% of Americans. So yes, I hold him in high regard.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  198. al-Ameda says:

    @Jack:

    Even if no one was ever trained, simply carrying a gun in a holster in public makes them no more or no less dangerous than the next guy.

    A person with a gun is inherently no more or less dangerous than a person without a gun?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  199. al-Ameda says:

    @RLEmery:

    Funny how you or stevens isnt smart enough to prove the facts above wrong…end of story!

    Where is Stevens wrong?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  200. Stonetools says:

    @RLEmery:

    Heh, so King Leopold of Belgium, Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini are “leftist leaders?” If I didn’t think you were batsh!t crazy before, this post seals the issue. Folks, I give you peak gun nut. Thanks for demonstrating just delusional Second Amendment absolutists can be.
    So what else are the voices in your head telling you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  201. Stonetools says:

    The sad horror of it all is that a guy like RLEmery can walk into a gun store, buy an AR15, a 100 round magazine , and 1000 rounds of ammunition, and walk out within half an hour, no questions asked. And that folks is why we need back ground checks, waiting periods, etc.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  202. RLEmery says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Where is stevens right…funny how many book smart people have no common sense!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  203. RLEmery says:

    @Stonetools:

    The sad truth as noted above is the BATF, you know, the govt. agency charged with enforcing the gun control laws, fails consistently in enforcing the existing gun control laws.

    Yet all you insist in doing is punishing the law abiding gun owners in the idiotic belief that punishing the law abiding reduces violence by the bad guys, when it never does!

    Of course the antis will persist as we see what actually happened with Loughner. Loughner, who used a 31 round magazine for his Glock pistol, overloaded said magazine and broke the return spring making it non functional and in doing so, fumbled his tactical reload when it wouldn’t lock into battery as he had not practiced, thereby allowing people to tackle his dumb arse.

    A 31 round magazine that when loaded is a heavy unwieldy device that requires a significantly different effort to lock into battery to fire. A fact that anyone with firearms experience, which the vast majority of anti’s have none.

    Many sport shooters use these same pistols in competitions, requiring only 1.4 seconds between last shot fired to first shot fired to first shot in the fresh magazine, 3 seconds for an average shooter..

    Really hard to prove to everyone how people, running, ducking, hiding from an active crazy shooter like Loughner, can in 1.4 to 3.0 seconds, recognize the opportunity, stop, turn around, cross that distance and tackle Loughner without getting shot.

    The FT Hood shooter was practiced in tactical reloads, was known to be accurate to 100ft with said pistol from witnesses, and there were 3f unarmed, but extremely brave military personnel who in that incident, attacked the shooter to attempt to stop him, t1 is crippled for life, the other two are DEAD! Such is the normal result of disarmed victims attacking bad guys who have guns, unarmed.

    Then Holmes, he who had two of the temperamental and unreliable 100 round BETA c Magazines, who failed to load and properly lubricate either, and within 30 rounds of firing with the 1st of 2 magazines jammed his rifle, leaving about 170 rounds unfired, ending his shooting spree.

    Since police at best hit 15% of their shots fired, and a 1 death per 6 wounded normal distribution on shots that hit their targets per CDC Death & injury statistics….
    15% x 170 = 26 more shots would have hit their target, resulting a worst 3-4 deaths 22-23 injuries.

    Amazing how the shooters were not firearms savvy, unknowledgeable, and as a result, created the windows for stopping or that stopped their shooting spree as like good little sheep, those that obeyed the law were disarmed victims enabled by the belief that disarming the law abiding will result in less violence and actions.

    But no, the anti’s wish to limit people to lower capacity magazines. You know, those that are battle proven, ultra reliable so that the possibility of jamming the rifle by inappropriate loading or lubrication is so remote, as to making even untrained killers like Loughner & Holmes that much more effective at killing. Such are the unintended consequences of unknowledgeable fools.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  204. RLEmery says:

    @Stonetools:

    Funny, The full name of Adolf Hitler’s party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party). …hmmm…darn thats leftist all day long….Mussolini, same thing. Leopold was a piece of schiite king….with no redeeming moral values…oh wait…we have a similar individuals who espouse similar moral values today….they are called progressives!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  205. RLEmery says:

    Amazing how the few anti gun nuts have only managed to pathetically cherry pick and provide no government data to prove all those government studies and data sources and methodologies wrong.

    See people who have facts, pound the facts (see all government facts above)!

    People who have the law pound the law!

    People who have neither pound the table in rage!

    Anti gun nuts only pound the table in rage….more often than not using their head….nothing to hurt there and makes a loud hollow sound to attract more attention!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  206. RLEmery says:

    @Stonetools:

    So please explain again why you are so against fixing the BATF’s massive failures to enforce the existing background checks…cause anyone who refuses to enforce existing gun control laws is obviously pro-criminal = pro-psycho.

    2010, 44 successfully prosecuted out of 139,651 total rejections

 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf


    2009, 32 successfully prosecuted out of 129,357 total rejections

 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/234173.pdf
    

2008, 31 successfully prosecuted out of 135,933 total rejections

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf


    2007, 39 successfully prosecuted out of 128,277 total rejections

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/227604.pdf


    2006, 62 successfully prosecuted out of 134,442 total rejections

http://www.jrsa.org/events/conference/presentations-08/Ronald_Frandsen.pdf

    So what is the govt. data to show those rejected, who werent eh? prosecuted, then didnt go to an unlicensed source and still get a gun li ke Harris, Keibold, & Lanza did

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  207. RLEmery says:

    Simply amazing, checking through the latest NHTSA Traffic safety data and see that over a 10 year span, the number of deaths on our highways is -28% lower.

    But when review of the total data for over all deaths shows that reduction in deaths, is due to the reduction in drunk driving fatalities.

    So having seen a few so called enlightened people stating how regulating the automobiles reduced deaths, the fact is the punishment of those caught drunk driving along with stiffer fines and jail time which actually target and punish those committing the crime, have resulted in the reduction, end of story.

    Did the govt. ban certain types of cars from sober drivers, NOPE!

    Did the govt. ban certain types of cars from sober drivers crossing certain city or state lines, NOPE!

    Did the government impose massive regulatory BS and taxation upon sober drivers, NOPE!

    Did the government require breathalyzer locks on all sober drivers cars, NOPE!

    Isn’t amazing how if one actually punishes those responsible how a societal problem can be reduced!

    Such irrefutable facts of how the guilty and their criminal ACT and not the tool were controlled to reduce the undesired result, a fact lost on the low information low intellect anti gun extremists!

    http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
    http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811700.pdf

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  208. RLEmery says:

    USDOJ National Victimization Report for 10 years.

    Canada & England show the same results.

    http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv01.pdf
    http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv02.pdf
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv03.pdf
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv04.pdf
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv05.pdf
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv06.pdf
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv07.pdf
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report
    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/bcs1011tech1?view=Binary


    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/arti

    VCR=Violent Crimes Reported (FBI UCR)
    VNR = Violent Crimes Not Reported USDOJ

    Year / VCR / VNR / % of violent crimes not reported

    2001 /1,439,480 /5,743,820 /74.94%
    2002 /1,423,677 /7,424,550 /80.82%
    2003 /1,383,676 /5,401,720 /74.38%
    2004 /1,390,745 /5,182,670 /73.17%
    2005 /1,390,745 /5,162,400 /73.06%
    2006 /1,418,043 /3,672,940 /61.39%
    2007 /1,408,337 /5,177,130 /72.80%
    2008 /1,394,461 /4,856,510 /71.29%
    2009 /1,325,896 /4,343,450 /69.47%
    2010 /1,251,248 /4,935,980 /74.65%
    2011 /1,203,564 /5,805,430 /79.27%

    Totals 15,029,872 /57,706,600 /73.95% avg. per year

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  209. RLEmery says:

    Amazing, we keep piling more government facts and data on you poor lefties, and all you can counter with is pathetic demonizations, character assasinations or the best of all UH HUH DATS NOT TWUE, stomping your feet and squealing…so typical of progressives!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  210. RLEmery says:

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/16/psychiatrists-explain-why-keeping-guns-f

    Psychiatrists Explain Why Disarming the ‘Mentally Ill’ Won’t Prevent Mass Murders
    Jacob Sullum|Oct. 16, 2013 6:47 pm

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2013-rst/7739.html)

    Here is a study posted in the HARVARD medical review, at a somewhat anti gun university helping prove that suicides are not such an IMPULSIVE thing.

    Four out of five people who commit suicide have attempted to kill themselves at least once previously. Joiner, Thomas. 2005. Why People Die by Suicide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide

    One of the dirty little secrets anti gunners don’t want to publicly discuss is that suicide by a firearm is 90% to 95% efficient, or that suicide by other means is much less efficient, resulting in an exponentially higher number of damaged survivors as most of the other suicide methods are from oxygen deprivation causing brain damage as a rule, or a fall from high places which is messy and not guaranteed to finish the job, overdoses scrambling the noggin pretty good, should we go describing the what the lack of a tool means for ensuring more people survive their suicides by less effective means?

    Roughly stated 90-95% of attempt by, 70% by suffocation, 50% by falls from heights, 2% by overdose/poisoning are fatal.

    Sad that increase in damaged survivors all resulting in states of physicality ranging from several months recovery to life time medical care required by their families and the state.

    Would you choose to be reminded daily how you failed your family member and now they are vegetables, rather than mourning their loss and then getting on with your life?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  211. RLEmery says:

    So many suicides are due to “THE OTHER VARIABLES” not because the tool existed.

    “In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.”

    Source: David A. Brent, (et. al.) “Post-traumatic Stress Disorders in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34 (1995): 209-215.

    “Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.”

    Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, D.C., 1993.

    “Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent.”

    Source: Jean Beth Eshtain, “Family Matters: The Plight of America’s Children.” The Christian Century (July 1993): 14-21.

    “A family structure index – a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed – is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.”

    Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, “Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult, and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?” Social Science Research 23 (1994): 57-81

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  212. RLEmery says:

    Right, we already know you anti’s are psycho and believe firearms are sentient beings and the root cause of violence, get a grip Loughner wannabe’s.

    Oh whats this, an organization which specializes in identifying root causes of suicides, explain again why they dont identify a tool as a root cause eh eisnteins? Oh thats right, actual facts from experts is ignored as it doesn’t meet your agenda of hate!

    http://www.suicide.org/suicide-causes.html

    Of course we see in 2005 how there were around 800,000 attempts at suicide in the US,

    http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html

    So we see in…

    1991 43.3% of suicides used a firearm (90% fatal) 650,000 total attempts 12.2 rate = 30,766 suicides
    2001 55.1% of suicides used a firearm (90% fatal) 750,000 total attempts
    2005 52.1% of suicides used a firearm (90% fatal) 800,000 attempts
    2010 50.5% of suicides used a firearm (90% fatal) 850,000 attempts 38,364 suicides

    Hmmm. we don’t see a direct correlation to % of firearms increased in civilian hands and suicides, much less attempts, and GASP we actually see a reduction in suicide attempts even as the % and numbers of firearms are increasing dramatically!

    43.3% to 50.5% = 7.2% increase, yet we have a 42% increase in firearms in the US during the same time, hence no correlation to firearms ownership to suicides much less suicide attempts

    650,000/252,171,000 x 100k = 257.76 suicide attempt rate per 100k people 1991
    850,000/309,330,000 x 100k = 274.78 suicide attempt rate per 100k people 2010

    Wow in fact the rate of suicide attempts is similar at 6.6% increase, but since facts show since the ongoing war and the increase # of soldiers committing suicide and the baby boomers reaching the age where their largest ever age subgroup of Americans will commit higher suicide rates, geez, you antis are going to have an awful hard time lying that guns cause suicides.

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

    Geez, US is #33 in suicide rates, behind 32 other GUN ban countries, how enlightening!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  213. RLEmery says:

    Of course we see how police each year, fail to solve more than 8.06% of all violent crimes committed each year.

    Police response times at best are 4 minutes, 15-20 minutes on average.

    FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 45.1% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate.

    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/clearances/index.htm

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  214. RLEmery says:
  215. RLEmery says:

    But oh wait, we have to remember the 70% of violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

    http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2008/tables/D04Mar08.pdf
    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf

    So based on that (1.38 mil x 45.1%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.06% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

    So when are you anti gun freaks going to walk your talk and prove you have no life, car, home or medical insurance as being prepared for the worst case scenario is insane based on your statements and beliefs

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  216. RLEmery says:

    Amazing how a gun ban paradise like China, has all these violent assaults without guns, mostly on schools.

    Since China is known as such a free information society (SARCASM) this is all the incident that occurred, guaranteed eh (SARCASM).

    July 10 1995 Dong Chi 1 dead 16 injured Meihikou China
    Apr 1 1996 Wang Xiangjun 7 Dead 5 injured Meitian China
    Aug 1998 Lu Xiaoxi 2 dead 15 injured Henan China
    Sep 14 1998 Lin Peiging 23 injured Hejiang County China
    Sep 11,2004 Yang Guozhu ,28 injured Suzhou China
    Sep 20, 2004 Jia Qingyo, 25 injured Ying County China
    Sep 30, 2004 Liu Hongwen 4 dead 12 injured Linwu County China
    Aug 4, 2004 Xu 1 dead, 7 injured Beijing China
    Nov 26, 2004 Yan Yamming 9 dead 3 injured Ruzhou China
    Dec. 3, 2004 Liu Zhigang 12 injured Panshi China
    Oct 12, 2005 Liu Shibing 18 injured Liudong China
    May 8 2006 Bai Ningyang 12 dead 5 injured Shiguan China
    Jul 20, 2007 Quyang Songde 19 injured Foshan China
    March 23, 2010 Zheng Minsheng The Nanping school massacre 8 killed 5 wounded
    Apr 28, 2010 Chen Kangbing Hongfu Primary School 17 injured Leihzhou China
    Apr 29, 2010 Yuan Zhangxuan 17 injured Dangchang County China
    Apr 29, 2010 Xu Yuyuan 32 injured Taixing China
    May 12, 2010 Wu Huanming, 48, 9 killed 11 injured Hanzhong, Shaanxi
    August 4 2010 Zibo, Shandong province., 26-year-ol­d Fang Jiantang 4 killed 16+ injured
    Aug 2, 2012 Xinhua teenager killed 9 people and wounded 4-
    Sept 21, 2012 Guangxi. Wu Yechang An ax-wielding man killed 3 wounded 13
    Dec 14, 2012 Min Yongiun Chenpeng China 24 injured
    March 8 2013 Xianjiang, 4 killed 11 injured at shopping mall
    May 22, 2013 6 students & teacher wounded in a cleaver attack after school
    June 7, 2013, BEIJING — Chinese man set a fire on a commuter bus Xiamen, leaving 47 people dead including himself, Chinese state media reported. 34 injured.
    June 20, 2013 Another accidental explosion, hmmm, really?
    June 28, 2013 Chinese officials say 36 people were killed after a fight broke out during a police investigation of suspected criminals in the latest act of violence in the restive northwest province of Xinjiang
    July 29, 2013 Shenzen Province 3 dead 3 injured
    July 2013 Henan Province 5 dead, 3 injured
    July 2013 Guangxi 2 dead
    July 31, 2013 Hong Kong 11 injured
    Aug 26 2013 Beijing 1 dead 3 wounded, all knives, hmm!
    Sept 23, 2013 Hunan Province, Changsha Hospital 3 injured
    October 27, 2013 BEIJING (Reuters) – 2 men from Muslim-dominated Xinjiang on Tuesday after three people suspected to be from the restive region drove a SUV into a crowd at Tiananmen Square and set it on fire.
    November 6, 2013 china-explosions-

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  217. RLEmery says:

    Thought no violent crime happened in China as they have no guns in law abiding civilians hands?

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/rare-case-gun-violence-china-leaves-dead-19465864#.UccxiRbvbzJ

    http://news.yahoo.com/china-probes-xinjiang-connection-tiananmen-car-deaths-031219752.html

    They killed themselves and two tourists on Monday in the square, the heart of China’s power structure and the focal point of the mass 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations brutally crushed by the military.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Reports-say-1-injured-in-north-China-explosions/tabid/417/articleID/320293/Default.aspx#.Unm0TKXvZuY

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  218. RLEmery says:

    http://twocircles.net/2012oct23/chinese_police_seize_over_6000_guns_major_case.html

    Hey lets see how well the Chinese police are doing, uh wait, I thought you said guns were banned in China so explain how this guy produced over 20,000 functional firearms in just one year, amazing.

    http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=302&catid=8&subcatid=50

    Man look at all those crimes and violence in China, I thought gun ban paradises were safe from such violence after all guns are illegal!

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-09/08/c_131117301.htm

    average of 287,000 suicides per year 1,337, 798, 587 population = 21.45 suicide rate per 100k people!

    Since China has 1/1,000 th of the private civilian arms as the US, why isn’t their suicide rate 1/1,000 th of the US eh?

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19149980-report-36-killed-after-knife-gang-attacks-china-police-station?lite

    9 police & 17 civilians killed in knife attacks, uh thought violence didn’t occur in gun free countries eh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  219. RLEmery says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks#Secondary_school_incidents

    Hey, lets compare the US to someplace like Blooming Idiot wants the US to emulate in gun control, China, a country world reknown for its support of citizens civil rights. The link above indeed has school violence incidents from China, well, at least the ones they allowed to be known about, everyone knows how OPEN a society China has, LOL!

    68 killed 327 injured China summer 1995-2012 = 395 injuries

    199 killed 235 injured US summer 1995-2012 = 434 injuries

    How is it, that a gun ban country like China, with no guns, can have only a 10% difference in total school injuries, at least that is what has been allowed to be reported to the outside world.

    One would think a country with 100% less firearms would have 100% less school killings as they have no firearms, based on anti gun freaks beliefs of no guns equals no violence, hmmmmmmm.

    So in reality the common denominator in those violent acts between a gun rights country and a non gun rights country is the both refuse to control the crazies!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  220. RLEmery says:

    In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300 firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
    number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.

    When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at a local city park.

    Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However, more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
    and womens’ hands. One police officer present said he’d never been so scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! :-)]

    Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law of self-defense.

    The results?

    In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967, there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
    below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

    Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando, in addition to the rape reductions.

    In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND. (No data are available for later years.)

    The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are learning engines; they took their business elsewhere–to the detriment of the defenseless in those other locations.

    Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

    Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to resist with a firearm.

    second safest course is passive compliance with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability of death or injury for the victim.

    All other tactics (mace, whistles, hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  221. RLEmery says:

    Uh thought guns were the root cause of all violence, hmmmm, apparently not.

    Oh wait, you have evidence that a gun is the root cause of avarice, greed, lust, gangs, drug & alcohol abuse, broken family units, 1 momma w 8 kids & 8 different daddies, poor schools and all those lovely afflictions of being human, etc, etc, etc……no you antis never do.

    Amazing how this information is straight from the FBI and the CDC

    Rate per 100k/ Population / # serial killers / race

    0.068737352 / 200,127,000 / 138 / white
    0.130613383 / 39,437,000 / 54 / black
    0.020008717 / 50,478,000 / 10 / hispanic
    0.009509798 / 16,993,000 / 2 / asian
    0.028430683 / 4,263,000 / 1 /native American

    So since sane and intelligent people understand the crime levels are based on rates per population, it is indeed true that blacks are twice as likely to be serial killers than whites, 6 times more likely than Hispanics.

    But since you idiots insist Hispanic’s are white, then the real rate difference is 2.21 times more likely blacks are to be serial killers.

    Wonder how many serial killers that are hispanic that have been preying on those crossing the borders, where the victims are buried in so many unmarked locations….any guesses as 12 million undocument aliens in the US, man what an opportunity for such a saidst eh?

    Of course, we see where multiple forensic psychologists have already identified serial killers and pedophiles having the same exact set of habits, personalities, etc, etc…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  222. RLEmery says:

    US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, CATO Institute 10/15/2012

    4,300,000 Million on welfare…

    39.8 % are black.
    38.8% are white,
    15.7% are Hispanic,
    2.4% are Asian and
    3.3% are other.

    Blacks on Welfare: 1,711,400 /40,320,000 = 4.24%
    Whites on welfare: 1,668,400 / 201,000,000 = .83%
    Hispanics on welfare: 675,100/50,500,000 = 1.33%
    Asians on Welfare 103,200 / 16,950,000 = .61%

    Hmmm, doesnt the democrats promote such entitlement programs…why yes they do…and do the uh NON WHITES vote predominantly democrat…why yes they do….and does the USDOJ & FBI show 30% of the population, not white, commit 87% of all the violent crimes in the US…why yes they do….

    You democrats are such an inherently violent group!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  223. RLEmery says:

    http://www.guns.com/2014/02/27/report-shows-atf-fair-share-guns-lost-stolen/
    BATF and all their lost guns!
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf
    Lets review November 2012 USDOJ Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005–2010 and see how much safer the public is becoming.

    We see from multiple sources USDOJ identified that over 500,000 firearms were stolen a year during the 1980’s at 16.8 mil property crimes.

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=74

    National Crime Victimization Survey data for the years 1987 to 1992, suggests that 340,700 thefts occurred annually in which one or more guns were stolen; separate data from North Carolina suggest that on average 1.5 guns are stolen per theft

    Victimizations involving the theft of firearms declined from 283,600 in 1994 to 145,300 in 2010 (figure 1) at 1.5 firearms per victimization stolen.

    145,300 – 12,390 recovered = 132,910 x 1.5 = 199,365 / 350 million firearms in circulation = .057%% of firearms stolen by thieves each year.

    But hey, we did see a 16.8mil to 16.1mil reduction in property crimes = -4.34% reduction.

    Wow, but 199,365/500,000 = -60.2% reduction, hmmm

    If gun owners were so unsafe, how would there only be a -4.34% reduction in property thefts and a -60.2% reduction in gun thefts, hmmmm. You antis are really horrible at math!

    Oh wait, what are you doing to make it so those poor people don’t have the urge to go out and steal, oh that’s right, nothing.

    So where is your data to show how everyone of these thefts the firearms weren’t locked away as girls, they torched my pops $2,500 gun safe about 10 years ago?

    Guess you want every gun owner to build Fort Knox eh, isn’t happening

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  224. RLEmery says:

    So let the anti gun nuts squealing begin in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1……..and here we go!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  225. Tillman says:

    @RLEmery: I look at your data, Google it up to look at the rest without your, umm, “introductions,” and inevitably I find a list of caveats, or poor methodology, or any other number of problems that would make a rational person come to a different conclusion than you have.

    And the worst part is, since you insist on posting in dumps to overwhelm detractors, it’s not worth taking the time trying to refute you since I don’t keep Notepads full of poorly-parsed statistics and talking points lying around.

    @RLEmery: But then you make a stupid mistake like this that exposes how dumb, unknowledgeable, ideologically blind (pick one) you really are. First sentence of this article reads: “Nazism, or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups.” [emphasis mine] That you associate Nazis with socialists solely because of their name is just the biggest tell that you shouldn’t be taken seriously.

    Granted, there were a lot of other tells, but sometimes people aren’t idiots. Sometimes they’re just really annoying.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  226. stonetools says:

    I’ve been trying to figure out what RLEmery’s performance is about. It came to me last night. It’s the gun nut version of the Gish Gallop”
    Duane Gish, for the readers’ edification, is a creationist apoligist. He believes that the earth and the universe is 6000 years old, that the theory of evolution is wrong, and that, for example, the Grand Canyon was carved out by Noah’s flood.He made a name for himself by going around debating “evolutionists” in front of appreciative young earth creatrionist believers. One of his most effectivce rhetorical tools was the “Gish Gallop.”. From RationalWiki:

    The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments – the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or “gotcha” arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Examples are most commonly found in “list” articles that may claim to show “100 reasons for” something, or “50 reasons against” something. At this sort of level, with dozens upon dozens of minor arguments, each individual point on the list may only be a single sentence or two, and many may be a repeat or vague re-wording of a previous one. This is the intention: although it is trivial amount of effort on the part of the galloper to make a point, particularly if they just need to re-iterate an existing one a different way, a refutation may take much longer and someone addressing will be unable to refute all points in a similarly short order. If even one argument in a Gish Gallop is left standing at the end, or addressed insufficiently, the galloper will attempt to claim victory.

    The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, named after creationist Duane Gish.[1] Creationists are fond of it, see “101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe” for example, which is perhaps the most stunning case. Sam Harris describes the technique as “starting 10 fires in 10 minutes.”

    Maybe we can call the RL Emery version of this is the “Emery Effluvium.”
    Now while scientists confronting Mr. Gish were discomfited by this, the Gish Gallop doesn’t really work. The reasons are:
    1.A barrage of statistics, half-truths, and lies doesn’t a coherent argument make, anymore than a pile of nuts, bolts, and sheet metal make up a 747.
    2. Gish’s thesis actually is wrong. The earth is very old and part of an older universe, for example, and Adam and Eve didn’t live in the Garden of Eden with dinosaurs. In the same way, gun homicide rates in Europe really are much lower than the USA.

    So let’s see RL Emery for what he is: the gun nut version of A YEC apologist, using a discredited debating techinique to drown out rational debate on an issue he is wrong about .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  227. Rlemerysgt says:

    @Tillman:

    So socialism isn’t lefty, prove it!

    Oh wait, it is the National SOCIALIST Workers Party….hmmmmm…you were saying?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  228. Rlemerysgt says:

    @stonetools:

    As noted, all we see is squealing, and still not one factual piece of government data or evidence to disprove all that data above much less prove the anti gun nuts pathological lie that gun control of the law abiding reduces violence by the bad guys, when it never has and never will, so let’s just accept the anti gun nuts to be the morons they are, end of story!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  229. Rlemerysgt says:

    @stonetools:

    So when are you going to get that brain transplant to be able to discern the difference between lawful exercise of a right and abuse of a right eh sunshine?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  230. al-Ameda says:

    @RLEmery:

    9 police & 17 civilians killed in knife attacks, uh thought violence didn’t occur in gun free countries eh?

    Well of course. The preferred weapon of choice is always good steak knife. The Columbine killers resorted to firearms only when Amazon failed to deliver their designer steak knives on time. In an eerie coincidence, the Aurora Colorado Theater killer settled for firearms when Amazon had a delay in shipping his special cutlery. That American style mass killer in Norway said that he was going to use specially engraved pearl handled steak knives but IKEA didn’t have them in stock so he settled for guns.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  231. Rlemerysgt says:

    See, what the emotional mental anti gun nut negative IQ cripples don’t understand is, that almost 31 years ago, in a state that didn’t believe in armed self defense by law abiding civilians then, a young Marine just out of active duty, was running a lunch time errand for his 5’1″ 100 lb mother and as ai came in the door at my parents house, I heard the screaming of my mom, dropped the groceries, turned the corner into the living room to see a6’2″ 300lb + burglar breaking in the sliding door off the deck.

    Told him to leave, he said FU, wrong answer, pulled my 4″ model 29 placed it center mass on his face before he could reach me and began to squeeze the trigger. Never seen that shade of white nor a man that size pizzing himself and running faster than Carl Lewis in his prime.

    Come to find out he had a long felony assault record against women.

    Where were the cops moron?

    But hey, he may have only just beat her up or raped her just a little…..blood thirsty lefties roll like that!

    We understand, you prefer a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose rather than her attacker being run off or killed, it’s what you are!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  232. Tillman says:

    @Rlemerysgt: …do you read?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  233. Tillman says:

    @stonetools: Oh, good, at least he’s not being novel.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have about a half-hour’s worth of down-votes to administer. Jesus…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  234. al-Ameda says:

    @Rlemerysgt:

    We understand, you prefer a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose rather than her attacker being run off or killed, it’s what you are!

    Change your Tin Foil, change your life.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  235. Rlemerysgt says:

    @Tillman:

    I even comprehend, you, not so much…but we see you are indeed the prototypical blood thirsty heathen leftist thumbing down my saving my mother from a rape and or murder…..that’s how you progressives roll…WhERE WERE THE POLICE SUNSHINE?

    Still waiting for that brain transplant for you to be able to discern between lawful exercise of a right and abuse sunshine…..we haven’t all millennia!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  236. Rlemerysgt says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Your the one who thumbed down me saving my mother from one of your local 666 brotherhood of progressive thuggstas, killers, rapists and thieves union you progressive so love to support making sure the criminals have superior rights and their intended victims are disarmed!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  237. Tillman says:

    @Rlemerysgt: Yes! Of course!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  238. Rlemerysgt says:

    @Tillman: got thousands more pages of government facts you can’t prove wrong, and all you can do is squeal and thumbs down, LOL! What a loser!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  239. Rlemerysgt says:

    Funny thing is that the anti gunturds can’t and won’t post the murder rates of all those gun ban or European countries when they implemented their strict gun control compared to today….amazing how progressives really are that math illiterate and can’t do a proper comparison!

    Well we understand, because doing so would prove to everyone what we already know, gun control isn’t the reason for their low murder rates, never has been….welcome to reality!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  240. al-Ameda says:

    @Rlemerysgt:

    Your the one who thumbed down me saving my mother from one of your local 666 brotherhood of progressive thuggstas, killers, rapists and thieves union you progressive so love to support making sure the criminals have superior rights and their intended victims are disarmed!

    Some questions:
    (1) I’m one of those “progressive thuggstas” that you live in fear of?
    (2) Why do conservatives constantly portray themselves as pathetic, whining victims?
    (3) Are you sure that I down voted you for “saving your mother”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  241. wr says:

    @Rlemerysgt: I didn’t bother to vote you down, but for the record I don’t really like to read the masturbation fantasies of gun nuts, either.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  242. wr says:

    @Rlemerysgt: “got thousands more pages of government facts”

    Just wondering… do you actually think anyone in the world has so little to do they’ve actually bothered to read all the way through your thousands of words of drivel?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  243. Rlemerysgt says:

    @wr: By the way, what makes you think I care what progressives think, I only care what you can prove, which is nothing, yet again!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  244. Rlemerysgt says:

    @wr: aw, poor widdle anti gunturd troll, doesn’t like facts it. Ant prove wrong, so in its 3rd grade mentality resorts to pathetic sexual innuendos, the act of an immoral deranged pervert!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  245. wr says:

    @Rlemerysgt: Bye, troll.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  246. al-Ameda says:

    @Rlemerysgt:

    widdle anti gunturd troll

    Be honest now, did you really need to have your mother help you with that? You could have come up with that on your own, right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  247. Rlemerysgt says:

    @al-Ameda:

    1) since progressives use the illogical broad swipe of a brush to label all law abiding gun owners as responsible for the crimes of the few, how then is doing the same to you on down voting me saving my mother any different eh sunshine, oh wait, it’s not! Don’t like the cake, don’t serve it!
    2) Having saved my mother from one of those you defend, how were we not victims of an thwarted attack eh? Oh that’s right, see rather than depend upon the police whom never showed up in time except for donuts, I planned ahead for the worst case scenario and applied my insurance policy, see that’s what sane people do, they plan for the worst and if it happens, so be it, if it don’t even better! Oh wait, I am so bloodthirsty, I didn’t even pull the trigger….hmmmmm….thought we righties were so blood thirsty eh…apparently not!
    3)Why do anti gunturds portray themselves as victims when you never prove that you have been attacked by the law abiding gun owners, instead you are only doing your chicken little the sky is falling routine of what ifs and fantasies…..how pathetic, your unsubstantiated fears forcing you to project your irrational fears of what you would do were you armed, but then you never prove you are the victim….so sad!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  248. Rlemerysgt says:

    @wr: bye blood thirsty progressive heathen

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  249. Rlemerysgt says:

    @al-Ameda: yawn, still no government facts from a resident progressive anti gunturd troll….such a normal trend!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  250. al-Ameda says:

    @Rlemerysgt:

    yawn, still no government facts from a resident progressive anti gunturd troll….such a normal trend!

    I see that your mom is still helping you with that “gunturd” stuff, or did you do that all by yourself?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  251. Rlemerysgt says:

    @al-Ameda: we see your demon master is leaning over your shoulder whispering in your ear what to say while you are being cornholed

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  252. Grewgills says:

    @Jack:

    Finally, I wasn’t talking about biological/chemical, anti-aircraft, etc., weapons. Please stay on point.

    To quote you yet again,

    “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

    The weapon of my choice could be biological, chemical, nuclear, anti-aircraft, recoilless rifle, missile, pipe bomb, whatever. Your formulation was limitless. Either reformulate your position or defend it; stop deflecting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  253. Grewgills says:

    @Jack:

    Why do people continue this to promote magical thinking: laws stop bad guys!

    You’re right Jack, there is no point in having any criminal laws, because they won’t stop bad guys.
    ANARCHY! ANARCHY! ANARCHY!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  254. Tillman says:

    @wr: …

    Well, I’ve had a stomach bug for a couple of days now, so…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  255. Ebenezer_Arvigenius says:

    Why do anti gunturds portray themselves as victims when you never prove that you have been attacked by the law abiding gun owners

    Are you sure you have thought that sentence quite through?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  256. al-Ameda says:

    @Rlemerysgt:

    @al-Ameda: we see your demon master is leaning over your shoulder whispering in your ear what to say while you are being cornholed

    Okey doke. And we see your obsession with “gunturds” and sex.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  257. Grewgills says:

    @Jack:

    You keep equating gun training and drivers training, yet there are more automobile deaths by far. So, obviously, training does nothing for those that are irresponsible.

    Exactly as many people drive, for exactly as long as they shoot guns, so this is a completely valid comparison. Good work sir!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  258. george says:

    Its hard not to suspect that someone making five to ten consequitive posts (without anyone else’s comment in between) is hearing a lot of voices in their head and confusing that with an external dialog.

    Though I suppose a more charitable possibility is that someone is paying them by the word, so they don’t feel they can afford to wait for someone else to respond to one post before starting a new one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  259. Rlemerysgt says:

    @Ebenezer_Arvigenius: so where is your proof…oh my bad, anti gunturds only squeal in rage, they never have any proof!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  260. Rlemerysgt says:

    @george: naw, just seeing how pathetic the anti gunturds are when they squeal in impotent rage and posting all those government facts they can’t prove to be false does a great job of exposing their insanity!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  261. Rlemerysgt says:

    @al-Ameda: well it is an appropriate simile, see getting an anti gunturd to understand facts, is like trying tick pick up feces by a clean end, just isn’t possible, that would require the progressives were human and had a brain, neither applies!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  262. Rlemerysgt says:

    @Ebenezer_Arvigenius: so please do demonstrate with government data that thee 97.3% of killings by illegal use of a gun are not committed by career criminals! gang members! suiciders! crazies! and domestic violence abusers…..oh wait! you can’t!

    So please do demonstrate that 30% of the population , not white, do not commit 87% of all violent crimes and done predominantly vote democrat!

    So please do demonstrate the government data to show you anti gun nuts fears of the law abiding gun owners are justified as all we ever hear from you is squeal of rage and character assassination attacks which are the hallmark of Saul Alinskie devotees of socialism!

    See, there are only 2 logical reasons for such a fear of the law abiding gun owner 1) your insane 2) your a criminal/pedophile afraid of being shot by their intended victim, you choose which!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  263. Rlemerysgt says:

    @Grewgills: Amazing how anti gun nuts squeal like that, but we understand it is a self defense mechanism because if we eliminate the gun control laws of which 85% only apply to the law abiding! then the laws remaining would actually apply to criminals! and being progressives are staunch advocates for criminals having superior rights…….they don’t want anything infringing with their voting base!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  264. Grewgills says:

    @Rlemerysgt:

    because if we eliminate the gun control laws of which 85% only apply to the law abiding

    Every single law that ever was or ever will be only stop the law abiding. The law abiding are law abiding. The non law abiding are non law abiding. The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
    Now why don’t you explain why your formulation wouldn’t mean that laws against domestic abuse, rape and murder shouldn’t apply, since they only stop the law abiding.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  265. PT says:

    @Rlemerysgt: so we’re in prefect agreement. Guns are dangerous and we should amend the 2nd amendment. Also, I too am against gunturds. I think. Yes, I’m anti gunturd. Sounds gross.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  266. Rlemerysgt says:

    @Grewgills: the 10 categories of people identified in section 922 of the federal gun control laws have lost their rights by due process!

    Then add in the Haynes vs US 390, 85 1968 & Freed vs US 401, 601 1971 ruled and I quote: no person is legally liable to obey a law that requires them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination.

    This mean that any gun control law such as licenses, registrations, background checks…..can’t be used to punish anyone of those 10 categories of criminals because it requires one to IDENTIFY THEMSELF!

    Do about 85% of gun control laws require some form of identification….why yes they do!

    So explain again how one stops a criminal with a law, that can’t be used per settled and codified law, to punish said criminal?

    Oh wait, that law thereby only applies to the law abiding, hence it is infringing upon our lawful exercise of our right….welcome to reality!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  267. Rlemerysgt says:

    @PT: amend it for what reason again, oh that’s right, kommies want all rights eliminated, we understand!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  268. RLEmery says:

    @Rlemerysgt:

    As of 7am EST 4/17 we see there are 5 immoral blood thirsty Hitler progressive wannabes that would have prefferred my mother raped, beaten and or murdered rather than her attacker chased off.

    People like these 5 were in charge of the concentration camps in WW2 and actually enjoyed killing men, women, children….and were if researched, found to be pulling wings off butterflies, torturing puppies and kittens, and then graduating to being the loveable, violent, genocidal schizophrenics they are today!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  269. RLEmery says:

    @Grewgills: Echoes of silence eh…….typical!

    Amazing how settled and codified law cant be argued against!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  270. RLEmery says:

    @anjin-san:

    Then since you have a family member who is mentally ill, you must be banned from having any firearms since your mentally ill family member has access to them as all gun owners are irresponsible and never control their firearms and allow anyone easy access to them…based on the anti gunturds claims!

    Is your family member sufferring from the insidious progressivus idiotus virus or the elmeruss fuddus virus as both are proven as root causes of mental illness?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  271. al-Ameda says:

    @RLEmery:

    Then since you have a family member who is mentally ill, you must be banned from having any firearms since your mentally ill family member has access to them as all gun owners are irresponsible and never control their firearms and allow anyone easy access to them…based on the anti gunturds claims!

    Could you possibly set up any more Straw Men?
    Also, lose that “gunturd” stuff, it leads people to believe that you have s*** for brains

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  272. Rlemerysgt says:

    @al-Ameda: sorry, see that is just applying the anti gunturd Schiite for brains thinking back upon yourself, and as I clearly explained above, getting an anti gun nut to accept facts it can’t prove wrong is indeed like trying to pick feces up by the clean end, just ain’t happening!

    So when you going to give your guns up eh sunshine as it obvious you can’t be trusted either!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  273. al-Ameda says:

    @Rlemerysgt:

    So when you going to give your guns up eh sunshine as it obvious you can’t be trusted either!

    Not sure how to translate your comment to English, but, I do not have any guns to give up.
    Does that help?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  274. Rlemerysgt says:

    @al-Ameda: so your the one with the mental illness, got it!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  275. al-Ameda says:

    @Rlemerysgt:

    so your the one with the mental illness, got it!

    YOUR use of English is impaired, YOU’RE confused, get it? Got it!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  276. Rlemerysgt says:

    @al-Ameda: grammatical correctness is irrelevant when dealing with insane progressives, capiche!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  277. al-Ameda says:

    @Rlemerysgt:

    grammatical correctness is irrelevant when dealing with insane progressives, capiche!

    Simple correctness is irrelevant when dealing with rabid gun cultists – wakarimasu ka?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  278. Kikikookoo says:

    Such a nice thread soiled by a nutbaggery troll.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  279. RLEmery says:

    @Kikikookoo:

    Yeah al-meada is pretty fricking loopy, cant even prove ANY of that government data wrong proving how gun control of only the law abiding never reduces violence by the bad guys!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  280. RLEmery says:

    @al-Ameda:

    One only has to look at the few paid progressive posters on this blog to see they have purchased and graduated suma cum swallow the progressives handbook “Infinity of Lies”, the Essential handbook for progressives propoganda, which by all available research, is a best seller with progressives because it is all in pictures, eubonics, and core education format on how to promote pathological lies!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  281. RLEmery says:

    Background checks explained: Is actually common sense gun safety, as it is making sure there is nothing in the background before you shoot the progressive criminal breaking into your home or attacking you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  282. RLEmery says:

    Welcome to Chicagostan, the most violent, corrupt city in America, ran by democrats since 1931.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  283. RLEmery says:

    Congratulations to al-meda & kikuckoo, tied for the winner of tonight’s Stemmer Award. 

STEMMER – Formerly known as PROGRESSIVE. A person who functions only on the primitive brainstem that controls their basic instincts to eat, sleep, breath, reproduce, and act aggressively and/or stupidly when confronted with facts they cannot fathom or by opinions which conflict with their narrow unenlightened self-interest.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  284. RLEmery says:

    FUNNY PROGRESSIVE LIES/BELIEFS ABOUT THE AR-15

    * The inventor of the AR-15 was Satan, though his patent has since expired.

    * Scientists have confirmed the deadly effects of an AR-15 by giving it to a chimpanzee who then murdered them.

    * Scientists agree that each year the AR-15 will grow more deadly until it kills everyone in the entire world.

    * Some believe that Hitler was in fact an AR-15 in a rubber mask.

    * In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam and Eve access to every firearm out there except for the AR-15 which he told them not to touch because it was too evil. But then the NRA, in the guise of a serpent, told Eve that the AR-15 is really fun to shoot. So then Eve took the AR-15 and started shooting all the animals in the garden because she is one awesome chick.

    * The part that makes the AR-15 so extra deadly is the handle on top. The AR-15 would be used in less murders if it were more inconvenient to carry.

    * It was an AR-15 that told Miley Cyrus to dance like that.

    * Bullets that are normally harmless will kill instantly when fired out of the AR-15.

    * The reason AR-15s have that prominent handle on them is because the most requested feature for an assault rifle was to be able to carry it like a Hello Kitty lunch box.

    * If you find yourself surrounded by AR-15’s, know that they will fire automatically if they sense fear.

    * The AR-15 is easily concealable and can fit inside a matchbox.

    * The AR-15 is the leading cause of global warming from how its bullets shoot holes in the ozone.

    * A very small percentage of gun deaths are attributed to the AR-15 because it is very good at disguising itself as other guns to frame them.

    * What are the differences between an M16 and an AR-15? Scientists agree that it is something.

    * The AR-15 can be rendered harmless by giving it only a 10 round magazine as people always miss with the first ten rounds and an AR-15 takes an hour and a half to reload.

    * The AR-15 can shoot through schools.

    * In a battle between Aquaman and an AR-15, Aquaman would break down and buy it so people might think he’s more manly.

    * There were no shooting deaths until the invention of an AR-15. No one even considered using a gun to shoot another human being until someone saw an AR-15 and said, “I bet I could use this to kill a lot of people.”

    * There was an assault musket similar to the AR-15 used by the world’s most evil pirates, but it was pronounced “Arrr-15.”

    * The Assault Weapon ban was needed because it is well known that an AR-15 with both a pistol grip and a flash suppressor would be unstoppable by any modern military.

    * In Europe there is no such thing as an AR-15 and thus also no such thing as murders. Instead of being violent, people there just drink wine and smoke cigarettes all day.

    * If you are shot by an AR-15, you become one and kill others.

    * The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  285. RLEmery says:

    If gay men could read minds, every other progressive man would get slapped!

    If chimpanzees could read minds the other half of progressive men would get slapped!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  286. RLEmery says:

    Finally figured out where then anti gunturds got their 90% claims from……. 90% of women don’t like progressive men in pink shirts, ironically, 90% of progressive anti gunturd men in pink shirts don’t like women either!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  287. RLEmery says:

    Since you anti gunturd trolls refuse to post any government data to back up your lies, figured we could get at least into an insult contest that way you wont be so intellectually overwhelmed…your turn!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  288. al-Ameda says:

    @RLEmery:
    Okay, you’ve proved to everyone that you know how to hijack a thread, use juvenile language, and be obsessed with feces and guns – all at the same time. Cheers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  289. RLEmery says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Isnt it amazing how when one has all those government facts as the pro rights side does, anti gunturds act like this….

    1) they just shut up as they cant argue against the facts
    2) they dump pathetic one-liners with inaccurate pathetic demonization of those they cant develop a logical response to refute
    3) they go psycho on-line
    4) they try in a polite fashion to convince you you are wrong repeating the same failed idiocy again and again as if the continuous repeating of the lie will somehow change it to be true.
    5) they will then in a coordinated fashion do the LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA tactic of we don’t hear you or see the facts so it must not be true tactic when they realize they cant win the argument

    All of those are perfectly acceptable results.

    You anti gunturds have consistently proven that you havent the IQ, brains, intellect or maturity to disprove all that government data proving your a pathological liar…all at the same time.

    So when you get a brain, some common sense and start acting like adults instead of your veiled pseudo intellectual fake superiority based only on your irrational emotional beliefs, come back with a valid arguement as this is the reality: YOUR EMOTIONAL RHETORIC DOESNT OVERWEIGH FACTS, RIGHTS OR THE LAW.

    Your side is losing ground on this issue every single day, grow up and deal with it and quit blaming the innocents.

    Cheers moron!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  290. al-Ameda says:

    @RLEmery:

    Cheers moron!

    You: “You anti gunturds”
    Me: Thanks for the conservative “reasoning”.
    Cheers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  291. @pajarosucio:
    Stevens’ Heller dissent is historically oriented and filled with period quotes, but his period sources actually contradict his argument because he fails to treat period language as the founders understood it. His numerous historical errors are currently being documented at On Second Opinion Blog. The initial post of this series on Heller dissent historical errors is titled, Justice Stevens’ Train Wreck of American History.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0