|
|
Post by mudcannon on Oct 16, 2015 20:25:13 GMT -5
Good God why does everything have to go back to the Nazis....
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Oct 17, 2015 9:34:24 GMT -5
" Those other industries face liability lawsuits all the time, jon." Duh.... sure they do. For design and manufacture defects, but not for people misusing their product. How could an honest person miss that distinction? If someone drinks a full bottle of rum and then runs down a pedestrian in their silent Prius can Toyota and Bacardi be successfully sued? That analogous to what you & Hillary propose. BTW do you support denial of Constitutional right to bear arms to those who have been accused of, but not convicted of, domestic violence? " No confiscation of weapons, no gun bans, no "jack-booted thugs" breaking into homes." I remain unconvinced that you, Hillary, Obama, et al are actually opposed to just that. (actually some Dems have been caught saying they would ban every gun if they could ) You just understand you can't get it all at once so continue to chip away. You deny the rights of soldiers who might have had some PSTD treatment, then the guys who have been falsely accused of domestic abuse, etc. Of course Obama has promised you could keep your Dr. too, and that your Obamacare premiums would go down, etc. It's called lying. All the while completely ignoring the gang thugs who shoot people every day. It's like...."first they came for the Jews, but I'm not a Jew........." This is another example of selective editing designed to completely mislead people. This interview was done following the assault weapon legislation that passed in 1994. The context of what Feinstein was discussing was assault weapons, not all guns. The law was able to prevent the manufacture and import of assault weapons, but not the sale or possession of them. So the "ban" being referred to would have included possession and sale of ASSAULT WEAPONS not all guns. Nevertheless this video clip continues to be circulated by pro gun groups to misrepresent the positions of those trying to regulate guns. Unfortunately they do it because it works, but it's lying. |
|
|
|
Post by jon on Oct 19, 2015 10:29:29 GMT -5
Well, maybe Chicago needs more "gun control". 60 murders in September despite unconstitutional restrictions on legal gun ownership. (BTW, it's not just Chicago)
But Emanuel---one of the Clinton crowd---blames the police. Damn, just because the President and his race-baiting buddy essentially endorse attacks on cops and their prosecution for doing their jobs cops are reluctant to put themselves at risk.
Is it possible that the real problem has nothing at all to do with legal restrictions on firearms? Duh...............
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Oct 19, 2015 13:47:49 GMT -5
Well, maybe Chicago needs more "gun control". 60 murders in September despite unconstitutional restrictions on legal gun ownership. (BTW, it's not just Chicago) But Emanuel---one of the Clinton crowd---blames the police. Damn, just because the President and his race-baiting buddy essentially endorse attacks on cops and their prosecution for doing their jobs cops are reluctant to put themselves at risk. Is it possible that the real problem has nothing at all to do with legal restrictions on firearms? Duh............... I hear this brought up by Republicans all the time and it begs the question, what is your solution to the Chicago gun crimes? Do you believe more guns would actually help the situation? There are literally hundreds of millions of guns out there as it is. Should we keep contributing to the problem and just start passing them out like popcorn? The gun restrictions there are what people want. They elected the people who have imposed them and continue to reelect them. So why do you need to interfere with what they've decided is proper course of action? |
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Oct 19, 2015 14:23:09 GMT -5
Well, maybe Chicago needs more "gun control". 60 murders in September despite unconstitutional restrictions on legal gun ownership. (BTW, it's not just Chicago) But Emanuel---one of the Clinton crowd---blames the police. Damn, just because the President and his race-baiting buddy essentially endorse attacks on cops and their prosecution for doing their jobs cops are reluctant to put themselves at risk. Is it possible that the real problem has nothing at all to do with legal restrictions on firearms? Duh............... You can drive an hour from Chicago and buy whatever kind of gun you want to. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 19, 2015 15:13:57 GMT -5
You can drive an hour from Chicago and buy whatever kind of gun you want to.
Actually, you don't have to drive nearly that far. The Chicago police have traced about 20 percent of guns involved in crimes to a couple of guns stores in a suburb just across the street from the City. Naturally, that municipality refused to crack down because, I suspect, the gun shop owners contribute hefty sums to the local pols.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 23, 2015 9:08:08 GMT -5
"Police in Nashville say a total of three people were wounded in a shooting at Tennessee State University that also left a man dead. Metropolitan Nashville Police spokesman Don Aaron says the shooting happened Thursday around 10:50 p.m. amid an argument over a dice game. Aaron told reporters the 19-year-old man who was killed was part of the argument. Aaron says three female students, who were just passing by, were wounded in the shooting. Two were hospitalized and one of them has since been released. The third student had only superficial injuries." link
So, having guns at hand during an ordinary argument doesn't increase the risk of people getting shot and killed, eh? More guns = fewer shootings? Yeah, right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 26, 2015 10:59:07 GMT -5
Some of us have been warning this day was coming, and now it has:
"Stranded on a highway off-ramp at 3 a.m., waiting for a tow truck, Corey Jones was armed with a brand-new pistol and a state-issued concealed-carry permit that entitled him to take the gun wherever he pleased. Enter Palm Beach Gardens police officer Nouman Raja, wearing civilian clothes and driving an unmarked van. He pulled up to Jones’s vehicle, thinking it was abandoned. Minutes later, Jones, 31, was dead.
"Police say Raja opened fire after Jones confronted him with a gun. But under Florida’s expansive gun laws, Jones may have been entirely within his rights to brandish his weapon, legal experts say — especially if reports that Raja never displayed his badge are true. The shooting has raised troubling questions about the rules of engagement when a legally armed motorist faces a police officer out of uniform late at night on a lonely road. And those rules could get even trickier, experts say, if Florida lawmakers approve a pending measure to permit people with concealed-carry permits to openly display their weapons...
"The problem could be compounded by Florida’s permissive gun laws. The state not only permits concealed carry but also has a “stand your ground” law. That law has been successfully invoked in Palm Beach County by a man who shot and killed two young men outside a keg party. A judge determined that the shooter “used deadly force because he reasonably believed such force was necessary to protect himself from great bodily harm.”...Wrongful-death attorney Andrew Hall said the case appears to fall “within that terrible gap in the law which may be that two men confront each other, each feels threatened by the other, and one dies. And they’re both within their rights.”" link
So here you have a case where a musician got a concealed carry permit because he often was traveling back from gigs with a lot of cash and expensive equipment he needed to protect, a plain-clothes undercover cop investigating an apparently abandoned car seemingly wound up feeling threatened and took him out. And with laws that encourage more people to carry arms for "self-protection" and that provide legal cover for "standing your ground" if you claim to feel threatened, we can expect to see more and more shootings like this. "Wrongful-death attorney Andrew Hall said the case appears to fall “within that terrible gap in the law which may be that two men confront each other, each feels threatened by the other, and one dies. And they’re both within their rights.”" Does anyone actually feel more safe in this condition?
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 27, 2015 13:45:51 GMT -5
"ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Hundreds of people have joined the parents of a 4-year-old Albuquerque girl to mourn her death last week in a road rage shooting.,,Her father had picked up Lilly and her brother from school Oct. 20 when he got into an argument on a highway with another driver, who opened fire on the family's pickup truck. Lilly was shot in the head. She had just finished her second day of preschool." link
See how more guns = more safety?
Me neither. |
|
|
|
Post by jon on Oct 28, 2015 10:55:28 GMT -5
I don't recall suggesting that more guns is an answer. But I do recall repeatedly calling for strong enforcement of existing law----more than adequate to shut down any pattern of illegal sales by stores BTW and not dependent on any municipality (read & understand existing law before pontificating ignorantly) before even considering any additional restrictions on legal gun ownership, most of which violate the Constitution anyway but maybe that's your point?
For Chicago and other Democrat thug havens try "operation exile" type programs. The NRA has funded them before & probably would again. But that would not advance your political agenda---just save a lot of Black Lives Mattering.
Are there any circumstances in which you guys might address Obama's failure to enforce existing laws? Bush's fault?
If you really do know a gun store (or a person) in Chicago or anywhere else is selling "anything you want" illegally you are actually obligated to report that to law enforcement, which in this case would be ATF (run by Obama).
"because, I suspect, the gun shop owners contribute hefty sums to the local pols." Uh.....those would be Obama/Emanuel Dems, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 28, 2015 12:08:53 GMT -5
I don't recall suggesting that more guns is an answer. But I do recall repeatedly calling for strong enforcement of existing law----more than adequate to shut down any pattern of illegal sales by stores BTW and not dependent on any municipality (read & understand existing law before pontificating ignorantly) before even considering any additional restrictions on legal gun ownership, most of which violate the Constitution anyway but maybe that's your point?
"Enforce existing law" is just a dodge, jon. To my knowledge, in the case cited above there wasn't anything in existing law that would have prevented that innocent bystander from getting killed. In an earlier example I cited, the existing law, with its 72-hour legal limit on FBI background checks, actually enabled an otherwise ineligible buyer to get a gun and use it to kill. And, in fact, the NRA has argued that the answer to gun violence is, indeed, more guns, as you certainly know.
"Violate the Constitution" is true only if you really believe the judicial legislating that Scalia & Co. engineered in Heller v. DC in 2008, which reversed long constitutional history by simply excising that inconvenient phrase about a "well-regulated militia" out of the Second Amendment, will stand the test of time. To the contrary, I am confident that in the future a more sane majority either will overturn this misbegotten ruling and its evil spawn, McDonald v. Chicago, or allow so much leeway to federal, state, and local governments in protecting the safety of citizens as to render both decisions moot. You might as well enjoy the moment, jon, cuz the tide is running the other way.
As I've said repeatedly, the more gun owners allow themselves to follow the lead of the pro-industry (not pro-owner) NRA into ever-increasing nuttiness (such as allowing guns in schools, hospitals, etc.), the sharper will be the reaction. It's a law of physics that applies in politics, as well. Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
|
|
Post by jon on Oct 28, 2015 18:38:20 GMT -5
Hmmmm Enforcing the law is a dodge, eh? So you concede my point that Obama refuses to enforce existing law? Right? How many fewer murders would there be in Chicago if Rahm Emanuel's police force & courts vigorously enforced existing law re: felons possession firearms? Or illegal concealment of handguns?
72 hrs is not enough time? Is there any time limit you would accept---maybe 10 years? ( I doubt it---that has nothing to do with your political agenda) Really silly of you to argue that the gun industry pays off Chicago Democrat politicians to allow all the murders there, isn't it?
"the NRA has argued that the answer to gun violence is, indeed, more guns, as you certainly know." Pray, show me some evidence of that. Of course the NRA, and most other reasonable, intelligent people argue that we have a Constitutional right to bear arms in self defense. The number of guns any of us owns is irrelevant, to those who understand the law. Can you show me a murder by gun that violates no existing law?
BTW, since you keep trying to paint this as a partisan political issue, please show me a few cities/states that have been under Republican control for years and have extremely hi rates of gun violence.
For places with a long history of Dem control and extreme gun violence I offer: Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and Durham NC for starters.
And, so what do you think "shall not be infringed" means?
|
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Oct 28, 2015 18:52:41 GMT -5
BTW, since you keep trying to paint this as a partisan political issue, please show me a few cities/states that have been under Republican control for years and have extremely hi rates of gun violence. For places with a long history of Dem control and extreme gun violence I offer: Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and Durham NC for starters. This is like saying that eating corn flakes causes rain. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 28, 2015 19:29:59 GMT -5
Hmmmm Enforcing the law is a dodge, eh? So you concede my point that Obama refuses to enforce existing law? Right? How many fewer murders would there be in Chicago if Rahm Emanuel's police force & courts vigorously enforced existing law re: felons possession firearms? Or illegal concealment of handguns? 72 hrs is not enough time? Is there any time limit you would accept---maybe 10 years? ( I doubt it---that has nothing to do with your political agenda) Really silly of you to argue that the gun industry pays off Chicago Democrat politicians to allow all the murders there, isn't it? "the NRA has argued that the answer to gun violence is, indeed, more guns, as you certainly know." Pray, show me some evidence of that. Of course the NRA, and most other reasonable, intelligent people argue that we have a Constitutional right to bear arms in self defense. The number of guns any of us owns is irrelevant, to those who understand the law. Can you show me a murder by gun that violates no existing law? BTW, since you keep trying to paint this as a partisan political issue, please show me a few cities/states that have been under Republican control for years and have extremely hi rates of gun violence. For places with a long history of Dem control and extreme gun violence I offer: Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and Durham NC for starters. And, so what do you think "shall not be infringed" means?
(1) I said no such thing! What laws has Obama not enforced? On the contrary, my point was that federal laws themselves are much too weak, so that even 100 percent enforcement is insufficinet.
(2) No, it's not enough time, which is why the NRA lobbied to put that time limit into the law years ago. And quit with that Chicago nonsense. You and I both know that the CPD has identified gun shops essentially across the street from the city where a few unscrupulous owners have been selling to straw buyers for years. They actually can trace the weapons to those shops. But the suburban governments won't lift a finger. Stop making excuses for the carnage, jon. It's dishonest.
(3) Let's go back to how Wayne LaPierre responded to Sandy Hook: “Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk...If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.” link
So, guns in schools. And on college campuses. See the link under this headline on the NRA-ILA site: "Allow concealed-carry on campus," which reads in part: "Some call armed self-defense an extreme response, but in reality campus carry would only allow permit-holders to protect themselves on campus just as they do off-campus. We'll never know whether one responsibly armed citizen could have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter because armed self-defense is the only outcome colleges specifically prevent." link Again, more guns = more safety. It's a lie, but a convenient one--for the manufacturers and dealers.
(4) I haven't tried to "paint this as a partisan political issue," you have. But that aside, research shows that "Homicide rates are highest in states where more households have guns, the national survey concludes. The finding held even after taking into account socioeconomic status and gender." link States with the highest firearm death rates: DC, Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Arizona. All, except DC, have relatively weak gun laws; DC suffers from being right across the river from Virginia, where it's very easy for anyone to buy a gun, even those who legally should not be able to do so. States with the lowest firearm death rates: New York, New Jersey. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawai'i. Surprise! That group has some of the strongest gun laws in the nation.
(5) That a state's "well-regulated militia" cannot be disbanded by the US government.
|
|
|
|
Post by jon on Oct 29, 2015 8:42:34 GMT -5
5. You need a remedial reading course. Then about a year of reading accurate history of the American revolution and the adoption of our Constitution.
1. you said ""Enforce existing law" is just a dodge, jon." So if enforcement is irrelevant, what is the purpose of more laws?
2. Do you know nothing at all about "gun control" law? Gun store sales are regulated totally by federal agencies---not local! If what you say about illegal gun store dales is true---which I doubt--- it proves the Obama ATF is choosing not to enforce the laws for which it is responsible.
4. "research shows" Ah yes, one of the first propaganda arrows in the leftist quiver. If you were to cite such research it would most certainly be methodologically weak and result predetermined academic BS. If people are able to buy guns illegally in VA it is the fault of Obama's ATF.
3. So, exactly when did the NRA say "the solution is more guns"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 29, 2015 15:40:41 GMT -5
5. You need a remedial reading course. Then about a year of reading accurate history of the American revolution and the adoption of our Constitution. 1. you said ""Enforce existing law" is just a dodge, jon." So if enforcement is irrelevant, what is the purpose of more laws? 2. Do you know nothing at all about "gun control" law? Gun store sales are regulated totally by federal agencies---not local! If what you say about illegal gun store dales is true---which I doubt--- it proves the Obama ATF is choosing not to enforce the laws for which it is responsible. 4. "research shows" Ah yes, one of the first propaganda arrows in the leftist quiver. If you were to cite such research it would most certainly be methodologically weak and result predetermined academic BS. If people are able to buy guns illegally in VA it is the fault of Obama's ATF. 3. So, exactly when did the NRA say "the solution is more guns"?
Nope, my reading skills are excellent. I daresay I've read more about the Revolution and the Constitution than anyone else here--I even used to teach about the latter.
(1) And you think I can't read, lol? I didn't say enforcement is the problem; I said the content of the laws is. Some things we should be doing: close the "gun show" (really, uncontrolled sales) loophole; get military weapons off the streets; ban large clips; put identifiers on ammunition; register every firearm, just as we do with cars; provide adequate time for background checks on potential buyers; require safety training for all buyers before they can walk off with a lethal weapon; make all gun owners have liability coverage; hold parents responsible if their minor children get hold of their weapons--no excuses. See how those are qualitatively different from the current, flabby laws on the books? But, of course, this would "inconvenience" gun buyers and owners, so we have to put up with 33,000 dead and many thousands more injured every year; wouldn't want you to be inconvenienced, jon, merely to save some lives--that would be wrong!
(2) Local cops can raid gun stores allowing straw purchases, and you damn well know it. For example: "State police have filed criminal charges against two Dauphin County men accused of making 32 "straw purchases" of guns and turning them over to a pair of convicted criminals in exchange for drugs and money." link State police made this arrest, not feds.
(4) Yes, well there's a reason why the NRA pressured Congress into a virtual ban on research into gun violence, isn't there? The reason why guns are easy to buy in VA is because of lax state laws and law enforcement; fortunately, our current Governor has taken on the NRA on this issue, but there's more to be done.
(3) "More guns, less crime isn't just "quite possible," it's a fact." Wayne LaPierre, Dec. 28, 2012. link What, they didn't send the Gun Pontiff's Encyclical to all of you?
(Odd numbering there, jon, lol.)
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Oct 31, 2015 21:26:52 GMT -5
I agree hat the oft repeated phrase "enforce existing laws" is a canard. What does that even mean? Most of the time us on the left look at a shooting and logically believe that certain people should simply not have access to guns. At one point, most of the nation agreed with this. Mentally insane people, felons, and the like, should be able of walk into a store and buy any gun they choose.
Yet that is no longer the stance of the NRA. Any time the most minor restriction that someone may seek is immediately shot down by the NRA. Now instead of trying to prevent the shootings, they seem content to essentially minimize damage inflicted by having more guns. Yet if they limited the size of magazines, that would go a lot further and would certainly benefit the "good guy with a gun", giving them time to shoot the shooter while they're reloàding.
I think what "enforcing existing laws" means is putting the shooter in jail if he's not killed prior to or during the arrest. It's no surprise that most sane people ignore the NRA because it has become clear that they have no interest in reducing gun violence. They simply do not care because more gun violence is good for business
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 1, 2015 0:44:59 GMT -5
They simply do not care because more gun violence is good for business
In fact, gun violence is a major selling point! The NRA, working for the manufacturers and dealers who fund them, actually uses gun deaths to scare people into buying more guns. It's nuts, but profitable. For example, their site now is promoting this as its "gun of the week":
Wanna know what this is? "The third iteration of the CZ Scorpion submachine gun was unveiled in 2009 as the EVO 3 A1, and this year the Czech gunmaker introduced a semi-automatic pistol version of that selective-fire carbine—the EVO 3 S1. Featuring simple blowback operation and chambered for the prevalent 9 mm Luger cartridge, the pistol is essentially identical to its rifle brother, just without the buttstock and the capacity for fully-automatic fire."
Yeah, that thing is a pistol, or to be more precise it's a military rifle, without a buttstock. It has a 20-round magazine, and semi-auto firing action. It's just the thing for your kid's next birthday; maybe he can take it to school and show the other kids just how effective a killing machine it is. And it is a European import! Apparently, we don't make enough guns in the USA, so we need to import them from the Czechs. Or we just think Euro design is sooooooooooooo cool.
Who the hell buys this stuff? Can you explain, jon?
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Nov 1, 2015 6:43:19 GMT -5
Part of why the NRA is effectively a terrorist organization
Same organization that believes that a person on the terrorism watch list should still be able to buy a gun just like the one above. So while we have members being recruited from our own communities to join ISIS, the same folks, thanks to the NRA can go buy as many killing machines as they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by jon on Nov 1, 2015 7:54:18 GMT -5
"Who the hell buys this stuff? Can you explain, jon?"
Looks like it would be great fun at the range, where people go for recreation. Of course some fail to understand, just like I don't understand why people would enjoy playing golf. The difference is that I don't try to criminalize golf or consistently attack & ridicule those who enjoy it and do it without hitting anyone.
Don't think I will buy one though, even though I love CZ's. My vision is not good enough to shoot pistols with enough accuracy for anything much beyond self-defence. I can still shoot rifles accurately and enjoy that. After ~ 60 years of shooting I still have not shot anyone. Not even a crazy and irritating leftist.
|
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Nov 1, 2015 15:08:30 GMT -5
"Who the hell buys this stuff? Can you explain, jon?" Looks like it would be great fun at the range, where people go for recreation. Of course some fail to understand, just like I don't understand why people would enjoy playing golf. The difference is that I don't try to criminalize golf or consistently attack & ridicule those who enjoy it and do it without hitting anyone. Don't think I will buy one though, even though I love CZ's. My vision is not good enough to shoot pistols with enough accuracy for anything much beyond self-defence. I can still shoot rifles accurately and enjoy that. After ~ 60 years of shooting I still have not shot anyone. Not even a crazy and irritating leftist. I'm ok with people shooting crazy weapons at a gun range. But I also think the gun range should be the sole owner of said gun. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 1, 2015 16:47:18 GMT -5
"Who the hell buys this stuff? Can you explain, jon?" Looks like it would be great fun at the range, where people go for recreation. Of course some fail to understand, just like I don't understand why people would enjoy playing golf. The difference is that I don't try to criminalize golf or consistently attack & ridicule those who enjoy it and do it without hitting anyone.
Yeah, well, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that recreational golfers don't kill 30,000 + year after year, with either bad shots or excellent aim. You're deflections are getting worse, however. Really, guns and golf? LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Nov 1, 2015 19:27:08 GMT -5
Yeah? Well crawl a little further out on that limb and contemplate how many Americans are killed every year by alcohol consumption---much less subject to "reasonable control", eh? How about a ban?  ? And another little comparison, OK? Our Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to keep arms, and to bear arms. For the extremely challenged, intellectually, infringe means "to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: " That was from the get-go, and for those who have a rudimentary grasp of the American Revolution (our first Civil War), as opposed to several here, the intent of the founders was very clear from the start. And they were not concerned about hunting. Then some time later our Constitution was amended (in accordance with the founders' wisdom-induced procedures) to assure the rights of citizen (-not illegal aliens, corpses, or felons---all a crucial part of partisan Dem voting block) to vote. Pretty comprehensive, though clearly not as unlimited as keeping and bearing arms. No mention of "shall not be infringed". And yet it has been held (appropriately, in my opinion) illegal to tax the right to vote. Any liberals disagree with outlawing poll taxes??? I thought not. So, let me propose that just as illegal to tax Constitutional voting rights it is even more unconstitutional to tax either bearing or keeping personal arms. I want a refund of all taxes I have paid on firearms and ammunition. BTW that CZ you find, in your emotional ignorance, so offensive is functionally no different from this firearm introduced 100 years ago. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Woodsman I doubt many have been killed with one, or will be with the puny little CZ. I'll bet far more have been & will be killed (without any firearm) by people who mis-used Rum. Ready to advocate a ban on Rum? |
|
|
|
Post by jon on Nov 1, 2015 19:55:04 GMT -5
Ah yes. In the safety haven of Chicago, where an Unconstitutional gun ban keeps everyone safe---if you don't believe me just check the data on gun murders in historically Dem Chicago---it seems we have an instance of a legal gun owner protecting the innocent from the criminal. Did the robber have a permit? did he buy his gun legally? Does he regularly vote Dem? (you do argue felons & corpses should be able to vote, but only Dem, right?) Etc? www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/01/police-concealed-carry-license-holder-kills-armed-gunman/?intcmp=hpbt2Of course all civilized, elitist, liberals (who were not--yet-- threatened with death) will concur the world would have been much better off if the guy had been allowed to shoot several employees, right? Did the shooter violate the robber's civil right to rob & shoot? So let me interrupt, OB, before you start.. Just review a few issues of The American Rifleman---publication of the evil and dreaded NRA. Each one has ~ 1/2 dozen similar instances---well documented there but never, ever reported by the leftist press--- of similar legal self defense by legally owned firearms. Happens nearly every day |
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Nov 1, 2015 23:04:40 GMT -5
Yeah? Well crawl a little further out on that limb and contemplate how many Americans are killed every year by alcohol consumption---much less subject to "reasonable control", eh? How about a ban? ? Hey guess what? Drunken driving deaths are down 50% since the 80's. Why? Because of stricter legislation and education. Seems to me the gun lobby wants neither. |
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Nov 1, 2015 23:05:33 GMT -5
Ah yes. In the safety haven of Chicago, where an Unconstitutional gun ban keeps everyone safe---if you don't believe me just check the data on gun murders in historically Dem Chicago---it seems we have an instance of a legal gun owner protecting the innocent from the criminal. Did the robber have a permit? did he buy his gun legally? Does he regularly vote Dem? (you do argue felons & corpses should be able to vote, but only Dem, right?) Etc? www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/01/police-concealed-carry-license-holder-kills-armed-gunman/?intcmp=hpbt2Of course all civilized, elitist, liberals (who were not--yet-- threatened with death) will concur the world would have been much better off if the guy had been allowed to shoot several employees, right? Did the shooter violate the robber's civil right to rob & shoot? So let me interrupt, OB, before you start.. Just review a few issues of The American Rifleman---publication of the evil and dreaded NRA. Each one has ~ 1/2 dozen similar instances---well documented there but never, ever reported by the leftist press--- of similar legal self defense by legally owned firearms. Happens nearly every day In Chicago, you can drive 30 minutes and buy whatever you want. Also, Seattle and Portland are liberal. Not much of a violence issue out there. Maybe it's the weed. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 2, 2015 2:04:04 GMT -5
Yeah? Well crawl a little further out on that limb and contemplate how many Americans are killed every year by alcohol consumption---much less subject to "reasonable control", eh? How about a ban?????
Your arguments just continue to grow weaker. Especially since alcohol-related deaths and injuries have fallen sharply because of new laws and more stringent enforcement. All you have to do is concede that we'd all be a lot safer if only our gun laws were as tough as our automobile laws--which they most assuredly are not--and then we could have a reasonable discussion of what's feasible and what's not. But if you're going to continue with this absolutist position you're just going to remain on the defensive, making more and more foolish comparisons like this one. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, so why are you wasting yours this way?
BTW, I don't have time to find it right now, but I saw a report that approximately 60 percent of guns used for criminal acts and captured by police were bought at "gun shows" (aka open-air bazaars for criminals). At the least, can't we get back to requiring all gun sales to be carried out by licensed gun dealers? Is that really such a terrible burden on you and your buddies that it's worth thousands of deaths and injuries each year to keep those things open?
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Nov 2, 2015 6:53:33 GMT -5
Ah yes. In the safety haven of Chicago, where an Unconstitutional gun ban keeps everyone safe---if you don't believe me just check the data on gun murders in historically Dem Chicago---it seems we have an instance of a legal gun owner protecting the innocent from the criminal. Did the robber have a permit? did he buy his gun legally? Does he regularly vote Dem? (you do argue felons & corpses should be able to vote, but only Dem, right?) Etc? www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/01/police-concealed-carry-license-holder-kills-armed-gunman/?intcmp=hpbt2Of course all civilized, elitist, liberals (who were not--yet-- threatened with death) will concur the world would have been much better off if the guy had been allowed to shoot several employees, right? Did the shooter violate the robber's civil right to rob & shoot? So let me interrupt, OB, before you start.. Just review a few issues of The American Rifleman---publication of the evil and dreaded NRA. Each one has ~ 1/2 dozen similar instances---well documented there but never, ever reported by the leftist press--- of similar legal self defense by legally owned firearms. Happens nearly every day This article is just sad. They've managed to take an instance that could help build their case, but in the process just demonstrate what a dishonest pile of filth Fox News is. The Home Depot case they conflate this with is when UNARMED shoplifters were fleeing the store when an armed vigilante started firing at their vehicle. Hardly a similar situation unless you believe petty theft should be punishable by death with no due process. self defense in this case should be very difficult to prove. Still in the case of a robbery, even shooting this person probably wasn't necessary as long as the store clerk didn't resist. Generally in a robbery, the cash is what they're after, not to just randomly blow away other patrons. The outcome in this case is OK but I'm not sure they would train a person to respond that way. |
|
|
|
Post by jon on Nov 2, 2015 8:44:19 GMT -5
"In Chicago, you can drive 30 minutes and buy whatever you want." I repeat: if you have knowledge of a store or person selling guns illegally you have an obligation to report that to ATF. If you don't have such knowledge, you have an obligation to stop lying. Speaking of "not telling the truth" , there are not 33K gun murders every year, there are about 11K, and only about 600 with long guns of all kinds,not sure how many with those that look like assault rifles which you lefties are so anxious to ban because you think they look fearsome. Of course local LE can make arrests in gun crime. And local (Dem controlled) prosecutors and courts.can decline to charge/convict/imprison the offenders. It happens every day in my (Dem controlled) town. ATF is responsible for monitoring FFL sellers. Ah, the "gun show" lie again. OB, come down to the big Raleigh gun show in late November and show me how to buy a gun there without a background check or a CC permit. I have explained to you before the very limited circumstances in which you can but a gun without the B. check. For those ignorant enough to think the story cited above---a legally armed citizen stopping crimes/saving lives----is rare check here: www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen Hundreds of them. Too bad our lying national press never reports these---just the cases where a crazy White guy shoots an innocent person. OB---are you really arguing that a citizen should not be allowed to use force to defend property? We are obligated to just sit back and refrain from interefering with those who would simply steal everything we own? |
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Nov 2, 2015 9:15:06 GMT -5
"In Chicago, you can drive 30 minutes and buy whatever you want." I repeat: if you have knowledge of a store or person selling guns illegally you have an obligation to report that to ATF. If you don't have such knowledge, you have an obligation to stop lying. In what post did I say you could buy an illegal gun? |
|
?