# NRA General Counsel Robert Dowlut Convicted of Murder



## Joe Steel (Aug 17, 2014)

Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.



> ... NRA general counsel Robert J. Dowlut, is a low-profile yet influential legal expert who has spent more than 35 years pushing for an aggressively broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. In 1964, he was sentenced to life in prison for shooting his girlfriend's mother in South Bend, Indiana. ...
> 
> 
> Did the NRA Know About Robert Dowlut's Reversed Murder Conviction? | Mother Jones



All this happened almost 50 years ago but it's been more or less unknown to the general public. Despite the NRA's high profile, they haven't talked about the history of one of their most important staff. Moreover, they're not talking now. They won't discuss Robert Dowlut's history and he won't either. That's kind of strange. The NRA tells us guns are good so why aren't they talking?


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 17, 2014)

Well, guns are good...they stop violent crime and save lives over 100,000 times a year and the real number is closer to 250-350,000 times a year...and if the guy comitted the murder, it seems like he has been judged and will go to prison...other than putting out a call for a new guy to take his job...what should they say...did they at some point say they support murder...cause from what I know, they never have...so again...what is the point?


----------



## JWBooth (Aug 17, 2014)




----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 17, 2014)

No democrat has ever killed anyone.   Teddy Kennedy is an exception.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You posted this lame crap on another board and you got destroyed.  The conviction was OVERTURNED and it happened FIFTY YEARS AGO

your hatred of the NRA is pathetic because you are a far left squealing statist and you are trying to smear the NRA because they oppose the socialist scum in office you fluff


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


50 year ago, eh?
Can you come up with older news, or is that the best you can do?


----------



## JWBooth (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


negged for trolling


----------



## turtledude (Aug 17, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> ...



his anti NRA bloviations are among the lamest crap going at DP.  HE has decided to infect this board with his brand of hysteria


----------



## turtledude (Aug 17, 2014)

JWBooth said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> ...



great minds think alike


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 17, 2014)

turtledude said:


> ... You posted this lame crap on another board and you got destroyed.  ...



Only in your delusions.  The competent commentary agreed with me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> ...



Tell the same to PoliticalChick for posting stuff that happened eighty years ago as somehow important today.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 17, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > ... All this happened almost 50 years ago but it's been more or less unknown to the general public. Despite the NRA's high profile, they haven't talked about the history of one of their most important staff. Moreover, they're not talking now. They won't discuss Robert Dowlut's history and he won't either. That's kind of strange. The NRA tells us guns are good so why aren't they talking?
> ...



As I said, the event happened 50 years ago.  The current interest in it is because of the NRA's unwillingness to admit their staff member very likely is a murderer.  The evidence against him is compelling and conclusive and led to a conviction.  The reversal came because of a technicality.

Do you think the NRA should defend him with their silence.


----------



## JWBooth (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


A lefty annoyed over a reversal by technicality, they used to live for this shit.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 17, 2014)

It seems strange that the left wants to award every right of citizenship to convicted criminals and yet wants to smear a person who's conviction was reversed.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your support of the NRA is noted

-Geaux


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 17, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > ... All this happened almost 50 years ago but it's been more or less unknown to the general public. Despite the NRA's high profile, they haven't talked about the history of one of their most important staff. Moreover, they're not talking now. They won't discuss Robert Dowlut's history and he won't either. That's kind of strange. The NRA tells us guns are good so why aren't they talking?
> ...



Then you've misunderstood.

How can I help you?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > ... You posted this lame crap on another board and you got destroyed.  ...
> ...


You mean people that agree with you agreed with you.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


...  the anti-gun loons are losing their shorts at every turn and desperatly need something to cling to.


----------



## Peach (Aug 17, 2014)

He paid his debt to society, how is this relevant today? I cannot believe any State Bar would let him practice unless he is proven rehabilitated.


----------



## Freewill (Aug 17, 2014)

I guess being surrounded by those who love hunting and take gun safety seriously didn't overcome the wantonness of yet another lawyer.  Not sure why you would start a thread in politics that happened because a lawyer when crazy.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 17, 2014)

Peach said:


> He paid his debt to society, how is this relevant today? I cannot believe any State Bar would let him practice unless he is proven rehabilitated.



As a matter of fact, the conviction was overturned on a technicality.  The State Supreme Court ordered a new trial but none ever was conducted.  Dowlut never had to be show to be "rehabilitated."  

That's pretty much the problem.  The evidence is compelling and conclusive.  It points to him as the murderer but he won't talk about it.  He's relying on a police error to shield him from the condemnation he should be suffering.


----------



## blackhawk (Aug 17, 2014)

Here is an idea as to why the NRA is not talking about it ready? It was 50 years ago nobody in the year 2014 cares.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 17, 2014)

blackhawk said:


> Here is an idea as to why the NRA is not talking about it ready? It was 50 years ago nobody in the year 2014 cares.



Murder cases have no statute of limitations.  The police consider it an open case and Dowlut almost certainly remains the primary suspect.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > ... You posted this lame crap on another board and you got destroyed.  ...
> ...



WHAT competent commentary?  You are a NRA hater because they support the right of free citizens to be armed as a bulwark against a dictatorial government and psychotic criminals-two groups you are a fluffer for


----------



## turtledude (Aug 17, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



Other Obamatards and Brady Fluffers


----------



## blackhawk (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an idea as to why the NRA is not talking about it ready? It was 50 years ago nobody in the year 2014 cares.
> ...



Does not change the fact it was 50 years ago and is not relevant to anything happening today no matter how much you would like to make it so.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 17, 2014)

blackhawk said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Nor does  your insistence it means nothing actually mean it means nothing.  The unavoidable fact is, the NRA is relying on a murder suspect to promote its gun policies.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > ... You posted this lame crap on another board and you got destroyed.  ...
> ...



you mean the competent anti-gun commentary?....


----------



## Impenitent (Aug 17, 2014)

blackhawk said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



Dowlut's gun was used to kill a woman (his girlfriend"s mother), and wound another in an armed robbery, but if we can agree that guns don't kill people, only people kill people, then what's left is Dowlut.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 17, 2014)

Did I mention that over sixty percent of Missouri voters supported amending the state Constitution to expand Second Amendment protections?

I'm sure I did,  but here it is again for those who missed it.

"*Gun Rights*

  Constitutional Amendment 5 establishes the unalienable right of citizens  to keep and bear arms, ammunition and accessories associated with the  normal functioning of arms for the purpose of defending themselves,  family, home and property.  It also removes the exception to the current  constitutional right to bear arms that explicitly states it can&#8217;t be  used to justify the wearing of concealed weapons. The amendment allows  the state to limit the possession of arms by convicted felons and those  adjudged as mentally ill.   The final vote on this amendment was *YES 602,076 (61%)  NO  385,422 (39%)"

Missouri Constitutional Amendment Results - OzarksFirst.com


*


----------



## blackhawk (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



The unavoidable fact is you don't like the NRA fine whatever but since you can't come with anything relevant you have go back 50 years ago to try and find something to support your cause. I will also point out the man went through the legal process was convicted in no small part due to the sorry work done by the police which got his conviction overturned all of this happening before he was even 20 years old I might add after which instead of staying on the path of a career criminal he actually turned his life around and made something of himself. It's truly tragic it took something like this for it to happen but given how many other's start down the same road and never get off it I would say he deserves a little slack as does anyone else who has gone down the same road and turned their life around.


----------



## Peach (Aug 17, 2014)

"Technicalties" prevent a fair and impartial, that is why convictions can be overturned.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > He paid his debt to society, how is this relevant today? I cannot believe any State Bar would let him practice unless he is proven rehabilitated.
> ...



Are you opposed to the 5th amendment to the Constitution?

That is the "technicality" you are referring to.

The SAME RIGHT that lefty fuckwads like you proclaimed sacrosanct when Lois Lerner invoked it.

That the right to not answer questions is NOT an admission of guilt.

But as usual,  that standard only applies when the lefty agenda is in peril.

So fuck-off hypocrite,  take your Mother Jones hit piece and shove in up your ass sideways.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > He paid his debt to society, how is this relevant today? I cannot believe any State Bar would let him practice unless he is proven rehabilitated.
> ...


Innocent until proven guilty.
Apparently that only applies to people you like.


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Overturned due to a technicality?   Just a little one to you whackos right?

That technicality just happened to be a forced confession and a continual denial of an attorney.

Holy toledo you left wing scumbuckets are such fucking assholes. If the State had an iron clad case with solid forensic evidence they would have never relied on a confession to begin with. 

And most certainly if this was airtight against Dowlut, they would have retried.  

*But after serving half a decade in prison, and despite solid forensic evidence matching Dowlut's dug-up pistol to the murder, the Indiana Supreme Court found that police had overzealously violated his constitutional rights in obtaining that confessionthey reportedly denied him a lawyer despite multiple requestsand his conviction was overturned.*

The NRA's Top Attorney Was Convicted of Murder in 1964


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 17, 2014)

Peach said:


> "Technicalties" prevent a fair and impartial, that is why convictions can be overturned.



Peach you seem to be well schooled in the law so you can tell me if I'm wrong in thinking this technicality was a serious one. 

If the technicality that the case was overturned on just happened to be a forced confession and a continual denial of an attorney that was requested repeatedly, isn't that like a "biggie" as far as technicalities go?


----------



## LeftofLeft (Aug 17, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is a bigger threat? Thugs in in the inner city southside of Chicago who shoot yet another 3 year old using an illegal firearm or a Montana mountain man firing a legal  AK 47 at tin cans?


----------



## turtledude (Aug 17, 2014)

Missourian said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Joe Squeal got his slanderous nonsense stuffed up there on another board   why he thinks it will be different here is hard to fathom


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 18, 2014)

blackhawk said:


> Here is an idea as to why the NRA is not talking about it ready? It was 50 years ago nobody in the year 2014 cares.



If the NRA said anything, it would highlight the importance of the issue.  The NRA knows its staff member is a liability to whatever moral authority the NRA believes it has.  Talking about his murder conviction and the subsequent reversal on a mere technicality would bring the issue to the public's attention and it would create a severe threat to the NRA's facade of respectability.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 18, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an idea as to why the NRA is not talking about it ready? It was 50 years ago nobody in the year 2014 cares.
> ...



Nice try.. LMAO

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 18, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> ...



It was overturned on a technicality.  No one is really disputing that Dowlut killed this poor woman.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 18, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > "Technicalties" prevent a fair and impartial, that is why convictions can be overturned.
> ...



Legally, maybe. 

Morally, no.  Either he killed this woman or he didn't. And all the evidence says that he did. 

But at least he didn't steal any cigars.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 18, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you know what the word reversed means in this context? Hint, it means the conviction is no longer on the books.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 18, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Do you know what the word reversed means in this context? Hint, it means the conviction is no longer on the books.



It doesn't make his victim less dead and it doesn't make him innocent of the crime.  It only means the system didn't want to prosecute him further due to passage of time.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 18, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Only in your delusions.  The competent commentary agreed with me.


Yeah bull shit dumbass, your getting your ignorant ass kicked right now.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 18, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> It doesn't make his victim less dead and it doesn't make him innocent of the crime.  It only means the system didn't want to prosecute him further due to passage of time.


There's no statute of limitations on murder idiot. If he was guilty, they wouldn't stop.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 18, 2014)

PredFan said:


> There's no statute of limitations on murder idiot. If he was guilty, they wouldn't stop.



But they do realize there's a point where witnesses aren't available, testimony has been lost, evidence has been thrown out, etc.  Most of the evidence garnered against this clown was garnered when he asked for a lawyer adn didn't get one.  In short, much like Miranda, he got off on a technicality.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 18, 2014)

so?
We've had members of Congress convicted of everything BUT murder I think and none of you blink an eyelash...

what's the big deal here, oh he's a member of the NRA...whoa


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Aug 18, 2014)

His sentence was overturned in '68, and after reading the story of how the police handled the case, it's no wonder.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 19, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> so?
> We've had members of Congress convicted of everything BUT murder I think and none of you blink an eyelash...
> 
> what's the big deal here, oh he's a member of the NRA...whoa



You mean why are we upset that an organization that makes 32,000 deaths a year possible is being legally represented by a man who shot a woman because she didn't like him banging her under-aged daughter?  

I couldn't imagine why.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> You mean why are we upset that an organization that makes 32,000 deaths a year possible is being legally represented by a man who shot a woman because she didn't like him banging her under-aged daughter?
> 
> I couldn't imagine why.


they MAKES 32,000 deaths? there's that dramatics in you lefties...the NRA doesn't make anything. they are an organization that stands up for our Second amendments RIGHT. How many deaths a DAY does ABORTION make?
3700 A DAY...3700 people go out and kill their sons and daughters DAILY
How many abortions take place a day
people like you YAWN over those


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 19, 2014)

Billc said:


> Well, guns are good...they stop violent crime and save lives over 100,000 times a year and the real number is closer to 250-350,000 times a year...and if the guy comitted the murder, it seems like he has been judged and will go to prison...other than putting out a call for a new guy to take his job...what should they say...did they at some point say they support murder...cause from what I know, they never have...so again...what is the point?



Being able to defend yourself without having to rely on speedy arrival of police is what's good. But firearms are simply a tool, neither good or bad. 

Not having any anymore myself having become a bit of a pacifist I like the idea I saw in some comedy movie, calling 911 and, "Help I'm a young pretty blonde girl and there's a man in my house." when then before even hanging up the phone several police cars arrive.


----------



## Impenitent (Aug 19, 2014)

With the confession and gun thrown out, the immediate thing to do would have been to try him on the armed robbery.  They had an eye witnesss, prior similar bad acts, and forensics showed the bullet fired from the same oddball gun as owned by Dowlut's father.  Slam dunk.


Then hope for new evidence in the murder case.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 19, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> they MAKES 32,000 deaths? there's that dramatics in you lefties...the NRA doesn't make anything. they are an organization that stands up for our Second amendments RIGHT. How many deaths a DAY does ABORTION make?
> 3700 A DAY...3700 people go out and kill their sons and daughters DAILY
> How many abortions take place a day
> people like you YAWN over those



Fetuses still aren't people. That's why I yawn. 

The US has a astronomical murder rate because the NRA fights for the right of crazy, stupid and criminal people to own guns when they really, really shouldn't.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 19, 2014)

DigitalDrifter said:


> His sentence was overturned in '68, and after reading the story of how the police handled the case, it's no wonder.



As I said, the conviction was reversed on a technicality.  Nevertheless, the evidence is conclusive.


----------



## daveman (Aug 19, 2014)

Apparently, there's no statute of limitations on causing progressive butthurt, either.


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> But they do realize there's a point where witnesses aren't available, testimony has been lost, evidence has been thrown out, etc.  Most of the evidence garnered against this clown was garnered when he asked for a lawyer adn didn't get one.  In short, much like Miranda, he got off on a technicality.




This technicality was a forced confession and a continual denial to an attorney.

I'd say that's a biggie. And you were claiming in your other post that all the evidence pointed to him. 

You are claiming that no one disputes that he killed this woman. Where's your evidence of this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> As I said, the conviction was reversed....


Anything you say after this point is meaningless opinion.
Thanks for playing.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 19, 2014)

daveman said:


> Apparently, there's no statute of limitations on causing progressive butthurt, either.




yep, Teddy Kennedy can drown a woman and get appointed to make our laws for LIFE

Robert Byrd a Former KKK grand wizard can be REFORMED and get elected to Congress FOR LIFE

Bill Clinton can be Impeached and still remain as PRESIDENT

but , they are Democrats...see the difference?

But, OMG someone from the NRA...


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 20, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> yep, Teddy Kennedy can drown a woman and get appointed to make our laws for LIFE
> 
> Robert Byrd a Former KKK grand wizard can be REFORMED and get elected to Congress FOR LIFE
> 
> ...



Well, those guys won elections.  

As opposed to Dowlut who hasn't been elected, most Americans don't even know who he is. But yet with a stack of money, he can overturn the will of communities on what their gun laws should be.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 20, 2014)

turtledude said:


> WHAT competent commentary?  You are a NRA hater because they support the right of free citizens to be armed as a bulwark against a dictatorial government and psychotic criminals-two groups you are a fluffer for



The NRA supports the guns rights because the gun industry pays them to do it.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 20, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> The NRA supports the guns rights because the gun industry pays them to do it.



and the UNIONS support/pays for and makes up the Democrat/progressive/commie party. You don't seem to have a problem WITH THAT. so give us a break


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 20, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> The NRA supports the guns rights because the gun industry pays them to do it.


This is, of course, a lie.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 20, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> The NRA supports the guns rights because the gun industry pays them to do it.




more moronic nonsense from you.  Do you think the membership would have the NRA NOT Support gun rights

You really are a tool on this issue.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 20, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is, of course, a lie.




Joe Squeal posts this crap on the board where we first met.  He thinks that but for gun makers, the NRA would be anti gun.  He is one of the most brain dead gun haters on the planet


----------



## Impenitent (Aug 20, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is, of course, a lie.


 The NRA receives the majority of its funding from the gun industry.  It is merely coincidence that they happen to agree on the issues.

Every issue.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 20, 2014)

All this happened nearly 50 years ago!   Oh Noeeessssss!!!!!11!!!!!!!

Let's riot and loot some shoe stores.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 20, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> The NRA receives the majority of its funding from the gun industry.


You sure about that?


----------



## Impenitent (Aug 20, 2014)

M14 Shooter said:


> You sure about that?


 Yes

This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA  - Business Insider


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 20, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> Yes
> This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA  - Business Insider


Huh.
Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries?
So much for that.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 20, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> The NRA receives the majority of its funding from the gun industry.  It is merely coincidence that they happen to agree on the issues.
> 
> Every issue.




are you of the opinion that the gun industry and us gun owners would have divergent points of view when it comes to the 2A?  the current tactics of the anti gun scum is to pretend that being supported by the gun industry is a bad thing.  Its the talking points of assholes like Brady and Josh Sugarmann.  They seem to think its a new tactic to demonize the NRA in the minds of pillow headed sheeple


----------



## Spoonman (Aug 20, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> All this happened almost 50 years ago but it's been more or less unknown to the general public. Despite the NRA's high profile, they haven't talked about the history of one of their most important staff. Moreover, they're not talking now. They won't discuss Robert Dowlut's history and he won't either. That's kind of strange. The NRA tells us guns are good so why aren't they talking?


 eh,  one of bloombergs top anti gun guys was just convicted of embezzlement and perjury. another one has been charged with false imprisonment, unlawful restraint, reckless endangerment, serving alcohol to a minor and other crimes, and he also allegedly used more than one gun in this incident, in which at least one shot was fired.  A leading anti gun california congressman was convicted of gun running.  and this is all current.  not 50 years old


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 21, 2014)

boedicca said:


> All this happened nearly 50 years ago!   Oh Noeeessssss!!!!!11!!!!!!! ...



Dowlut is employed by the NRA today.  This about the morality of relying on a murder suspect to set national policy.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 21, 2014)

The NRA once was dedicated to safe gun handling and good shooting.  Now it's dedicated to gun proliferation.  It wants to put more guns on American streets and it doesn't care who has them.  It's all about selling not shooting.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 21, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> The NRA once was dedicated to safe gun handling and good shooting.  Now it's dedicated to gun proliferation.  It wants to put more guns on American streets and it doesn't care who has them.  It's all about selling not shooting.



more idiocy.  you just constantly lie because you are butt  hurt over the fact that the NRA funds and supports candidates who are not far left moon bats such as you


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 21, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> The NRA once was dedicated to safe gun handling and good shooting.  Now it's dedicated to gun proliferation.  It wants to put more guns on American streets and it doesn't care who has them.  It's all about selling not shooting.


Oh look - more lies.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 21, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Dowlut is employed by the NRA today.  This about the morality of relying on a murder suspect to set national policy.



We elect the NRA to set national policy?

Who knew?


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 21, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Dowlut is employed by the NRA today.  This about the morality of relying on a murder suspect to set national policy.
> ...



Who knew?

Who doesn't.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 21, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...




Please link to where the NRA holds elected office that gives it the power to set national policy. I haven't found that role in The Constitution.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 21, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



He's got the sheep/tool DNC talking points down pat


----------



## turtledude (Aug 21, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...




Joe Squeal has voided this MJ Excrement on at least 3 different forums.  I wonder if he is paid parrot for those marxist scumbags


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 21, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > The NRA once was dedicated to safe gun handling and good shooting.  Now it's dedicated to gun proliferation.  It wants to put more guns on American streets and it doesn't care who has them.  It's all about selling not shooting.
> ...



NOt at all. 

The NRA used to support sensible gun laws.  

When Ronald Reagan (as governor)  passed a law in response to the Black Panthers walking around with guns to intimidate people, the NRA supported that law.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



laws that target law abiding people are by definition non sensible

it is illegal for criminals to own any firearms.  magazine limits, assault "weapon" bans etc are not sensible at all

laws that enhance penalties on criminals who use a firearm in a crime of violence are sensible.  

the NRA had to get more political when the Dem party started using gun control as a shield against the proper claims by some conservatives in the 60s that Dems were weak on street crime.  So DEMS adopted gun control to pretend they were DOING SOMETHING, when in reality they were not hurting a major constituency-black street criminals and said supporters of black street criminals.  The NRA had to get political to counterattack pissing on our rights by the DNC


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 22, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Who knew?
> ...



Seriously?

Do you really think the NRA must have some sort of codified, institutional power to control legislation?  Don't be silly.  They buy legislation.  They intimidate legislators.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 22, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Then you should be really horrified about Public Employee Unions.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 22, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...




what causes you to get your panties in a knot over the NRA?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 23, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


 
I'm sure this is what you believe.

Now here's the reality.

The NRA became the tool of the gun manufacturers, but the gun manufacturers had a problem.

People weren't hunting anymore. Moreover, less people were choosing to have guns in their homes.

So faced with declining sales, the gun manufacturers focused their efforts on selling more guns to less people.  This is why Nancy Lanza was armed like the Zombie Apocalypse was coming. Because while most of us see preppers as nuts, the gun manufacturers look at them like prime customers.

And how do you keep Nancy scared?  Why, by making sure that criminals and crazy people have access to guns.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 23, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously?
> ...



I'm not.  Unions are working for the benefit of the American People not gun manufacturers.  They're not in thrall to a small group of profiteers growing rich from selling the tools of destruction.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 23, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The conviction was overturned, which means he owes no one anything.
This is a non-issue.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 23, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




its the leftwing gun banners who accentuate the fears people have of criminals.  Can you prove any of your claims? Its the standard talking point of those who support victim disarmament.  and one of the funniest claims is less people own guns now  Nancy Lanza bought those guns for target shooting.  Try again


----------



## boedicca (Aug 23, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...




You are seriously misguided and incredibly naive.

Public employee unions exist to benefit Public Employees and the politicians to which they donate who keep the Pubic Employee rich pay and benefits packages (unencumbered by actual accountability to do actual work) flowing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 23, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


Sad that you actually believe that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 23, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> its the leftwing gun banners who accentuate the fears people have of criminals.  Can you prove any of your claims? Its the standard talking point of those who support victim disarmament.  and one of the funniest claims is less people own guns now  Nancy Lanza bought those guns for target shooting.  Try again


 
GUy, there's not much I can do to try with a guy who tries to claim Nancy Lanza and David Koresh were responsible gun owners.

For sane people, though...

Connecticut school shooting Adam Lanza s mother was preparing for disaster - Telegraph


----------



## turtledude (Aug 23, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



the Lanza case shows how dishonest the anti gun scum in CT are though.  the guns were registered, complied with the CT "assault weapon" law and were purchased pursuant to a waiting period


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 23, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



sheesh, brainwashed
don't own any gun who cares, leave the rest who do alone


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 24, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


 
Why are you trying to change the subject.  Your claim was she was not a prepper when members of her own family said she was.

The fact she was able to get guns despite being nuts and having an absolutely insane person in the same home with her just shows how lax our gun laws are.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



so you believe my right to keep and bear arms can be limited based on the actions of another adult I am related to

when you claim that the CT laws are lax-you demonstrate you are either too stupid to understand what took place or you are an extremist who thinks we need gun bans


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 24, 2014)

turtledude said:


> so you believe my right to keep and bear arms can be limited based on the actions of another adult I am related to
> 
> when you claim that the CT laws are lax-you demonstrate you are either too stupid to understand what took place or you are an extremist who thinks we need gun bans


 
A few thing I need to clarify, because it appears you are kind of stupid.

1)  There are no "rights"  There are privileges the rest of society let's you have. Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" 

2) Second Amendment is about militias.

3) Yes, I think your privilege to own a gun should be restricted if you are living with a dangerous person.

4) CT laws are lax in that Lanza was able to get a gun.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > so you believe my right to keep and bear arms can be limited based on the actions of another adult I am related to
> ...



There are no rights-what a low grade uneducated moron you are

So the second amendment say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  No dullard, it says the people.

I think you hate freedom because it scares you/  Put on your big boy panties and stop soiling your garments

what sort of laws do you want dullardly one?  LANZA committed CAPITAL MURDER TO GET A GUN-what further punishments would have stopped him

moron


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 25, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> 
> There are no rights-what a low grade uneducated moron you are


 
No I'm a realist.



turtledude said:


> [
> So the second amendment say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?  No dullard, it says the people.


 
It also says Well-Regulated Militia. BUt let's not even go that far.   We have modern police and armies today.  An armed populate might have made sense in1787 when we were genociding the native americans and oppressing the slaves, but now so much now.




turtledude said:


> [
> I think you hate freedom because it scares you/  Put on your big boy panties and stop soiling your garments


 
No,"Freedom" doesn't scare me.   Stupid tools with guns who think they need to arm themselves because all the corporate money in the world can't win elections scare me.




turtledude said:


> [
> what sort of laws do you want dullardly one?  LANZA committed CAPITAL MURDER TO GET A GUN-what further punishments would have stopped him
> 
> moron


 
1) You can't buy a gun if you are  crazy person or you have a crazy person in the house.
2) If you own a gun, you have to carry insurance tocover the damages if there's a rampage committed with it.
3) If you sold a gun used in a crime, you own that crime.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



1. Some states don't allow a gun to be kept in a house in which a certifiably insane person lives.  The trick is, do the mental health professionals put the names into the system.

2. Insurance to cover a rampage?    There are 60 million gun owners and an average of 10,000 murders each year.  That means 0.017% of gun owners have killed someone.  Not much of a probability on which to force insurance sales.

3. The person that owns the crime is the one who commits it.    If you sell a gun in violation of a law, you pay for THAT violation.  If there was no law broken by your sales, you are not responsible.   We don't punish people for what someone else does.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



whoa, in your dream reality our country should be called, USSR
you're right about one thing you aren't a realist


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

I am still confused as to why the NRA's attorney having been convicted and then the conviction overturned, means anything.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 25, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I am still confused as to why the NRA's attorney having been convicted and then the conviction overturned, means anything.


 
You mean why should a gun murderer be representing an organization that makes it easier for murderers to get guns?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I am still confused as to why the NRA's attorney having been convicted and then the conviction overturned, means anything.
> ...



Is he a gun murderer?    From what I saw, his case was overturned.   That means the legal system decided he was not guilty.  Isn't that how the system works?   You were all for union thugs being let off, but not a lawyer for an organization that works to protect 2nd Amendment rights and does more firearm safety training than any organization except the military.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 25, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Is he a gun murderer?    From what I saw, his case was overturned.   That means the legal system decided he was not guilty.  Isn't that how the system works?   You were all for union thugs being let off, but not a lawyer for an organization that works to protect 2nd Amendment rights and does more firearm safety training than any organization except the military.


 
We have 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries in this country every years. the NRA failed if that's their mission.

And, no, if you kill a woman and get off on a technicality, that's a little more serious than calling some skank a "scab" in front of her kids.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



32,000???    The ONLY way you get that number is if you count the 20k gun suicides.   Now some suicides are pleas for attention.  But the one thing you can be sure of in a gun suicides, the person wanted to die.  There is no way you can say any of those would not have died if no gun was available.  And unless those suicides were also convicted felons or documented to be insane, there is absolutely no reason they should not have a firearm.  As for the 78k injuries, wouldn't safety training from the NRA have saved many of those from injury?  I am pretty certain that most of the accidental shootings involved people breaking some of the basic shooting safety rules that the NRA has been preaching for decades.  If the NRA failed in any gun safety capacity, it is because idiots have stopped them from their safety training based on ignorant biases.

And you are still actually trying to say that the worst those thugs did was call her a "scab"?   lmao   I guess lying does help your case.  But they threatened her life and threatened her children.

Yes, he got off on a technicality.  The Bar Association sees fit to allow him to practice law.  

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that he was convicted and it was NOT overturned.  If he is not in prison and is a member in good standing with the Bar Association, why would he not be allowed to practice law?  That is the crux of the issue, that he is a lawyer for a group you dislike.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 25, 2014)

Yawn,

Okay, sorry, these guys weren't even CHARGED with threatening children. (Taking pictures  is a threat?)  And the law in PA allows a lot of latitude in labor actions.

A lot less serious than shooting a woman because you were fucking her underaged daughter, and then getting away on a technicality.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn,
> 
> Okay, sorry, these guys weren't even CHARGED with threatening children. (Taking pictures  is a threat?)  And the law in PA allows a lot of latitude in labor actions.
> 
> A lot less serious than shooting a woman because you were fucking her underaged daughter, and then getting away on a technicality.



The law in PA allows more than latitude.  It allows thugs to intimidate people.  And in this situation, yes the picture taking was a blatant threat.

But, once again, if the man is a member of the Bar, why should he not be allowed to practice law?   I guess you think anyone convicted of a crime should have no rights and if the cops ignore his constitutional rights, he is just out of luck?

I have still not seen one single thing to suggest the man should not be allowed to practice law.  If he is allowed to practice law, and he is a good lawyer (which he is), why wouldn't you hire him?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 25, 2014)

didn't suggest he shouldn't be able to practice law.

Have A BIG problem that someone like this is helping WRITE the laws on guns.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 25, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



There is insurance available for shooters. One of our posters here actually said he carries a policy. Can't remember his exact name but he admits he's from Texasss and has "lonestar" in his name. 

There's a failed RW politician who is pushing it and sorry I don't remember his name -  just some has-been-wannabe.

NRA offers shooters insurance - Chicago Tribune
Shooting someone in self-defense can be costly.



> But if you do end up being charged with a felony, the National Rifle Association offers its members an insurance policy that could pay thousands of dollars in legal costs.
> 
> The concealed carry liability insurance, which ranges from $165 a year for a $100,000 policy to $600 a year for $1 million in coverage, reimburses attorney fees and other legal costs resultingfrom criminal or civil case defense. Proceeds from the premiums go to the NRA.
> 
> ...



As to #3 - The air tasers I own also shoot out small tags which identify the owner. Not an unreasonable requirement for ammo.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 25, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



what kind of moron thinks criminals are going to use such ammo

I reload most of the ammo I shoot with cast bullets 

I guess the anti gun nut cases want to ban all such ammo


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The insurance is great for covering your costs defending yourself.   But, as you stated, it pays nothing for the "rampage" JoeB is apparently afraid of.

#3 - ID tags for ammo?   lol    So being able to match the ballistics to my gun is not enough, you wantto make the ammo prohibitively expensive, not to mention effectively killing the reloading market, just to accomplish something that can already be done by any police dept in the country?  lol

And tasers are fine for what they do.   However, they also negate other uses for firearms.  I have never pointed my sidearm at another human being.  But I have used it and other handguns to dispatch injured animals that have been hit by vehicles (mine and others).


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> didn't suggest he shouldn't be able to practice law.
> 
> Have A BIG problem that someone like this is helping WRITE the laws on guns.



If he is an expert on the legal ramifications of the 2nd Amendment, there is no reason he should be prevented from being the NRA's lawyer.

Oh, and perhaps a review of how laws are passed would be in order.  The NRA does not pass laws.  Only Congress does that.  If they choose to make use of the expertise of the NRA's lawyers, there is nothing wrong.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> didn't suggest he shouldn't be able to practice law.
> 
> Have A BIG problem that someone like this is helping WRITE the laws on guns.



Here is Dowlut's bio:

"Robert Dowlut is presently General Counsel for the National Rifle Association. Mr. Dowlut, a member of the District of Columbia Bar and Virginia Corporate Counsel State Bar, received his J.D. in 1979 from Howard University School of Law, Washington, D.C. His publications include: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: A Right to Self-Defense Against Criminals and Despots, 8 Stanford Law & Policy Rev. 25 (1997); Bearing Arms in State Bills of Rights, Judicial Interpretation and Public Housing, 5 St. Thos. L. Rev. 203 (1992); Federal and State Constitutional Guarantees to Arms, 15 Univ. Dayton L. Rev. 59 (1989); The 2nd Amendment: To Keep and Bear Arms, 8 San Fran. Barrister L. J. 8 (1989); The Current Relevancy of Keeping and Bearing Arms, 15 Univ. Bait. L. Fomm 32 (1984); The Right to Anns: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign?, 36 Old. L. Rev. 65 (1983); and State Constitutions and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 7 Old. City Univ. L. Rev. 177 (1982) (lead coauthor). *An article of his was cited by the district court in United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999), and another article was cited twice by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001). Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the supreme courts of Kentucky, Nebraska, Oregon, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wisconsin cited one of his articles.*

Mr.Dowlut served with the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division as a paratrooper and with the Army Reserve's 12th Special Forces."


The bold is mine.  But it shows that some higher courts have cited his writings in court proceedings.   He is quite qualified for his position.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 25, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > didn't suggest he shouldn't be able to practice law.
> ...


 
Congress doesn't pass laws.  We have a SCOTUS declaring gun laws null and void. What's the point of having a gun law,


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 25, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> The bold is mine.  But it shows that some higher courts have cited his writings in court proceedings.   He is quite qualified for his position.


 
He's a murderer who got away with it.

Isuppose you'll cite OJ Simpson as an expert on race relations next.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Congress does, indeed, pass gun laws.  SCOTUS only rules on them if it is brought before them as unconstitutional.  And they have ruled properly, imo.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



Let me know when a higher court uses OJ's writings in their proceedings.

Dowlut is qualified for his job and there is no legal reason to deny him it.   You don't like the NRA, I get that.  But unless you have a reason for Dowlut being dismissed (like a conviction that stuck, ect) this is all nonsense.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 25, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Congress does, indeed, pass gun laws.  SCOTUS only rules on them if it is brought before them as unconstitutional.  And they have ruled properly, imo.


 
That's because you're a fucking gun nut. 

How is it that it took 200+ years to get a SCOTUS to read the 2nd Amendment the way you clowns do?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



It is good to be on the winning side.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

Oh, btw Joe, you do realize that the police union probably worked to keep the cops on the job after their incompetence blew the case, right?


----------



## Dana7360 (Aug 25, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I'm not a fan of guns. Two of my cousins are dead because of guns. I don't want to take people's guns from them but I do want to see gun violence stop.

When it comes to what you posted I did some checking and you're not telling the whole story.

The police denied his right to an attorney repeatedly, the police threatened him with body harm if he didn't confess and the police botched the investigation. 

A judge threw out his conviction and the local prosecuting attorney didn't want to retry the case. So he's not a convicted murderer.

Police shouldn't threaten anyone with harm for a confession. Police have no right to deny anyone a lawyer.

If the police had not botched the case so badly the man would probably still be in prison now. Which is where he belongs. 

The police's actions allowed him to get away with murder.

This is what Robert Lindsay has to say. He's no right winger.

Top NRA Second Amendment Attorney is a Convicted Murderer | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay

*Top NRA Second Amendment Attorney is a Convicted Murderer*
After previous armed robberies, one night Robert J. Dowlut shot and seriously wounded a jewelry shop owner in a robbery. Later he went to the home his girlfriend Camille shared with her mother Anne Marie Yocum. Dowlut had never gotten along with his girlfriend’s mother, and the mother did not approve of Dowlut dating her daughter. He walked into Anne Marie Yocum’s house. She looked up, startled. He shot her once and then shot her again, this time dead, on the stairwell. Then he ditched the murder weapon, a Webley Mark VI revolver, in a cemetery.

The investigation was botched, his right to an attorney was repeatedly denied, and he was repeatedly threatended with physical harm if he did not confess. It’s amazing they did not beat the conviction out of him. He was convicted and served six years in prison but was released when a judge voided the conviction due to massive prosecutorial misconduct in the course of his interrogation. The DA declined to try the case again as much of the evidence revolved around his confession after he was arrested, evidence which would now not be allowed in court.

Dowlut went on to become a successful attorney. At age 68, he is one of the NRA’s top attorneys and is recognized as one of the country’s leading experts on the Second Amendment and state gun laws.

As you can see, he has a very good reason to believe in the right to bear arms.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 25, 2014)

good gawd go get a life that might be happy

what a sore ass loser


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 25, 2014)

poor baby

waaaaaaa


----------



## turtledude (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



its too bad the USSC cannot order those who pass unconstitutional laws held for high treason.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 25, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I am still confused as to why the NRA's attorney having been convicted and then the conviction overturned, means anything.



A person who almost certainly used a gun to kill a defenseless person holds a responsible position in an organization dedicated to gun proliferation.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




what a moronic bit of bull excrement.  the USSC never had to deal with the second amendment until a scum bag known as FDR pissed all over the 2A with his idiotic 1934 NFA.  You are a fucking garment soiling hysterical gun hater


----------



## turtledude (Aug 25, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> ...




I am curious Dana:  you went through this thread and disagreed with almost a dozen of my posts and yet your one post here seems to agree with what I was saying

what gives?  did you actually read what I wrote and if so state your disagreement


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 25, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I've said that repeatedly throughout this topic.




Dana7360 said:


> ... The police's actions allowed him to get away with murder....



You're right.  However, the evidence is overwhelming regardless of what the police did.  It leads us to believe Dowlut killed the woman.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 25, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



AND YOU HAVE FELT A NEED to spam this MJ article on at least three different forums.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 25, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



It is a legitimate topic for discussion.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



I don't see why.   The lawyer is not out shooting.   He is being a lawyer.   The system is what it is.  If someone has no felony convictions, they can be a member of the Bar Association and practice law.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 25, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



why are you spamming it all over the net?  because you are a Mother Jones Parrot?  or because you have a serious hard on for the NRA?


----------



## Dana7360 (Aug 25, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...






Yes I agree the evidence is overwhelming. If the police had not done such a bad job, if the police had not violated his right to a lawyer and if the police had not violated the law and threatened him, he would probably be in prison right now serving his sentence.

That judge had no other choice but to throw that conviction out.

The prosecuting attorney should have put him on trial after the judge's ruling but didn't. 

While I don't like the nra or guns I dislike people's rights being violated even more. I dislike police threatening people even more. 

I don't like people murdering people and getting away with it either.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



I don't think anyone like someone murdering people and getting away with it.   But the system is what it is.  If we change it so that cases like this could be tried over and over, despite what the cops did, it would have a huge and lasting horrible effect.

As it stands, his case was overturned and he is free to practice law.   Were he not working for the NRA, the people protesting him would not care a bit.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 25, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...




true, Joe Steel is a well known hysterical gun banner.  He has spammed this article on at least three forums because he hates the NRA and wants to ban all guns and pro gun organizations


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



Luckily people who think like that are in a serious minority.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 25, 2014)

Saying "who think like that" might be a bit charitable but your post is good


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 25, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Saying "who think like that" might be a bit charitable but your post is good



Despite what a few people might say, I try to be a nice guy.  lol


----------



## Dana7360 (Aug 25, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...






Once a person has been found not guilty that person can't be tried using the same charges again. It's unconstitutional and called "Double Jeopardy."

However that man wasn't found not guilty so it's not a violation of any laws or constitution to put him on trial again. It's happened many times in the past and there's no reason it can't happen again.

His conviction was overturned by a judge so there could have been a new trial. The prosecuting attorney chose not to do it.

The articles I read about it said that his conviction was based on his confession and without it they didn't have much of a case. Apparently the police messed up the case that bad. Maybe the prosecuting attorney believed that he couldn't get a conviction so why even bother. 

It's too bad because no one should get away with murder.


----------



## Impenitent (Aug 26, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


The general rule of thumb now would be to try the easiest cases first, for those accused of multiple crimes.  Dowlut should have been tried for the armed robbery.  He would have been convicted on the basis of the eye witness, prior bad acts(both similar and recent), and ballistics showing that oddball family gun being identical to the type used in the murder.  With him in jail, plea bargain leverage would have been in the prosecutors favor for the murder.  Prosecutor dropped the ball.


----------



## AntiParty (Aug 26, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NRA use to be there to protect my gun rights under the Constitution..

Today, they pair with $$$ from Corporate gun manufacturers. They don't care about the things they use to. The modern turn of the NRA is easy to see by any eye willing to look...


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > It is a legitimate topic for discussion.
> ...



It's a matter of morality.  It's just wrong for a gun killer to be in a position to promote more gun killing.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 26, 2014)

Dana7360 said:


> It's too bad because no one should get away with murder.



That's what is happening and the NRA is helping Dowlut do it.  Should America allow the NRA to make gun policy while it helps a gun killer "get away with murder?"  That's the issue at hand.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > It's too bad because no one should get away with murder.
> ...



What utter horseshit!   How is the NRA helping him get away with anything?  He was tried in 1964.  He spent 6 years in jail.   All of that was almost 20 years before he went to work for the NRA.

This use of nonsense to try and smear the NRA is laughable.


----------



## Joe Steel (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



Dowlut is regarded as one of the NRA's most important staff members because of his zealous twisting and manipulation of state laws to serve the NRA's gun proliferation campaign.  For the NRA to allow a gun killer to do that is an insult to very idea of civic responsibility.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 26, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> The NRA once was dedicated to safe gun handling and good shooting.  Now it's dedicated to gun proliferation.  It wants to put more guns on American streets and it doesn't care who has them.  It's all about selling not shooting.



And Obama and Furgeson feed the facts that law abiding citizens need to stock up on multiple guns in like caliber then stack the ammo high and deep

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 26, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...




With what is going on out there today you are going to sit here and preach 'civic responsibility?

OMG, the lunacy here is epic

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Only until people get fed up with dead kids being rolled out in body bags.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



But we're not because we don't care when the body bags are at the side of swimming pools and at the scene of car wrecks. 

Life goes on for the living

-Geaux


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Then stop the people.  Worrying about the tool is ridiculous.

Once again, look at how many gun owners there are in the country compared to how many murders.  Less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners kill someone.  And that is based on the assumption that all murders are committed with legally owned guns.   And we know that isn't the case.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Civic responsibility?    When the anti-gun zealots will lie to sway public opinion, it is a little late to look for civic responsibility.     

And since when is disarming a law abiding citizen your civic responsibility?  10k murders with guns annually.  Estimates of between 100k and 750k crimes stopped by armed citizens.  And you think removing the guns is the answer?   lmao


----------



## turtledude (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...






CRIME CONTROL has nothing to do with what motivates these anti gun parrots.  Its all about harassing gun owners.  Look at the whining over a guy who works for the NRA


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



If Dowlut wasn't kicking their collective asses, they wouldn't care.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> If Dowlut wasn't kicking their collective asses, they wouldn't care.


Nor would they care if he were the head legal counsel for the Brady Campaign.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


 
So in you world, taking pictures of rich kids is a crime, but murdering a working -class woman because she objected to you banging her underage daughter is okay.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



Not at all.   In my world, taking pictures of kids for the sole purpose of intimidating their mother and murdering someone are both crimes.   The difference is, in one case someone was prosecuted.  In the other case, they were excused because the belong to an organization known for their extortion and intimidation tactics.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> []
> 
> Then stop the people.  Worrying about the tool is ridiculous.
> 
> Once again, look at how many gun owners there are in the country compared to how many murders.  Less than one-tenth of one percent of gun owners kill someone.  And that is based on the assumption that all murders are committed with legally owned guns.   And we know that isn't the case.


 
Countries which restrict who can have a gun have lower murder rates.

A gun turns an argument where people get slapped around into an argument where someone ends up in a body bag.

But let's go there.  Let's talk about "Stopping the people".  Nancy Lanza was arming herself like the Zombie Apocalypse was coming, and she had a crazy son. But if anyone talked about taking her guns  pre-emptively, you'd have had a shit-fit.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 26, 2014)

*Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry applications surge*
City sees fewer homicides, robberies, burglaries, car thefts as Illinois residents take arms


Read more: Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry gun permit applications surge - Washington Times​
You are officially safer Joe...you're welcome.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)

Missourian said:


> *Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry applications surge*
> City sees fewer homicides, robberies, burglaries, car thefts as Illinois residents take arms
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm more scared of gun nuts than common thugs.

Correlation isn't causality...


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > []
> ...



Arming herself like the Zombie apocalypse was coming??   WTF?   She had 3 rifles, 3 handguns and 1 shotgun. (oh, and a BB gun)    One of the rifles was an inexpensive bolt action .22.    Another was an Enfield rifle, which was first adopted by the British military in 1895.  

And was Adam Lanza in the database that would have stopped him from buying a firearm?  I know he went to buy a rifle and didn't because of the 14 day waiting period.  But I have seen nothing saying he would not have been able to buy a gun.

If you want to pass legislation requiring firearms be stored safely, I have no problem with that.  

How about we talk about Elliot Rodgers too?  He had been seeing a shrink since he was 9 years old, and yet he was able to buy 3 handguns on 3 different occasions, passing the background check each time.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > *Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry applications surge*
> ...



So correlation isn't causality in this case, but in the case of comparing other countries to ours it is?   lol


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Arming herself like the Zombie apocalypse was coming??   WTF?   She had 3 rifles, 3 handguns and 1 shotgun. (oh, and a BB gun)    One of the rifles was an inexpensive bolt action .22.    Another was an Enfield rifle, which was first adopted by the British military in 1895.
> 
> And was Adam Lanza in the database that would have stopped him from buying a firearm?  I know he went to buy a rifle and didn't because of the 14 day waiting period.  But I have seen nothing saying he would not have been able to buy a gun.
> 
> ...


 
That just tells me that the background checks were too lax.  This is the problem with starting off at the premise gun ownership is a "right".   Then it becomes very hard to deny you one. 

Lanza had  1600 rounds of ammunition in her home.

Guns knives ammo and gear Adam Lanza s arsenal item by item - U.S. News

Serious, the folks on _The Walking Dead_ wish they had this kind of gear.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


 
Not even a good try. 

If we were comparing the US to ONE country, maybe. 

But compared to EVERY country, and we still come out lookingworse.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Arming herself like the Zombie apocalypse was coming??   WTF?   She had 3 rifles, 3 handguns and 1 shotgun. (oh, and a BB gun)    One of the rifles was an inexpensive bolt action .22.    Another was an Enfield rifle, which was first adopted by the British military in 1895.
> ...




I have far more ammunition as do most competitive shooters

you really have no clue what  you are talking about


----------



## turtledude (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > *Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry applications surge*
> ...



why are you a criminal?  do you engage in activities that would cause a law abiding gun owner to shoot you?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Arming herself like the Zombie apocalypse was coming??   WTF?   She had 3 rifles, 3 handguns and 1 shotgun. (oh, and a BB gun)    One of the rifles was an inexpensive bolt action .22.    Another was an Enfield rifle, which was first adopted by the British military in 1895.
> ...



And?   According to the list, she had over 650 rounds of .22 ammunition.  And the list shows no major quantity of any one caliber or type.   That list could be almost any gun owner in the world.  She had some .22s and various rounds of the other calibers, plus a variety of 12 gauge shells.   I have more ammo than that here in Atlanta, and that is not my major stock.

Maybe it looks like a lot for someone who is afraid of guns, but what she had was not that big a deal.




And starting off with the premise that the 2nd Amendment is a right is just where all the laws should begin.  And the SCOTUS agrees with me on that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Right?   Looking at the inventory, over 650 rounds of that were .22s.   The rest of the <940 rounds were mostly various types of shotgun shell.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


 
There are 20 dead kids and 6 dead teachers who would beg to differ.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


 
Why?

Do they know something we don't?

If the inventory list the rounds mentioned, why would they "beg to differ??


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



No one is defending what Adam Lanza did.   We are simply correcting you on your claim that his mother had these huge stores of guns and ammunition like she was preparing for an apocalypse.

Blame Adam Lanza for the deaths and destruction.    That makes sense.

But your attempt to blame the NRA, other law abiding shooters, and the gun manufacturers is simply nonsense.

The ammunition listed on the inventory is minor and could be found in almost any recreational shooter's home.  In fact, I doubt any of the hunters I know have that little.  And those guys are not looking for volume shooting.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> No one is defending what Adam Lanza did.   We are simply correcting you on your claim that his mother had these huge stores of guns and ammunition like she was preparing for an apocalypse.
> 
> ...


 
yes, there are a lot of gun nuts out here with lots of ammo.

BUt I do blame Nancy. No one says 27 victims, she was an enabler. She knew her son was dangerous. She was a crazy prepper.  She took him to ranges and let him play first shooter video games all day.

And they were both NRA members.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)




----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

A crazy prepper?  lmao

The ammo list from the police inventory was as follows:
113 shotgun shells - 7 different types
49 rnds .303 British - 2 brands
178 rnds .45 - 3 different brands
183 rnds .223 - 4 different brands
150 rnds .40 cal 
134 rnds 10mm - 2 different brands
159 rnds 9mm - 1 brand and one box of 29 misc rnds

The list above shows she was a recreational shooter, nothing more.  "Prepper"?   That is laughable.

Most shooters try 4 or 5 different rounds (different bullet weights & manufacturers) for each gun they own.  Anyone who owns a gun and only has a dozen rounds is not a safe shooter.  The way you become a safe shooter is by shooting.

As for your silly cartoon, I can see where you get you firearms knowledge.  Oh, but just as an FYI, the places with more guns tend to have less gun violence.  Look at the shift in Detroit's gun deaths when law abiding citizens arm themselves more.

The laws you want passed will not remove the guns from the criminal's hands.  They will only disarm their victims.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)

Guy, I was in the Army for 11 years, and my MOS was small weapons repair/supply. I probably know weapons better than you do.  

And,no Japan has less guns than American and less violence.

Final point.  Most gun deaths are domestic arguments and suicides.  Banning gun ownership would reduce those incidents.

Nancy had more guns and ammo than was reasonable.  26 people paid the price for her crazy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I was in the Army for 11 years, and my MOS was small weapons repair/supply. I probably know weapons better than you do.
> 
> And,no Japan has less guns than American and less violence.
> 
> ...



No, I doubt very seriously you know more about guns than I do.  And your comments in this thread prove that.  Your MOS may have given you technical knowledge of a smal number of firearms that have civilian counterparts.  That is all.

Japan has less rape than we do.  That is not gun related.  
Japan has less domestic violence than we do.  That is not gun related.
Japan has less murder using knives than we do.  That is not gun related.
Japan has generally less violence than we do.  It is a cultural difference.

Japan also has a much less diverse population than we do.


Banning guns would reduce the number of gun suicides.  But you have no way of knowing that it would effect the number of suicides.  If someone commits suicide using a gun, the only thing you know is that they truly wanted to die.  If they want to die, they can accomplish that in many, many ways.

Over 99.9% of gun owners do not kill anyone.  Yet you think we should suffer the loss of a constitutional right because of the tiniest percentage?

How many tons of illegal drugs are smuggled into the US every year?   If you were to ban all handguns, that would shift to the smuggling of guns, since there is a greater profit margin to be made.  so the criminals would still be armed.  The honest people would not.  So the estimated 100,000 times a year (very low estimate) that an armed citizen stops a crime would dwindle to none.

Oh, and your idea of what is "reasonable" is pure nonsense.   What she had was a few boxes of rounds for her guns, and the remnants from times going shooting.



And none of this has anything to do with whether Robert Dowlut should be able to practice law.  So you basically lost the argument on 2 fronts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 26, 2014)

Man, trying to reason with gun nuts is always a futile gesture.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Man, trying to reason with gun nuts is always a futile gesture.



I am as reasonable as anyone.   You, however, are simply angry that your points have been shot down over and over.

Tell me how you know the gun suicides would be alive if they hadn't had access to a gun?

Tell me how you propose to disarm the criminal population, when they cannot legally have guns now?  It certainly has not worked with the War On Drugs.

Tell me what was unreasonable about the comparisons I made between the US and Japan?

Oh, and if handguns are banned, the guns used for hunting will become the guns used to kill people.  And you will never remove hunting with firearms in the US.  (not that you will ever manage to ban handguns either)  For that reason I am glad to know Robert Dowlut, one of the nation's leading authorities on 2nd amendment rights, is working for the NRA.

So you can go sulk now.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




I am sure those dead innocents might have some interesting comments on gun free zones as well

invoking dead kids killed by someone willing to kill his own mother to get guns and not fearful of death is really pathetic.  Other than armed teachers, what would have stopped this guy

and don't tell me

waiting periods
registration
Magazine limits

and all the other things the dishonest anti gun scum bags claim would have stopped this massacre


----------



## turtledude (Aug 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Man, trying to reason with gun nuts is always a futile gesture.




that is mainly because there is no reasonable minds on the gun ban side of the aisle

you all start from a position of dishonesty and it only gets worse

you pretend you are trying to decrease crime when in reality you want to harass conservatives


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 26, 2014)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



He's just trying to inject emotion into the argument.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 27, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Man, trying to reason with gun nuts is always a futile gesture.
> ...


 
Right.... See, this is the kind of crazy I'm talking about.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 27, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> 
> I am sure those dead innocents might have some interesting comments on gun free zones as well
> 
> ...


 
Lanza fired off 157 rounds in that school.   Smaller magazines might have slowed him down.

So would a registration regime that would have flagged crazy Mom when she was building her anti-zombie arsenal


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And you claim to know a lot about firearms?   How long do you think a magazine change takes? 

And this insistence that his Mom had an "arsenal" is laughable, to say nothing of it being some sort of prepper's stockpile.  Other than the .22 rifle, she had less than 200 rounds for each gun she owned.  That is not a prepper.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 27, 2014)

Sad thing is, in your universe, 1600 rounds is a proper amount to have around he house.







Someone let me know when some sane people stop by the thread.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Sad thing is, in your universe, 1600 rounds is a proper amount to have around he house.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's obvious you're not sane.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Sad thing is, in your universe, 1600 rounds is a proper amount to have around he house.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Insanity is thinking that banning handguns will make this country safer.

Insanity is claiming Lanza's mother was some sort of "prepper".

So yes, let us know when someone sane shows up in this thread.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 27, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Sad thing is, in your universe, 1600 rounds is a proper amount to have around he house.
> ...


 
Banning/limiting handguns has made Japan, Germany, Britian, Canada, France, and Italy safer. But Americans are special, right?

Nancy Lanza's own family has said she was a "Prepper". 

So remember, Nancy was a responsible gun owner, and it's totally cool that a murderer represents the NRA in court.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Once again, you have to look at the non-gun related violent crimes as well.  Many nations are less violent than we are, in general.  Plus, some of those countries have seen a steady rise in the murder rates, while in the US the rates have been steadily falling.

Nancy Lanza's family must be idiots too.  But I would love to see a link showing that they said that.

No, Nancy Lanza was not a responsible gun owner if she did not store her firearms properly.  But then, her son was willing to murder his own mother to gain access to the guns.  That puts him in a rare category of lunatic.  

The fact that Dowlut is a member of the Bar association in good standing is the only legal requirement for practicing law.  Your attempts to make his past conviction, and subsequent overturning of that conviction, shows how little hope you have of getting guns banned.

BTW, no rational anti-gunner has ever (to my knowledge) talked about banning the rifles and shotguns used for hunting.  They would be far more dangerous in the hands of a crazy person.

But you do follow the anti-gun nut's pattern of focusing on the mass shootings by strangers.  These constitute less than 1% of gun related murders, but they are used as examples to spur the emotional responses for gun bans.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 27, 2014)

You focus on the mass shootings beause the single shootings are so numerous they barely register, and that's sad in and of itself.

But eventually, people are going to get fed up with you gun nuts and your crazy.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> You focus on the mass shootings beause the single shootings are so numerous they barely register, and that's sad in and of itself.
> 
> But eventually, people are going to get fed up with you gun nuts and your crazy.



Do you think gang members in the inner cities are going to follow your gun laws, or ANY criminals for that matter?  

Basically, the only thing you and people like you suggest is to leave the law-abiding citizens in this country to be sitting ducks for the criminals to prey upon, knowing full well that WE are unarmed and defenseless.  GREAT idea!!!


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> You focus on the mass shootings beause the single shootings are so numerous they barely register, and that's sad in and of itself.
> 
> But eventually, people are going to get fed up with you gun nuts and your crazy.



No, I do not focus on the mass shootings.  You have only to look over this thread to see that.   The topic is the lawyer for the NRA, but you insist on going on and on and on about the mother of one mass shooter.  And you insist that your arguments are valid, despite having them destroyed over and over.

from: How many gun owners are there in the United States of America
"Number of guns and gun owners in USA. Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun (that's about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns).

"A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47 percent of US households own a gun"


No, the people have already shown that they are far more tired of the anti-gun nuts lying to press their agenda.

It would take a constitutional amendment to remove guns from the hands of the citizens.  With half the household in the country having a gun, you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting that done.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Sad thing is, in your universe, 1600 rounds is a proper amount to have around he house.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is what you guys always resort to when you have nothing left.  Lol.


----------



## jillian (Aug 27, 2014)

Billc said:


> Well, guns are good...they stop violent crime and save lives over 100,000 times a year and the real number is closer to 250-350,000 times a year...and if the guy comitted the murder, it seems like he has been judged and will go to prison...other than putting out a call for a new guy to take his job...what should they say...did they at some point say they support murder...cause from what I know, they never have...so again...what is the point?



people with guns are more likely to be killed by their own guns or kill people they don't mean to kill. your unsubstantiated assertions that if you have a gun, you can stop crime is not borne out by the stats.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

jillian said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> > Well, guns are good...they stop violent crime and save lives over 100,000 times a year and the real number is closer to 250-350,000 times a year...and if the guy comitted the murder, it seems like he has been judged and will go to prison...other than putting out a call for a new guy to take his job...what should they say...did they at some point say they support murder...cause from what I know, they never have...so again...what is the point?
> ...



I would ask you for the source of your claim, but instead I will explain why it is seriously flawed.  Here is a good explanation:

from: 10 Need-to-Know Gun Control Myths- Guns Ammo
"*Myth No. 1: A gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.*
This is probably the most widely circulated gun control myth ever. It’s been argued that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family than an intruder. You’re actually safer, argue anti-gun folks, in a gun-free home. That may help them sleep at night, but it isn’t true.

Despite this myth’s popularity, have you ever noticed politicians and journalists never cite a source to go along with it? Perhaps that’s because it’s derived from a seriously flawed 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home.”

Most notably, the study only accounted for cases of self-defense with firearms in which the criminal was killed. If the bad guy was wounded, held at gunpoint for police or ran away, it was not included in the data. That is a rather incredible oversight since, according to Florida State criminologist Gary Kleck, criminals are only shot dead in about 1 percent of firearm-defense incidents. Fact is, according to Kleck’s exhaustive research, a gun in the home is three to five times more likely to help stop a crime than commit one."


----------



## turtledude (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



how stupid does one have to be to think that someone intent on committing multiple counts of capital murder is going to obey a magazine restriction law.  there are BILLIONS of normal capacity magazines floating around the world.  

what would have slowed Lanza down was an armed response by adults in the school.  that is the ONLY thing that stops active shooters

Do you anti gun types ever think things through?  if the thought of the death penalty or dying from police weapons does not deter you (or if you are planning on committing SUICIDE after your rampage) why is a law against normal capacity magazines going to deter you

OH_you will claim if such magazines are banned-bad guys won't get them

well we heard that about cocaine, heroin and crystal meth

and unlike those drugs, there are billions of such magazines used by cops and the military and easily stolen and obtained


----------



## turtledude (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> You focus on the mass shootings beause the single shootings are so numerous they barely register, and that's sad in and of itself.
> 
> But eventually, people are going to get fed up with you gun nuts and your crazy.



actually we are fed up with lying assholes who pretend that their garment soiling rants about guns are motivated by public safety, when in reality your caterwauling is all about the fact that gun owners tend not to be left wing moon bats like you


----------



## turtledude (Aug 27, 2014)

jillian said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> > Well, guns are good...they stop violent crime and save lives over 100,000 times a year and the real number is closer to 250-350,000 times a year...and if the guy comitted the murder, it seems like he has been judged and will go to prison...other than putting out a call for a new guy to take his job...what should they say...did they at some point say they support murder...cause from what I know, they never have...so again...what is the point?
> ...


Horsecrap

the study that claimed that counted as a "gun in the house" guns brought to unarmed homes by criminals
if you wet your drawers over the thought of using a gun for self defense` then don't own one.  but I tire of hoplophic hand wringing ninnies projecting their incontinence upon us


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > You focus on the mass shootings beause the single shootings are so numerous they barely register, and that's sad in and of itself.
> ...



It is also laughable that JoeB is against gun ownership, but he is quick to excuse violence (or the threat of violence) by union thugs.   Funny how that works.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 27, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Do you think gang members in the inner cities are going to follow your gun laws, or ANY criminals for that matter?
> 
> Basically, the only thing you and people like you suggest is to leave the law-abiding citizens in this country to be sitting ducks for the criminals to prey upon, knowing full well that WE are unarmed and defenseless.  GREAT idea!!!


 
Hey, Captain Dumbass, according to the FBI,there were only 201 cases of "justifiable homicide" with guns by civilian owners.   So 300 million guns and 32,000 gun fatalities, it doesn't look like you guys are doing a lot of "Crime Stopping" to justify the risk.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 27, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > You focus on the mass shootings beause the single shootings are so numerous they barely register, and that's sad in and of itself.
> ...


 
I was a right wing Republican until about six years ago-

When My Romney loving boss fired me after I had run up medical bills on the companies insurance.

Then I figured out the whole of Conservatism is to get stupid fucks to vote against their own economic interests.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 27, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> It is also laughable that JoeB is against gun ownership, but he is quick to excuse violence (or the threat of violence) by union thugs.   Funny how that works.


 
How many rich people were killed by union thugs last year?

A lot less than were killed by mass shooters


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 27, 2014)




----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You post that and have the audacity to call someone else a dumbass??    LMAO!!!

First of all, please find me anyone who said that guns will stop gun related suicides??   Because that is where you get your bogus numbers.  You cling to that number like it is accurate in the discussion.  It isn't.

Second of all, your claim is based solely on the number of criminals shot dead by a citizen with a gun.  You completely ignore any use of a gun that only wounded the criminal, held them for the police, or scared them away completely.   That is because you are totally dishonest in this discussion.   The lowest estimates I have seen show privately owned guns preventing 100k or more crimes annually.   Reputable polling has shown that to be very low.

Here is an interesting article from Business Week:


"As with everything else concerning guns in this country, the DGU question prompts divergent answers. At one end of the spectrum, the NRA cites research by Gary Kleck, an accomplished criminologist at Florida State University. Based on self-reporting by survey respondents, Kleck has extrapolated that DGU occurs more than 2 million times a year. Kleck doesn’t suggest that gun owners shoot potential antagonists that often. DGU covers various scenarios, including merely brandishing a weapon and scaring off an aggressor.

At the other end of the spectrum, gun skeptics prefer to cite the work of David Hemenway, an eminent public-health scholar at Harvard University. Hemenway, who analogizes gun violence to an epidemic and guns to the contagion, argues that Kleck’s research significantly overestimates the frequency of DGU.

The carping back and forth gets pretty technical, but the brief version is that Hemenway believes Kleck includes too many “false positives”: respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU. Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate."


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Please point out where I said there were more union thug murders?    I didn't.

I simply stated that you are so gung-ho against violence, except when it comes to union thugs.  Then it is a matter of "They got what was coming to them".


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


>



More silly cartoons?   lol

I guess that is the best you have in the way of arguments.

Personally, I hold the actual shooters responsible for their actions.   But then, you and I have disagreed before on personal responsibility.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

Hey, JoeB, why don't you go away and come back when you have some honest facts.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



so now you are a government teat sucking parasite?  liberalism is a scheme to get people who want to be treated like children to give more and more wealth and power to control freaks who want to be everyone else's parent


----------



## turtledude (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


>


actually what it stands for is 

NO RETARDS ACCEPTED


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



That's because MOST fatalities due to gun violence are from gang violence where gang bangers are killing one another, genius.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Sure . . . sure you were.  Lol!  And I was a banana.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 27, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



He appears to be a Ben and Jerry follower. .  Ben and Jerry used to hold seminars to oppose Bush (W).  they would tell their low wattage followers that when the followers called a radio show or wrote a letter to the press, the followers should always say

I WAS A REPUBLICAN BUT W SUCKS rather than saying

I am a gerbil felching far left nutcase or I am a member of the Criminal conspiracy known as the SEIU

According to Ben and Jerry, pretending to have been a REPUBLICAN makes you sound more credible when you Bash the GOP, the NRA, W or Mom and Apple pie then admitting you hate America and want taxpayers to pay for your sex change operation in prison


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 27, 2014)

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The reason he gives for switching his entire ideology is quite pathetic as well.  Because his boss fired him?  For medical bills?  My BS radar is going off!  Lol!


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 27, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



This mythical "I was fired for being injured and running up medical bills" has been his excuse for any number of things.  Maybe if he repeats it enough he will believe it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> The reason he gives for switching his entire ideology is quite pathetic as well.  Because his boss fired him?  For medical bills?  My BS radar is going off!  Lol!
> 
> ...


 
 yet you firmly believe Nancy Lanza was a responsible gun owner...


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Did I say that?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [Q
> 
> That's because MOST fatalities due to gun violence are from gang violence where gang bangers are killing one another, genius.


 
No, most fatalities due to  gun violence is due to suicide (19,000 out of 32,000 fun fatalities).

Taking out the 800 accidents, you are left with about 11,000 murders.  Most of whom were killed by people they know.

_*In 2009, 24.2 percent of victims were slain by family members; 53.8 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 43.9 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2009.*_

Expanded Homicide Data - Crime in the United States 2009


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



Are you still talking about guns here?  Or are you talking about "homicides?"  Good Lord, stop changing the goal posts!!! 

Now you are bringing suicide into it?  That is a different topic ENTIRELY, as I'm sure you are aware.  MOST homicides with guns are due to gang violence, and THAT is a fact.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> 
> so now you are a government teat sucking parasite?  liberalism is a scheme to get people who want to be treated like children to give more and more wealth and power to control freaks who want to be everyone else's parent


 
actually, what's created more liberals is guy like your boy Mitt Romney sending good paying union jobs to China and looted their pension funds.  Then you wonder why Granny working for Minimum wage at Wal-Mart is for more food stamps and social security.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 
Apparently it is impossible for you to be honest about anything.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Can you even make an attempt at an honest discussion?  Or do you rely on lies for your entire debate?

Here you claim that I "... firmly believe Nancy Lanza was a responsible gun owner...".     I ask if that was what I said, and you ignored it.

I only found one reference to Nancy Lanza and whether or not she was a responsible gun owner.  And that was in Post #190.  I said, "No, Nancy Lanza was not a responsible gun owner if she did not store her firearms properly.".


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




speaking of dumbasses-you are only COUNTING KILLED Criminals-

not ones wounded

not ones captured at gun point

not ones driven away by the sight of a firearm

most of those gun deaths are suicides btw

so your math just plain sucks

we might promote you to colonel


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



divert much.  sounds like your anti gun psychobabble is nothing more than typical unionista Dem toady croakings


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Of course his math and reasoning sucks.

He has been dishonest during this entire thread.

He constantly adds the gun suicides into the numbers, to inflate them.
He tries to claim people have expressed certain ideas when they have not.
He has bounced all over the place to different topics when he starts to lose.
He talked about the number of criminals killed like it is the only mark of success.

He is a liar and an idiot.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Oh, Romney is responsible for jobs going to China?  I must say that you have a very interesting and unusual outlook.  Lol!


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yes, he is totally transparent.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I'm sure plenty more criminals flee and are not shot.  This guy is a government tool apparently.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> 
> speaking of dumbasses-you are only COUNTING KILLED Criminals-
> 
> ...


 
Gun suicides are still bad.  And, yes, it's a good reason  why we should restrict who should have a gun.

I didn't count the uncountable, because there's no way to accurately measure it, and it leads to assholes like Keck throwing out bullshit numbers.  I also didn't count times domestic abusers threaten their families with a gun and don't kill them. I'm sure that happens a lot, too.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


 
Actually, gun nuts and religious nuts made it possible for the 1%ers to destroy the middle class.

So confiscate their guns and make them bake that gay wedding cake.  They deserve it.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Gun suicides are "bad" huh?  They aren't any worse than any other suicides.  Stick to the topic and stop jumping all over the place.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
But you did say that it was cool for her to have 1600 rounds of ammo, 8 guns, 5 samurai swords and one batshit crazy kid all in the same house.

Or as I like to call her, an NRA Gold member.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Gun suicides are "bad" huh?  They aren't any worse than any other suicides.  Stick to the topic and stop jumping all over the place.


 
When people slit their wrists or take pills, you have a reasonable chance of saving them.

Guns, not so much.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Plenty of people successfully carry out suicide every day without a gun.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 


JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 
You should give up on this thread.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Indeed I did say that about the ammo she had in the house.  And what I have said remains accurate.  But my discussion of the amounts of ammo were not in reference to nancy Lanza being a responsible gun owner.  It was in response to your claim that she was a prepper.   I haven't said a damn thing about swords, so once again you seem incapable of an honest discussion.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



But you certainly ignored all but the times the criminals are killed.   And there are plenty of studies that guns are used to stop crimes far more often than they are used to kill.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Jeez, jumping to yet another topic??

What do religious nuts have to do with this topic?

And please tell us how gun owners allow the 1%ers to destroy the middle class??

More bullshit.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



There were 4 guns on the scene and 3 at the house.  Perhaps union math works out 4+3=8, but no one else's math does that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Indeed.  But that proves our point, not yours.   As I have said, repeatedly, a gun suicide means they truly wanted to die.  You aren't going to stop them unless you have a crystal ball and can see the future.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> But you certainly ignored all but the times the criminals are killed.   And there are plenty of studies that guns are used to stop crimes far more often than they are used to kill.


 
But all those studies are paid for the National Rampage Association, and can be safely ignored.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 
Really?

Prove it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

There were 5 guns at the Scene of NRA Member of the Year Adam Lanza's rampage. 3 left at home.  

Not even a nice try


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Bullshit.   I provided a link that showed different.      Wow, you are called out over and over on your lies and you STILL try and bluff with bullshit.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> There were 5 guns at the Scene of NRA Member of the Year Adam Lanza's rampage. 3 left at home.
> 
> Not even a nice try



He had a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a 10mm Glock 20SF handgun, a 9mm SIG Sauer P226, an Izhmash Saiga-12 shotgun.  That is 4 firearms.

Using more union math?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Of course he can't prove it.  Ihave already quoted a study by the federal gov't that showed that guns are used at least 100,000 times per year to stop crimes.   Most experts agree that it happens 2x or 3x that often, since it is often not reported.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> There were 5 guns at the Scene of NRA Member of the Year Adam Lanza's rampage. 3 left at home.
> 
> Not even a nice try



From: http://www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf
"The following weapons were recovered in the course of this investigation: (1) a Bushmaster
ModelXM15-E2S semi-automatic rifle, found in the same classroom as the shooter’s body. All
of the 5.56 mm shell casings from the school that were tested were found to have been fired from
this rifle. (2) a Glock 20, 10 mm semi-automatic pistol found near the shooter’s body and
determined to have been the source of the self-inflicted gunshot wound by which he took his own
life. (3) a Sig Sauer P226, 9 mm semi-automatic pistol found on the shooter’s person. There is no
evidence this weapon had been fired. (4) a Izhmash Saiga-12, 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun
found in the shooter’s car in the parking lot outside the school, and which was secured in the
vehicle’s trunk by police responding to the scene."

Apparently the CT State Police failed to find that 5th gun you insist was there.  Perhaps you should call them and give them the benefit of your expertise?

Or just admit you lied again.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB, you are perhaps the worst debator on this site.

You throw "facts" out there like they are gospel, but rarely provide any backup to your claims.  When your claims are debunked, you don't admit you were wrong, you bounce to a new topic and start throwing lies around again.

When all that fails, you try to claim that those arguing against you are insane or nuts.  When that doesn't fly, you make outrageous claims about helping the 1%ers.

Truly sad.   But worth a laugh or two.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
That was the Keck Study, guy.  Paid for by the NRA and complete bullshit.

Again, you don't need a gun, you WANT a gun. And if you guys can't keep the Lanzas and Holmes in line, there's no good reason for the rest of to let you have them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB, you are perhaps the worst debator on this site.
> 
> You throw "facts" out there like they are gospel, but rarely provide any backup to your claims.  When your claims are debunked, you don't admit you were wrong, you bounce to a new topic and start throwing lies around again.
> 
> ...


 
Guy, you work on the assumption I am debating you.

Nope, I'm MOCKING you.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB, you are perhaps the worst debator on this site.
> ...



You are half right, because you certainly aren't debating anyone.

But tell us again how many guns Adam Lanza had with him at the school?

Tell us again how the study funded by the federal gov't (showing armed citizens stopping crimes at least 100,000 time a year) was somehow done by the NRA?

Tell me again how the link I provided was only about Kleck's study?

Tell us again how you know banning guns will change the suicide rates?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



No, what I posted was NOT the Kleck study.   Obviously you have trouble reading or you don't care about actual facts.

Let me help you out.  Here is what I posted:

""As with everything else concerning guns in this country, the DGU question prompts divergent answers. At one end of the spectrum, the NRA cites research by Gary Kleck, an accomplished criminologist at Florida State University. Based on self-reporting by survey respondents, Kleck has extrapolated that DGU occurs more than 2 million times a year. Kleck doesn’t suggest that gun owners shoot potential antagonists that often. DGU covers various scenarios, including merely brandishing a weapon and scaring off an aggressor.

At the other end of the spectrum, gun skeptics prefer to cite the work of David Hemenway, an eminent public-health scholar at Harvard University. Hemenway, who analogizes gun violence to an epidemic and guns to the contagion, argues that Kleck’s research significantly overestimates the frequency of DGU.

The carping back and forth gets pretty technical, but the brief version is that Hemenway believes Kleck includes too many “false positives”: respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU. Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.""


Kleck claims guns are used by citizens up to 2 millions times per year to stop crimes.  If I was quoting Kleck's numbers you should be able to link to where I used them.

Post that and I will admit you are right and I am wrong and I will quit this website.

Or you can admit that I have used much lower numbers and admit that you were lying.

My bet is that you will refuse to respond to this at all.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

Whwe... Good thing there were only FOUR guns.

There are still 20 dead kids and 6 dead teachers, though.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> No, what I posted was NOT the Kleck study.   Obviously you have trouble reading or you don't care about actual facts.


 
I don't click on links provided by gun nuts.  I don't waste my time with them.  I have no interest in what you have to say.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Whwe... Good thing there were only FOUR guns.
> 
> There are still 20 dead kids and 6 dead teachers, though.



Well I'll be damned.  You actually admitted that you were wrong or were lying.  But only after I posted the CT State Police reports.  I bet that hurt, didn't it?

Pity you couldn't have gotten the actual facts before you posted and reposted the same lie.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Some interesting findings made here, and this is a study performed by the CDC.  

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

*1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:*
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

*2. Defensive uses of guns are common:*
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that_defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals,_ with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

*3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:*
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”



Read more: CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama - Guns Ammo


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > No, what I posted was NOT the Kleck study.   Obviously you have trouble reading or you don't care about actual facts.
> ...



You didn't have to click on the link.  I quoted the relevant information in my post.

But then, you don't waste your time with facts either, do you?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Wow.  Who knew that the CDC was just an NRA shill?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > No, what I posted was NOT the Kleck study.   Obviously you have trouble reading or you don't care about actual facts.
> ...



I can just picture you stamping you feet and throwing a tantrum while you say "I don't care what you say!".

You obviously don't care what the facts say either.  You are quite content to lie and spout nonsense while ignoring solid, relevant data.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > No, what I posted was NOT the Kleck study.   Obviously you have trouble reading or you don't care about actual facts.
> ...



YOU are the gun nut here.  Your fear of and wanting to limit the rights of HONEST citizens boggles the mind.  You do realize that none of your proposals would effect the CRIMINALS who are the ones doing the killing, right?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Whwe... Good thing there were only FOUR guns.
> ...


 
It's NOT an important point.

The important point is an absolutely insane person was able to get guns and murder 20 children.

Which you gun nuts are perfectly fine with.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



He is woefully ignorant on the topic.  But he insists he is right.  lol


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



How do you think your laws are going to stop insane people who are intent on killing, from obtaining a weapon?  A lot of the time these people have NO past history, so how would anyone know?  Your suggestions are BEYOND ridiculous.  

It is already illegal to kill people with a weapon, ANY weapon.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> YOU are the gun nut here.  Your fear of and wanting to limit the rights of HONEST citizens boggles the mind.  You do realize that none of your proposals would effect the CRIMINALS who are the ones doing the killing, right?


 
Up until the morning he went on his rampage, Lanza was an honest citizen.  So was Holmes.  So was Loughner.  So was Cho. 

Most people are murdered by people they know, and countries that limit gun ownership have nowhere near our murder rates.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It was not a particularly important point, I will give you that.   But the fact that you argued adamantly that you were correct, without taking a few seconds to check, speaks volumes about you.

And no, the gun buffs are not ok with what happened.  We just refuse to allow you to take away the rights of 60+ million law abiding gun owners because 1 lunatic was willing to murder his mother in order to gain access to guns and commit a heinous crime.

The fact that I do not give up my rights does NOT mean I approve of anything he did.

Also, rather than disarm the population, how about you push the mental health community to submit the names of the lunatics to the database for the background checks?   Adam Lanza was never reported to that database as dangerously insane.   But NOOOOO, you demand that everyone give up a constitutional right because the system you demanded isn't being fed the proper info by medical professionals.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Once again, most countries have lower rape rates, assault rates, and general violence rates.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [Q
> 
> How do you think your laws are going to stop insane people who are intent on killing, from obtaining a weapon?  A lot of the time these people have NO past history, so how would anyone know?  Your suggestions are BEYOND ridiculous.
> 
> It is already illegal to kill people with a weapon, ANY weapon.


 
Well, let's see now, if no one is allowed to own guns or manufacture them, getting guns is going to be a lot harder.

It's why you don't hear about these mass shootings in Japan, England, Germany, etc.

(Watch, the gun nuts will cite some 20 year old incident from one these countries and miss the point.)


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



That is such bull!  Plenty of countries that limit gun ownership have TONS of violence and murders.  Also, some, like Sweden, that have high rates of gun ownership do NOT have high levels of violence.  Therefore, your attempts at correlating gun ownership with violence are bogus.  

GUNS do not make people kill.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



And I am all for having insane people listed in the database.  I am all for requiring proper/safe storage of firearms.

But at least I do not lie, and insist that I posted facts when I did not.   At least I take a little time to educate myself on a topic before I post.   He you done that you would not have made a fool of yourself over and over and over in this thread.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



Then, only the government will have guns.  Good Lord, you must be dense.  You have absolutely NO idea why we have rights do you?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



So you propose to eliminate private gun ownership and stop all gun manufacturing???   LMAO!!!!

Yeah, because our borders are so secure that no guns could ever be smuggled in, could they??

And your plan would, obviously, also include removing all firearms used for hunting too.   Good luck controlling animal populations and funding state conservation efforts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> It was not a particularly important point, I will give you that.   But the fact that you argued adamantly that you were correct, without taking a few seconds to check, speaks volumes about you.


 
That I'm not an ana-retentive type who argues over petty points?



WinterBorn said:


> And no, the gun buffs are not ok with what happened.  We just refuse to allow you to take away the rights of 60+ million law abiding gun owners because 1 lunatic was willing to murder his mother in order to gain access to guns and commit a heinous crime.


 
Nobody is taking away your right to join a well-regulated militia



WinterBorn said:


> The fact that I do not give up my rights does NOT mean I approve of anything he did.
> 
> Also, rather than disarm the population, how about you push the mental health community to submit the names of the lunatics to the database for the background checks?   Adam Lanza was never reported to that database as dangerously insane.   But NOOOOO, you demand that everyone give up a constitutional right because the system you demanded isn't being fed the proper info by medical professionals.


 
Main reason? Because we don't want to stigmatize the mentally ill.  It's hard enough to get them to seek treatment as it is.

Adam didn't get the help he needed because his mother was as crazy as he was.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Then, only the government will have guns.  Good Lord, you must be dense.  You have absolutely NO idea why we have rights do you?


 
And that works perfectly fine in England and Japan.   Hey, you know, the cops in Tokyo only had to draw their weapons about five times a year.  Women can walk the streets at night with out fear. 

The main reason why you have cops armed like the military in this country is too many of you guys have guns.


----------



## haissem123 (Aug 28, 2014)

here those gun nuts wanna have power to kill again. same mindset as rapists.haha. might makes right. ?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



How about one from 10 days ago?  This is an article about a woman gunned down with a shotgun and a machine gun, in a country with extremely strict gun laws, and on an island (meaning much more control over what comes in and out).

Sabrina Moss death Pictures show moment gangsters shot dead innocent teacher as she celebrated 24th birthday - Mirror Online

Since you don't look at links we post, let me provide some important info for you.

From the linked article:  
*"The nursery schoolteacher and her friend Sabrina Gachette were gunned down in the street by two hooded men armed with a machine gun and a shot gun"*


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



We are the United States of America.  We have rights that we hold precious that our forefathers gave up their LIVES for.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
Two persons is a mass shooting?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > It was not a particularly important point, I will give you that.   But the fact that you argued adamantly that you were correct, without taking a few seconds to check, speaks volumes about you.
> ...



LMAO!!!  It wasn't a petty point when you thought you were right.

Sorry, the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the right is an individual one, not contingent on being part of a militia.

Its funny that you worry about stigmatizing the dangerously insane, but you don't mind holding 60 million gun owners responsible for what that dangerously insane person does.   What an astounding leap of hypocrisy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



So mass shootings, which amounts to less than 1% of the gun murders in the US is all that counts?

No comment that the criminals had a shotgun and a machine gun, it such a tightly controlled country?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> We are the United States of America.  We have rights that we hold precious that our forefathers gave up their LIVES for.


 
Was that the right to be exploited by a big corporation, or the right to die of a treatable disease because we don't have universal health care?


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Oh, here you are going off topic again.  Your dishonest scumminess is showing.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




more steaming feces

what we are not OK with is people like you banning 100 million  people from having guns so you can pretend you may have stopped-for a short period of time-one homicidal Kamikaze


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



thanks for admitting what really motivates you and many other gun banners

you are welfare socialist income redistributionists who don't like the fact that the people you want to loot may be armed


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




the parasite class has no clue about rights

they think they have a right to force other people to pay for their existence and that honest people have no right to self defense.  

parasites like disarmed hosts


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
I'm pointing the obvious.  Most of the Wars we've fought have been for the interests of the wealthy, and I say that as a second generation veteran. 

The idea you need a gun because someone fought for your "Freedom" is silly.  Most Industrialized Demos limit gun ownership, and they are just as free as we are.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



No, you are moving the goal posts AGAIN because you are losing the argument.  Here in the United States, the citizens control the government, not the other way around (or at least that is supposed to be the way it works).  I don't CARE about other countries.  I care about this one and our rights and limiting the power the government has over us.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> LMAO!!!  It wasn't a petty point when you thought you were right.
> 
> ...


 
Uh, the Supreme Court has not "consistently" ruled that way.  Look up US v. Miller, to start with.  This is a recent deranged reading that will go away when Scalia takes a dirt nap.

I'm not worried about their feelings, I'm worried about them not seeking treatment.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



He is obviously completely ignorant about all topics related to the second amendment, the United States and our rights.  Even worse, he is a traitor to the American people and a government butt kisser.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



If you can show where the US Constitution addresses either of thoser ights, you will have a point.  Not a point that has anything to do with the topic, but a point.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
Guy, I don't worry about that.  Most of you don't have the balls to shoot government officials.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> No, you are moving the goal posts AGAIN because you are losing the argument.  Here in the United States, the citizens control the government, not the other way around (or at least that is supposed to be the way it works).  I don't CARE about other countries.  I care about this one and our rights and limiting the power the government has over us.


 
Uh, actually, big corporations control the government.  Seriously, where have you been?


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You mean YOU don't have the balls and you'd rather climb up into the warmth of the governmental womb because you're nothing but a pussy who cannot even protect yourself or your family.  I'll bet even a little girl like me could kick your sorry ass.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
Whose talking about the "Constitution"?  

He was talking about people who died for "Rights".  Which is crap.  Most of our wars have been fought because Rich people need their interests protected.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Sorry, but the SCOTUS voted 5-4 that the individual's right is what the 2nd Amendment protects. Heller v. DC.

Was Adam Lanza seeking treatment?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> You mean YOU don't have the balls and you'd rather climb up into the warmth of the governmental womb because you're nothing but a pussy who cannot even protect yourself or your family.  I'll bet even a little girl like me could kick your sorry ass.


 
Uh, sorry, haven't taken any money from the Government since I was a Staff Sergeant in the US Army.

But realistically, for all your smack talk about fighting the "gummit", we saw that in the 1990's, when your sort all crawled back into your holes after McVeigh did  his thing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Sorry, but the SCOTUS voted 5-4 that the individual's right is what the 2nd Amendment protects. Heller v. DC.
> 
> Was Adam Lanza seeking treatment?


 
Hey, maybe you should tell your fellow Wingnuts that Roe v. Wade was decided 7-2.

Frankly, Heller was an awful, partisan ruling.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

Here are some non-gun related mass murders for you to examine:

"
Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife."


The oldest one listed happened in 2003, so well below your 20 year threshold.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > You mean YOU don't have the balls and you'd rather climb up into the warmth of the governmental womb because you're nothing but a pussy who cannot even protect yourself or your family.  I'll bet even a little girl like me could kick your sorry ass.
> ...



My sort?  You don't know anything about anything, never mind about what "my sort" is.  You are just a silly government lackey and a traitor to the American people, plain and simple.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > You mean YOU don't have the balls and you'd rather climb up into the warmth of the governmental womb because you're nothing but a pussy who cannot even protect yourself or your family.  I'll bet even a little girl like me could kick your sorry ass.
> ...



Interesting that you bring up McVeigh.  He murdered 168 people.  And he did not use a gun to kill a single one.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



ANOTHER off topic comment.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Good point!


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Do you know my stance on Roe v. Wade?  Or are you grasping at straws again?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
I know exactly your sort.

Obama had you pegged when he talked about "Bitter Clingers".

You think the gun gives you control. It doesn't.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...








   It most certainly does give me control over what happens to my person and my property.  

Obama probably can't even "peg" Michelle.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Absolute bullshit.   Once again you are spouting nonsense you cannot know, while claiming it to be factual.

Don't you ever get tired of lying?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It may not give someone control in all things, but it damn sure gives them some control over what happens to them.  It gives them the ability to defend themselves instead of hiding in a closet and hoping the cops get there in time.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Here are some non-gun related mass murders for you to examine:
> 
> 
> The oldest one listed happened in 2003, so well below your 20 year threshold.


 
Dude, did you REALLY waste time looking these up? Man, you are pathetic.

Point is, mass killing are RARE in countries that limit guns.  You had to cover numerous countries over a decade to find as many mass shooting as the US has in a year.

I could live with one mass killing a decade.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
You work on the assumption I care what you think.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You are the one who brought it up, and you are the one who suggested I tell people about it.

If you don't care what my stance on the issue is, then your comment becomes just one more attempt to derail the discussion.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> It may not give someone control in all things, but it damn sure gives them some control over what happens to them.  It gives them the ability to defend themselves instead of hiding in a closet and hoping the cops get there in time.


 
Uh, no.  A gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the house than  a bad guy.  

I've known three families who've had to bury members killed by that gun bought for protection.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some non-gun related mass murders for you to examine:
> ...



I entered a phrase into Google and found one website with all that info.

The point is, despite your claims to the contrary, mass killings would continue without firearms.

But what would also happen is that at least 100k crimes would not be stopped each year by a citizen with a gun.

And the story I posted about the single mother killed with a shotgun and a machinegun shows that the criminals will still have their guns.  Both of those are harder to hide and harder to smuggle than handguns.   And a machinegun is much tougher to get.  But the wholesale ban on firearms didn't stop the criminals from being armed.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Bullshit.  That "study" you are quoting has been debunked so many times you should be embarrassed for quoting it.

I shot it down in this thread yesterday.  Do try to keep up.

Were the funerals for people who accidently shot themselves?


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Exactly.  I had an intruder break into my home when I was a teenager and masturbated in my room while I was sleeping (he THOUGHT I was sleeping anyway).  I don't think I've ever been so frightened and felt so helpless in my life, lying there in my bed with no way to defend myself.  

Thankfully for me, it was just some pervy neighborhood kid and not a rapist or a murderer.  If it had been, I would have been completely defenseless against him.  However, if I had a weapon in my bedside drawer, there is the possibility that I could get to it at some point and use it on the bastard.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




people like joe want to remain in the permanent state of being a child with the government making all the decisions for him.  The thought of making self defense a personal responsibility and accepting the risk of such an act, is terrifying to cowards who are afraid to grow up.  People like him want to ban guns so they won't be reminded of their own failings as men by armed citizens who proudly proclaim WE WILL MAKE OUR OWN SAFETY A PERSONAL PRIORITY

its time for these gun banners to shed their diapers and rubber pants, and put on their big boy trousers and grow a pair


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


I figured you are an Obama Fluffer.  You obviously have never faced a lethal confrontation on the street

I have-Turtle one-Mugger 3 (years in the penitentiary and 3 surgeries to put his stomach and rectum back in place)


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...








  I agree TD!


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Well then you hang around some dumbass people!


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Anyone with half a brain knows that if you ban something, you just strengthen the black market for that product and that, in turn, increases the levels of violence.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2014)

Peach said:


> He paid his debt to society, how is this relevant today? I cannot believe any State Bar would let him practice unless he is proven rehabilitated.



I agree with the reasoning, until you run into an Ollie North, who had his conviction reversed: not because of guilt but because prosecution violated an immunity deal.

Would you believe Ollie when he raised his hand to tell Congress the truth, or if he had become a senator from VA and raised his hand in the other to swear.

Just cause a guy walked, does not mean you give him the benefit of the doubt later on.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Listen: a gun in the house endangers a family far more than protecting it.

I agree that people have the right to own guns, but unfortunately a lot of those folks are indifferent, or uncaring, or just stupid.  They earn what they get.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > He paid his debt to society, how is this relevant today? I cannot believe any State Bar would let him practice unless he is proven rehabilitated.
> ...



It does, however, mean that he is legally able to practice law.   And that, in turn, means what he is doing when working for the NRA is fine.  If he were selling guns or whatever, maybe there would be some grounds for an argument.  But not for practicing law as a member of the Bar Association.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



This entire idea comes from a study done in 1986.  That is the source of the idea that you are more likely to die from having a gun than to use it saving yourself.  It has been debunked.  The study only looked at cases in which the gun in the home was used to kill a criminal.  It ignored the times a criminal was wounded, a criminal was held until police arrived, or when a criminal fled after seeing the gun.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2014)

So it is not entirely debunked.

The study needs to be updated.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2014)

No problem with Ollie being a lawyer if he meets the requirements.

I just would not believe a word he had to say, if he said, "on my honor."


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 28, 2014)

Poor Joe getting beat like a red-he


JakeStarkey said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > He paid his debt to society, how is this relevant today? I cannot believe any State Bar would let him practice unless he is proven rehabilitated.
> ...


 
Why not?

You give Obama the benefit of the doubt no matter how many times he lies to you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2014)

Actually it is you who give the politicians the benefit of the doubt, Lonstar_Logic.

Since Johnson and Nixon, they have all been liars.

It's such that Ollie, though, a Marine officer lied through his teeth to Congress.

But that's what we expect from far lefties and far righties, like you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Actually it is you who give the politicians the benefit of the doubt, Lonstar_Logic.
> 
> Since Johnson and Nixon, they have all been liars.
> 
> ...


 
Anyone right of center is a far righties in your view.

Give some examples of me giving a politician who has consistently lied the benefit of the doubt.

You have consistently sided with Obama and the liberal Democrats on almost every issue. But hey, I don't expect you to be honest about it, Hell, you haven't been honest about much.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Bullshit.  That "study" you are quoting has been debunked so many times you should be embarrassed for quoting it.
> 
> ...


 
you gun nuts are still shitting your pants over Kellerman, but none of you have ever debunked it.

Most your arguments are "No fair, he counted suicides" and my favorite, "Well, they were all darkies"!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2014)

You have lied through your teeth yet again, like your heroes North and Reagan, Lonestar.

Anybody who is not a far right reactionary is a liberal to you, Lonestar, which reveals that your brain is swiss cheese.

Kicking the far right and the far left in the teeth is not siding with Obama, except in your diseased mind.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Ah, you must be one of those "Compassionate Conservatives" we've hears so much about.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> So it is not entirely debunked.
> 
> The study needs to be updated.



The study claimed that people are more likely to be killed by the gun in their home than they are to be protected by it.  The lowest reasonable study I have seen claims that civilians use guns +100,000 times per year to stop crimes.  If you combine accidental deaths, suicides and murders you can come up with 32,000 gun deaths per year.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have lied through your teeth yet again, like your heroes North and Reagan, Lonestar.
> 
> Anybody who is not a far right reactionary is a liberal to you, Lonestar, which reveals that your brain is swiss cheese.
> 
> Kicking the far right and the far left in the teeth is not siding with Obama, except in your diseased mind.


 
Actually anyone left of center I consider a liberal and that would include you.

You lie so often I doubt you even know what the truth sounds like.

Trust me Jake, everyone on this board with half a brain knows you are a liberal and you side with Democrats. The more you shout how much you're a Republican the less credible you become.

I would suggest you try honesty but I don't think your capable of it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [Q
> I figured you are an Obama Fluffer.  You obviously have never faced a lethal confrontation on the street
> 
> I have-Turtle one-Mugger 3 (years in the penitentiary and 3 surgeries to put his stomach and rectum back in place)


 
That statement invokes an image of Turtle-Wax


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



How did the 3 people die?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> 
> Exactly.  I had an intruder break into my home when I was a teenager and masturbated in my room while I was sleeping (he THOUGHT I was sleeping anyway).  I don't think I've ever been so frightened and felt so helpless in my life, lying there in my bed with no way to defend myself.
> ...


 
And if you screamed, the kid would have probably jumped out the window in embarrassment.

If he had been a rapist, murderer, you'd have never gotten to a weapon.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have lied through your teeth yet again, like your heroes North and Reagan, Lonestar.
> 
> Anybody who is not a far right reactionary is a liberal to you, Lonestar, which reveals that your brain is swiss cheese.
> 
> Kicking the far right and the far left in the teeth is not siding with Obama, except in your diseased mind.





JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Try again.  I debunked the study previously, and again in post #332.

Where did anyone say "Well, they were all darkies"?


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




that study was debunked.  the authors were proven to be dishonest.  most of the guns where there was a shooting, were brought into the home by the attacker.  Its a lie and anyone who understands this issue knows that

only morons continue to parrot that 43 number 


JakeStarkey said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Horsecrap.  that is based on dishonest "facts"


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> How did the 3 people die?


 
Two suicides and one domestic murders.  None would have happened if there hadn't been a gun  in the house.

Seriously, did you just sit here for a couple of hours and wait for me to come back... because that's kind of pathetic.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And you know this how??   Oh yeah, you don't need facts.  You just make shit up as you go along.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



for someone who has proven bankrupt of knowledge in this area, how can you make such a claim?

we get it that you are afraid of guns and want to project your issues on to the rest of us


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > How did the 3 people die?
> ...




Japan has about ZERO privately owned handguns and tons of suicides.  Try again


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > How did the 3 people die?
> ...



LMAO!!   I came back a little bit ago.   I have my laptop in my company vehicle.

You might be right that the domestic violence murder wouldn't have happened.   There have been a lot of spouses killed without a gun being involved.

But the suicides?   How do you know they wouldn't have killed themselves another way?  Please enlighten us on how you came to this bullshit conclusion?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> people like joe want to remain in the permanent state of being a child with the government making all the decisions for him.  The thought of making self defense a personal responsibility and accepting the risk of such an act, is terrifying to cowards who are afraid to grow up.  People like him want to ban guns so they won't be reminded of their own failings as men by armed citizens who proudly proclaim WE WILL MAKE OUR OWN SAFETY A PERSONAL PRIORITY
> 
> its time for these gun banners to shed their diapers and rubber pants, and put on their big boy trousers and grow a pair


 
No, guy, we just get tired of watching kids getting rolled out in body bags because you're compensating for a tiny penis.

32,000 gun deaths a year is to high a price.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
THey also have a culture where Suicide is considered honorable

They do, however, have less than 600 murders a year


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > people like joe want to remain in the permanent state of being a child with the government making all the decisions for him.  The thought of making self defense a personal responsibility and accepting the risk of such an act, is terrifying to cowards who are afraid to grow up.  People like him want to ban guns so they won't be reminded of their own failings as men by armed citizens who proudly proclaim WE WILL MAKE OUR OWN SAFETY A PERSONAL PRIORITY
> ...



More than half are suicides and nothing in terms of gun laws will stop that
and more than 75% of all murders are committed by people who are banned from owning any gun and that is true with 75% or more of the victims

so your calls for gun control is moronic since at best, it might effect less than one tenth of the firearm deaths


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



The US ranks 34th in the world for number of suicides per capita.  Japan is 8th.


----------



## turtledude (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




and First Generation Japanese living in Free USA have lower rates of gun crimes than their cousins and kinsmen living in Gun Free Japan

gun control has nothing to do with crime control


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Oh, so you want to take their culture into account when it suits you, but want it ignored when it doesn't?

More dishonesty.  What a surprise.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> LMAO!!   I came back a little bit ago.   I have my laptop in my company vehicle.
> 
> You might be right that the domestic violence murder wouldn't have happened.   There have been a lot of spouses killed without a gun being involved.
> 
> But the suicides?   How do you know they wouldn't have killed themselves another way?  Please enlighten us on how you came to this bullshit conclusion?


 
 You take away a method of suicide, the suicide rate drops.

For instance, when the they redesigned ovens so people couldn't gas themselves, the suicde rate dropped.

In the two cases, one was a teenage kid, the other was a guy with terminal cancer. Neither one would have tried something else.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > people like joe want to remain in the permanent state of being a child with the government making all the decisions for him.  The thought of making self defense a personal responsibility and accepting the risk of such an act, is terrifying to cowards who are afraid to grow up.  People like him want to ban guns so they won't be reminded of their own failings as men by armed citizens who proudly proclaim WE WILL MAKE OUR OWN SAFETY A PERSONAL PRIORITY
> ...



I am not compensating for anything.  No need.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Oh, so you want to take their culture into account when it suits you, but want it ignored when it doesn't?
> 
> More dishonesty.  What a surprise.


 
Uh, no.  I can actually  analyze.  Unlike a gun nut fanatic who has to pretend the whole rest of the world doesn't  the world doesn't exist.

Japanese consider suicide honorable.
Americans consider it a sin.

And yet we have more of them.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO!!   I came back a little bit ago.   I have my laptop in my company vehicle.
> ...



Do you have evidence of that claim?

The teenage kid could have easily found another way to kill himself.   As I have said before, using a gun means that they truly wanted to die.

As for the terminal cancer patient, situations like that are not crimes.  The guy didn't want to suffer.    Nice compassion there.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so you want to take their culture into account when it suits you, but want it ignored when it doesn't?
> ...



We have more suicides?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so you want to take their culture into account when it suits you, but want it ignored when it doesn't?
> ...



Let me help you out here.  No, we do not have more of them.

Japan has an average annual suicide rate of 21 per 100,000 population.
The US has an average annual suicide rate of 12 per 100,000 population.

And whether it is honorable or not has no relevance.  The point of the discussion is your claim that banning guns would save the 20k gun suicides.  Yet Japan, where guns are very strictly controlled, has a suicide rate that is close to twice what our is.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2014)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You have lied through your teeth yet again, like your heroes North and Reagan, Lonestar.
> ...



No person in their right mind would trust you to tell the time of day, son.

You are what you are, a piece of cheap furniture for the far forsaken reactionary right.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO!!   I came back a little bit ago.   I have my laptop in my company vehicle.
> ...



According to the CDC, in 2011, 19,528 people committed suicide without using a gun.  16,477 killed themselves by poisoning or suffocation.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
Your concession is duly noted.

You're dismissed.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Only careless people.  I know people who have guns and my own father had guns, and I don't know of one person who was injured by one.  If you want to believe some schmuck on the internet who makes up ridiculous stories that just go against all odds, then go right ahead.  I think this guy is full of it and is making things up as he goes along.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO!!   I came back a little bit ago.   I have my laptop in my company vehicle.
> ...





> *when the they redesigned ovens so people couldn't gas themselves, the suicde rate dropped.*



I'd like to see a link to THAT!


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [Q]
> 
> Only careless people.  I know people who have guns and my own father had guns, and I don't know of one person who was injured by one.  If you want to believe some schmuck on the internet who makes up ridiculous stories that just go against all odds, then go right ahead.  I think this guy is full of it and is making things up as he goes along.


 
so because my stories don't validate your worldview, they can't possibly be true.

Because it's completely unlikely that a 52 year old man can  know of three victims of gun violence. that's completely impossible


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO!!   I came back a little bit ago.   I have my laptop in my company vehicle.
> ...



What a crock!  You don't know that!  You weren't inside of their heads.  I think you are one of the most dishonest posters I have had the bad luck to come across.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [Q]
> ...



You have proven yourself to be a dishonest poster already in this thread a few times, therefore, your credibility is shot!  Pun intended!


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [Q]
> ...



No one is questioning whether or not it happened.  Despite your propensity for lying, we still give you the benefit of the doubt.

What we are calling you on is your claim that the suicides would not have happened without a gun.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I've asked for links from him before.  I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 
Why, you'll just pretend you didn't see it.

Re Authors response to Verberne s comment on The British Coal Gas Story The BMJ

As Table 1 and
Figure 4 of Kreitman's paper clearly show, between 1962-3 and 1970-
71, overall suicides declined by around 30% in both males and females. We
agree there is evidence of a (limited) increase in suicide by other
methods, as might be expected, but the far
greater reduction in suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning over the period
studied result in a dramatic decline in overall suicide rates for both men
and women (carbon monoxide poisoning was the single most frequently used
method of suicide in England and Wales in the late 1950s/early 1960s). To
quote Kreitman (page 88) referring to male suicide: "Thus the
decrease in CO suicide has been sufficiently large to lower the total
suicide rate at all ages, but in doing so it conceals an appreciable
increase in young men of suicides by other means" and to
female suicide (page 89) " ... the CO suicide decline has been great
enough to reduce the total suicide rate at all ages".


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> No one is questioning whether or not it happened.  Despite your propensity for lying, we still give you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> What we are calling you on is your claim that the suicides would not have happened without a gun.


 
Callin me a liar is just an admission you don't have an argument. Get rid of an easy method, suicides decline.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> I've asked for links from him before.  I wouldn't count on it.


 
I don't do links because you guys pretend you didn't see them.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...





> No one is questioning whether or not it happened.  Despite your propensity for lying, we still give you the benefit of the doubt.



I don't about that.  He is a gun banner and a traitor.  One of the most dishonest types of poster on debate forums that I have ever come across.  Most are dishonest and they lie and twist the truth to fit their agenda.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> I don't about that.  He is a gun banner and a traitor.  One of the most dishonest types of poster on debate forums that I have ever come across.  Most are dishonest and they lie and twist the truth to fit their agenda.


 
Yup.  For some reason, being concerned about 32,000 of my fellow Americans being killed by guns makes me traitor to America

I've got a box of medals on my wall that says different.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > No one is questioning whether or not it happened.  Despite your propensity for lying, we still give you the benefit of the doubt.
> ...



People don't commit suicide because it is convenient.   They do it because they don't want to live.  And why do you think it would be so much harder to get a razor or a knife than it is to get a gun?

You are projecting.  You are the one who lies when you have no argument.  I am calling you a liar because you lied.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I can't access this study, only a short excerpt.  Of course I want to read the entire study, as well as the rebuttals and more, since what you linked me to was a rebuttal to a prior study.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Don't insult our intelligence.  You aren't concerned with lives.  You fear your fellow law-abiding American citizens.  You want to leave them unarmed and at the mercy of criminals who will STILL be armed.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



Have I done that?  No.

Have you?  Yes.

If I specifically ask you for backup to a claim you made, refusing to provide it shows you made it up.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Exactly, and most people who are seriously considering it can also have more than one plan.  And what kind of moron would blame suicide on the TOOL used to carry it out???   Suicide is caused by mental illness in most cases and not the specific tools used.  That's like blaming the rope when people hang themselves!!!


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



Your link blows.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



First of all, they didn't redesign the ovens, they changed the type of gas.

Secondly, you were, once again, dishonest in your post.  Why didn't you post the entire quote?  Or at least end the quot with "..." to show you did not quote the author's entire sentence.

What was actually written at the link was:  "
"Thus the decrease in CO suicide has been sufficiently large to lower the total
suicide rate at all ages, *but in doing so it conceals an appreciable
increase in young men of suicides by other means" and to
female suicide (page 89) *" ... the CO suicide decline has been great
enough to reduce the total suicide rate at all ages".

And your link was a reply to a paper written on the subject.   The abstract for the paper is as follows:

"A detailed analysis of suicide rates between 1960 and 1971 for England and Wales and for Scotland confirms that all age-sex subgroups have shown a marked decline in suicide due to domestic gas, corresponding in time to the fall in the CO content. After considering data on the effects of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Eighth Revision, accident mortality, some personal characteristics of coal gas suicides, and the use of coal gas in parasuicide it was concluded that a simple casual explantation was likely. *Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups.* It was suggested that neither improved psychiatric services nor voluntary agencies could have produced such changes. The 'compensatory' trend of gas and non-gas suicide rates was indicated for certain age-sex subgroups. The continuing need for suicide research was pointed out, and questions were raised concerning the psychological meaning of the epidemiological data."


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > No one is questioning whether or not it happened.  Despite your propensity for lying, we still give you the benefit of the doubt.
> ...



So, if suicides by hanging with rope increases, are you going to suggest we ban rope too?  

You know what's strange?  Drugs are illegal, and how many people die from drugs every year?  Many MANY more than die from guns.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2014)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Your concession is duly noted.
> 
> You're dismissed.



And you are defeated by your admission.  Trot along.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 28, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Only careless people.  I know people who have guns and my own father had guns, and I don't know of one person who was injured by one.  If you want to believe some schmuck on the internet who makes up ridiculous stories that just go against all odds, then go right ahead.  I think this guy is full of it and is making things up as he goes along.



You are wrong.  We own guns, have for generations, and we are safe because we are not careless or indifferent.  And yet we have seen accidents in others' houses over the years.

You can read or watch the news regularly, and you see stupid (not lack of intelligence, lack of common sense) people paying the price for not being careful.

You know it, I know it.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 28, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Only careless people.  I know people who have guns and my own father had guns, and I don't know of one person who was injured by one.  If you want to believe some schmuck on the internet who makes up ridiculous stories that just go against all odds, then go right ahead.  I think this guy is full of it and is making things up as he goes along.
> ...



Relatively speaking, they are NOT that common.  Accidents with common household objects and other things like pools are MUCH more prevalent.  I see you are going to join Joe in being dishonest to support your agenda.  How sad.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Guy, I already proved you can reduce the suicide rate by removing a method.

Maybe it's easy to get a razor, probably easier than getting a gun.  So why don't we have more razor suicides?  Because it takes longer and people are squeamish about cutting themselves.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You have shown one reply to a study that claimed a very small reduction in overall suicides.  But then, there are also the huge numbers of suicides in Japan, despite having almost no access to firearms.

If someone wants to die, they will find a way.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> So, if suicides by hanging with rope increases, are you going to suggest we ban rope too?
> 
> You know what's strange?  Drugs are illegal, and how many people die from drugs every year?  Many MANY more than die from guns.



Meh,not really. 


Annual Causes of Death in the United States Drug War Facts

Firearm Injuries            31,672
Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393

SLIGHTLY more - and that figure includes both legal and illegal drugs.

Now, if you want  to regulate guns the way we do drugs, I'm totally down with that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

Whiner-born has no life, apparently.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What?  You mean regulations that don't work.  Lol!  Man, you are so silly.    Typical liberal.  Very shallow and superficial in your thought processes.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Nope, they pretty much do what they are supposed to do.  But you'd have to understand history to know why we have drug laws.

It involved quacks mixing up cocaine with sugar water and selling them outside of wagons.

Will sensible gun laws end all gun violence?  Nope. 

Will it reduce it substantially?  Yup.  Every country that has done it has proved that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Whiner-born has no life, apparently.



Oh look, JoeyB is trying to insult me.  What a shocker!   lol

Actually, I have a great life.  But I also have leeway at work to be on my laptop when I'm in the field.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Your idiocy is showing again.  

Four Decades Later U.S. Is Still Losing The Global War On Drugs



> NEW YORK -- Inside the United States, a long and largely ineffective campaign to eradicate drugs is gradually evolving into acceptance of one key substance -- marijuana -- as states increasingly move to legalize its use. But outside national borders, the American-led war on drugs continues, bringing charges from participants that it is sowing violence and strife for little discernible gain.
> 
> "To the extent that our foreign relations should be for the purpose of improving relations with other countries, spending money on drug enforcement really doesn't do that. It certainly doesn't do that effectively," said Sean Dunagan, a drug war critic who previously served in Guatemala and Mexico for a combined five years as an intelligence analyst for the Drug Enforcement Administration.
> 
> ...


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You have repeatedly advocated banning firearms.  Now you want "sensible gun laws"?  

And what, pray tell, would those "reasonable gun laws" be?

Banning convicted felons and domestic abusers from owning guns?  We did that.
Running background checks when buying guns?  We did that.
Not letting people who have been reported as dangerously insane buy guns?  We did that.

Tell us what your "sensible gun laws" would be.   And don't forget to tell us about the controls you want on samurai swords, since you included that in the list of "dangerous weapons at Lanza's house.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 
You're comparing injuries to deaths. Not a good comparison there numbnuts. And it still proves ChrisL right.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 29, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Like I said, his ideas are moronic, pie-in-the-sky bullcrap, like most liberal ideas.  They do not take into account unintended consequences, they don't think their ideas through.  Perhaps they are so blinded by their ideology that it causes brain damage.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> You have repeatedly advocated banning firearms.  Now you want "sensible gun laws"?



I'm willing to compromise. You guys are the ones who have to be dragged kicking and screaming.



WinterBorn said:


> [
> And what, pray tell, would those "reasonable gun laws" be?
> 
> Banning convicted felons and domestic abusers from owning guns?  We did that.



Except for the gun show loophole and all the gun stores who know damned well they are selling to straw buyers.



WinterBorn said:


> [
> Running background checks when buying guns?  We did that.



An inadequate background check is not a background check.  If the media can find out that Holmes and Lanza were nuts before the bodies were cold, then we should be able to find out if these guys are nuts before we give them guns.



WinterBorn said:


> [
> Not letting people who have been reported as dangerously insane buy guns?  We did that.



Then how do you explain Cho, Loughner, Holmes, etc.  Shit, we've had two people shoot things up because they thought they were the Joker



WinterBorn said:


> [
> Tell us what your "sensible gun laws" would be.   And don't forget to tell us about the controls you want on samurai swords, since you included that in the list of "dangerous weapons at Lanza's house.



Why do you keep trying to change the subject?   Oh, never mind, I stopped trying to reason with gun nuts a long time ago.

1) Before you can buy a gun- a REAL background check.  Including talking to your neighbors, co-workers, employers and teachers (If you are a college student).  Of the three individuals I mentioned above, that would have caught them.  (Their colleges knew they were nuts.)

2. Insurance to cover the costs of damages.  This insurance will be expensive.

3. Strict liability for gun sellers. If you sold a gun used in a crime, you are liable for that crime.

4. No more concealed carry.

But the biggest thing is a change in attitude.   Gun ownership is not a right, it's a privilege.

That's how Germany treats it.   They have 8 million privately owned guns, but only 250 gun homicides a year.

But be real.  The NRA doesn't want that.  They work for the gun manufacturers, and the gun manufacturers want the crazies and the crooks to have guns so the rest of you are afraid and want them, too.

It's like arming both sides in a war.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Like I said, his ideas are moronic, pie-in-the-sky bullcrap, like most liberal ideas.  They do not take into account unintended consequences, they don't think their ideas through.  Perhaps they are so blinded by their ideology that it causes brain damage.



Uh, gee, again -  Germany, Japan, England, Canada and Australia have all done these "Liberal" ideas (Fun Fact, even conservatives in these countries don't want to change the gun laws), and they've gotten exactly the desired consequences.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Canada has a high rate of private ownership of guns.  Also, those are completely different cultures who do not have the gang violence problem that we have here in America.  

Look buddy, judging by ALL of your posts and your moving the goal posts continuously, your strawmen, your anecdotes, it is quite obvious to even the most dense poster that you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about.  I don't even know why you are still here blathering away and making yourself look foolish.  Maybe Mr. T would have pity for you, but I certainly do not.  Lol!  

CSSA Ten Myths About Gun Control. target shooting shotgun rifle pistol biathlon free pistol cowboy shooting SASS IPSC PPC IPDA full-bore rifle gun ban gun control handgun ban C68 gun registry confiscation gun rights self defense RKBA Canada gun club shooting club shooting range rifle range


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Canada has a high rate of private ownership of guns.  Also, those are completely different cultures who do not have the gang violence problem that we have here in America.
> 
> Look buddy, judging by ALL of your posts and your moving the goal posts continuously, your strawmen, your anecdotes, it is quite obvious to even the most dense poster that you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about.  I don't even know why you are still here blathering away and making yourself look foolish.  Maybe Mr. T would have pity for you, but I certainly do not.  Lol!



Actually, I'm accomplishing my goal.

The best argument for gun control is to let the Gun Whacks talk.  Pretty soon, they expose their inner psychos.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



1) The background check will never involve what you are suggesting.  Agents will not be sent out to talk to neighbors, co-workers, employers & teachers.  In addition to being prohibitively expensive, it is wildly time consuming to suggest doing that.   The NICS background check that is done now is good, if the proper information would be submitted.   You know, like when people are crazy?   Like you didn't want because of the stigma attached to being crazy?  
from:  Background Checks by State NICS Data
"In all, nearly 19.6 million background checks were requested in 2012, up from 16.5 million in 2011."

2) Requiring insurance for concealed carry is acceptable.  Otherwise, it is up to the owner.  And your comment of "This insurance will be expensive." shows that your goal is to gouge the gun owner, not to accomplish anything else.

3) If the gun seller breaks the law, burn him.  If not, he is not responsible for the gun's use.  That would be like holding Ford Motor Company liable for drunk drivers.

4) Unacceptable.   Concealed carry is not part of the problem you are seeking to change.

Lastly, that we have a right to bear arms will not be changed to a priviledge, simply because you hate the NRA and are scared.  I don't care what Germany does.  I am not living in Germany.

Oh, just an FYI, with the numbers you posted concerning Germany, 0.0031% of their guns are used in a murder.  Why do you think that is acceptable?

The US has 300 million privately owned guns and around 11,000 gun related murders.  So in our case, 0.0037% of our guns are used in a murder.

0.0031% is great? 
0.0037% is horrible?   lmao


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

11,000 gun murders out of 300 million people vs. 250 murders out of 80 million people.

Yeah.  The Germans are doing it right.

NICS background checks are inadequate if Cho, Loughner and Holmes can get guns.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 29, 2014)

But you


JoeB131 said:


> 11,000 gun murders out of 300 million people vs. 250 murders out of 80 million people.
> 
> Yeah.  The Germans are doing it right.
> 
> NICS background checks are inadequate if Cho, Loughner and Holmes can get guns.



Then feel free to move to Germany or to try and get a constitutional amendment to remove the 2nd Amendment.  (probably more luck moving)

Then make sure the mental health community reports the dangerously insane.   Previously in the thread you were talking about not wanting to stigmatize these nutballs, so they would get help.  Now they are the weak spots in the system?   lol


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> 11,000 gun murders out of 300 million people vs. 250 murders out of 80 million people.
> 
> Yeah.  The Germans are doing it right.
> 
> NICS background checks are inadequate if Cho, Loughner and Holmes can get guns.



There are, as I have said before, major cultural differences between the US and Germany.   Yet you still want to treat them as if they are exactly the same.

Funny that you want to ignore cultural difference, until you want to use them to bolster your argument.

The cultural differences between the US and Japan were not relevant when discussing guns, but they make all the difference when discussing suicides.   Hilarious.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> But you
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> ...



Guy, we don't need to Amend the second.  Just get non-retarded SCOTUS justices who ignore the "Well-Regulated Militia" part.

I don't think the Mental Health Community was aware of either Cho or Holmes, but their schools were.   Which is why you need a thorough background check.

You see, this is why I want for gun shops to own mass shootings.  Then you won't have conversations like this.

Holmes -  "I'd like an AR-15 and a 100 Round Drum Magazine please."

Gun Shop Owner - "Here you are, my good man. And Might I say that's a great Joker Costume!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > 11,000 gun murders out of 300 million people vs. 250 murders out of 80 million people.
> ...



No, It's pure math.

Japan  - 80,000 privately owned guns for 110,000,000 people.   11 Gun Murders.

Germany 8,000,000 guns for 80,000,000 people.  250 gun murders

America - 300,000,000 guns for 300,000,000 people.  11,500 gun murders.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > But you
> ...



No way that is happening.  You are then liable for what you could not have possibly known.   You are expecting gun shop owners to be psychiatrists?   No.  There is not a single precedent for that type of liability.

The SCOTUS does not ignore the Well-Regulated Militia.  They just know, from reading the papaers of those who write the constitution and the first 10 amendments, that there was an expectation to form a militia as needed, from armed citizens.  And since the entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual against encroachment by the gov't, to claim the 2nd speaks of building a standing army is ridiculous.

And the SCOTUS has never ruled that the 2nd is anything but an individual right.  Even the Miller case you quoted yesterday did not remove guns from citizens.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



And yet, the Japanese suicide rate is because of cultural differences, right?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 29, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



In Germany 0.0031% of teh privately owned guns have been used to murder someone.
In the US 0.0037% of the privately owned guns have been used in a murder.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 29, 2014)

> No, It's pure math.
> 
> Japan - 80,000 privately owned guns for 110,000,000 people. 11 Gun Murders.
> 
> ...



Ahhh...you forgot to list the other side of the equation...gun grabbers always do...how many lives are saved and crimes are stopped by regular people who own and carry guns...250-370,000 each year...and that is only one estimate and it is probably low...a lot of defensive gun uses go unreported because when you make the criminal run away by letting him know you are armed and won't be a victim...it doesn't get counted because those go unreported...

Also, 250-370,000 lives saved and crimes stopped only accounts for those who directly encounter the violent criminal...there are also the lives saved when the victim shoots or captures the criminal...

For example...the woman with the concealed carry permit who was raped on a college campus because it was a "gun free zone,"...so she left her gun at home...and was raped by a violent criminal...who had a gun...in the gun free zone...she stated in her testimony before the state congress that had she had her gun...she would have stopped the guy...and if she had he would not have raped two other women, killing the second victim...

So to recap...

11,500 gun murders by violent criminals who can't own guns vs. 250-370,000 lives saved and crimes stopped by regular people armed with guns...

Hmmm...again... 11,500 murders....vs...250-370,000 lives saved and crimes stopped...

Also...do you know how Japan keeps their murder rate down so low...a virtual police state...police can stop and search you whenever they want...they can inspect your home when they want...police often use force to get confessions...and judges let it happen...so say all you want, the same gun grabbers who would love to disarm people would kick and scream at the level of police power to keep guns out of the hands of regular people...here is a look at that...

For Japan...people control is how they achieve gun control...think about that liberals...

Japan Gun Control and People Control



> The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.
> 
> Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.
> 
> ...



I know, I know...the liberals in the audience are looking at that with tears in their eyes...thinking...why can't we have a government that loves us that much...

I don't get how liberals think...

And to the ability of police to search you...



> The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> And the SCOTUS has never ruled that the 2nd is anything but an individual right.  Even the Miller case you quoted yesterday did not remove guns from citizens.



But it did say that government had a right to regulate what kid of weapons a citizen could have.

I don't worry about what a bunch of slave rapists were thinking 200 years ago.  They weren't handing out guns to their slaves, after all.

I worry about what works well in the here and now.  And, yes, if the SCOTUS is just who can get the most votes on something, I hope for the day Scalia takes a dirt nap and Hillary appoints his replacement.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



It said that the gov't gets a tax stamp paid for certain weapons.  That was the biggest thing it did.

It was about revenue.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2014)

Okay,you keep telling yourself that the Founding Slave Rapists wanted you to have your toys...


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 30, 2014)

> Okay,you keep telling yourself that the Founding Slave Rapists wanted you to have your toys...



Hmmm...I bet you support the current democrat in office...the guy who represents the entire political party that defended slavery to the point they went to war to preserve it, wanted to extend slavery into all new states in the Union, wanted to restart the slave trade with Africa...and when the Republicans beat them, and freed the slaves, the democrats,the party of the current president, created the terrorist group the ku klux klan to murder newly freed slaves and their Republican allies, created Jim Crow, used lynching and bombs to keep them from voting...

so you keep voting for members of that party...while you criticize people from two hundred years ago...

And by the way...those toys freed the slaves and were used to fight off the democrat terrorist group, the klan...so is that why democrats don't like guns...they helped free their slaves?

liberals think funny...


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay,you keep telling yourself that the Founding Slave Rapists wanted you to have your toys...



I will.  And so will most constitutional scholars.

The point of the 2nd Amendment was to protect our country from tyranny, both inside and out.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay,you keep telling yourself that the Founding Slave Rapists wanted you to have your toys...



What an ignorant, hateful and childish comment.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay,you keep telling yourself that the Founding Slave Rapists wanted you to have your toys...
> ...



No, it wasn't.  It was to protect the right of states to maintain militias.  which became a moot point when Militias were replaced by the National Guard.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2014)

Billc said:


> > Okay,you keep telling yourself that the Founding Slave Rapists wanted you to have your toys...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guy, are you trying to fool anyone?  BOTH political parties were racist as shit in 1860.  and they pretty much stayed that way up until 1964 or so. 

And when the Democrats told the Racists to get lost, the GOP welcomed them with open arms.

And to day they scratch their heads and wonder why people of color won't vote for them...


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The entire purpose of the Bill of rights was to protect rights of the citizens, not the rights of the states or of the federal gov't.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



That's an opinion, yes.

Here's kind of my thing.  Back in 1787, when you were a rich slave rapist and you had to worry about slave revolts and native Americans who didn't take to well to the genocide thing, it almost made sense to have a gun.

Today we have professional armies and modern police forces.   There no real good reason for Nancy Lanza to be armed like the Zombies are coming.

(Oops, Did I just insult your pinup girl again?)


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Given the number of times every year that armed citizens stop crimes, I think your claim that there is no need for privately owned firearms is ridiculous.

The only insult in your post is to your own intelligence if you are still maintaining that the inventory from Lanza's home shows her to be a prepper.  Because it most definitally does not.

And your thing is absolutely wrong.  The first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, enumerate set rights for the people.  Not rights for a gov't (state or federal), but rights for the people.

If you want to try for a constitutional amendment, knock yourself out.  But you know that will never get the votes it needs.  The American people will not disarm because a few cowards think they have the answers to crimes committed by a tiny minority of private gun owners.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2014)

Guy, we don't need an amendment.  We just need a non-Retarded SCOTUS.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, we don't need an amendment.  We just need a non-Retarded SCOTUS.



I guess that is your hope, since an amendment is a lost cause.

But I doubt SCOTUS will change anything related to the 2nd Amendment.   Cases heard before them concerning guns are rare.


----------



## ChrisL (Aug 30, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



  It's amazing how some people entirely ignore that fact.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2014)

I don't ignore it.  I just don't think it's relevant to the times we live in now.

Case in point.  When was the last time you heard anyone whine that their 3rd Amendment rights were being violated?   Oh, that's right, that doesn't happen anymore.  It's not relevant in 2014.

In a day when a crazy person can get a military-grade gun and mow down a classroom full of preschoolers, you really have to make the laws based on the times we live in.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I don't ignore it.  I just don't think it's relevant to the times we live in now.
> 
> Case in point.  When was the last time you heard anyone whine that their 3rd Amendment rights were being violated?   Oh, that's right, that doesn't happen anymore.  It's not relevant in 2014.
> 
> In a day when a crazy person can get a military-grade gun and mow down a classroom full of preschoolers, you really have to make the laws based on the times we live in.



Wow, it would be really bad if some crazy person got a military-grade gun and mowed down a classroom full of preschoolers.  
Good thing that never happened, huh?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2014)

It's happened a few times..

Oh, but let's pretend the AR-15 isn't "military grade".  That'll work.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 30, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> It's happened a few times..
> 
> Oh, but let's pretend the AR-15 isn't "military grade".  That'll work.



The M16 is a fully automatic rifle.  Any semi automatic version is certainly not "military grade".  Unless you are referring to the shape of the gun.

I thought you were an expert on firearms?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2014)

Most of the time in the military, you don't fire your M16 on full auto.  It wastes bullets.

The military grade comes from the power of the bullets, range, firing performance, etc.

That weapon was designed for the military- hence, military grade. And there's no reason a civilian should have one, and ceratianly no reason a crazy person should have one.

But, hey, Nancy weren't no Prepper! Elvis didn't do no drugs!


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 31, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Most of the time in the military, you don't fire your M16 on full auto.  It wastes bullets.
> 
> The military grade comes from the power of the bullets, range, firing performance, etc.
> 
> ...



The AR-15 (civilian grade M16) is not a military grade rifle.  Also, before you wax philosophic about the capabilities of the gun, like the range, bullets, performance ect ect, remember that it is not a particularly great performer.  The round is small (originally a varmint round).  The effective range is 500 yards, not especially impressive if you spend any time shooting modern hunting rifles.   

No, Nancy wasn;'t a prepper.  She wasn't prepared for much besides going to the range.  That you keep insisting that anyone with fewer than 200 rounds per gun is stockpiling ammo shows your ignorance on the topic.

Oh, and constitutional rights are not about need.  Otherwise, would you need to have the freedom to say that?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2014)

The M16 and it's variants are excellent for what they are designed to do.

the 5.56mm round is designed so that a lot of them can be carried on long range patrols as opposed to the 7.62mm which is a lot heavier. 

Sorry, your pinup girl was a Prepper. Her own family said so.  Now, maybe you think everyone needs enough guns, swords and ammo to fight off the Zombie Hoard, but out here in sane land, not so much.

So you have ever right to join a "Well-Regulated Militia."  Heck, I was part of one for years.


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 31, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The M16 and it's variants are excellent for what they are designed to do.
> 
> the 5.56mm round is designed so that a lot of them can be carried on long range patrols as opposed to the 7.62mm which is a lot heavier.
> 
> ...



I am prepared to join a well regulated militia should the need arise.  And THAT is what the 2nd amendment was written for.  So that the people could defend themselves against attack and tyranny.  And if you are still claiming that the Bill Of Rights was to guarantee right to the gov't, you are delusional or ignorant of history.

I asked for a link concerning the family saying she was a prepper, but you never provided it.

Have you ever been to a gun range?  If so, how many rounds did you fire?


----------



## WinterBorn (Aug 31, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The M16 and it's variants are excellent for what they are designed to do.
> 
> the 5.56mm round is designed so that a lot of them can be carried on long range patrols as opposed to the 7.62mm which is a lot heavier.
> 
> ...



"Now, maybe you think everyone needs enough guns, swords and ammo to fight off the Zombie Hoard, but out here in sane land, not so much."

I love that you keep bring the sword into it.    I am sure you think it makes it much more dramatic, and therefore better.  But sparing the drama would help your argument be more rational.  The sword is not an issue, nor is the ammo.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 1, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I love that you keep bring the sword into it.    I am sure you think it makes it much more dramatic, and therefore better.  But sparing the drama would help your argument be more rational.  The sword is not an issue, nor is the ammo.



I think the funniest thing about this is that these same people have an extreme distrust of the police, yet they seem to want ONLY the police to have weapons, so apparently, according to their own words, they want to leave the citizens of this country at the mercy of the "evil, racist, overbearing" police.  Lol!  They're so stupid!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The M16 and it's variants are excellent for what they are designed to do.
> ...



1) Sorry, I don't buy that interpretation. IN any event, modern warfare has rendered it obsolete.  A "BYOG" war is never going to happen in the modern age.  

2) I've provided that link earlier in the thread.  Not my problem if you missed it or are too fuckin' lazy to look it up.  

3) Never brought 1600 rounds to a gun range.  further, never brought more than I needed for that training exercise.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > T
> ...



Actually, I think there were five swords recovered, but I"m not going to back and look it up.  

Because I'm done trying to reason with gun nuts. 

Yes, if you have that much ammo and weapons, you are probably a nut.  And she was.  And her kid was a bigger nut, no surprise.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I love that you keep bring the sword into it.    I am sure you think it makes it much more dramatic, and therefore better.  But sparing the drama would help your argument be more rational.  The sword is not an issue, nor is the ammo.
> ...



Quite the contrary.  I don't think you gun nuts having guns is going to keep the cops honest.  Quite the reverse.  The reason our police are so well armed and so trigger happy is that the NRA has made it too easy for crooks and nuts to get guns. 

Compare how an American cop is armed compared to a Japanese cop.   then find out how often American cops  have to draw their weapons compared to Japanese Cops.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I didn't ask if you brought 1600 rounds to a range.  I asked for an estimate of how many rounds you fired at the range.  It is not classified info.  Just a simple question.  

As for the BYOG war, that is what we are fighting in Afganistan.  The other side is using what they can find.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The swords are not an issue.  If you want to continue to add them to the descriptions for dramatic effect, go ahead.  But we both know that it is for the effect, not for any rational reason.

You haven't reasoned yet.  Why start?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Any interpretation that includes the Bill of Rights protecting the "rights" of the gov't is simply laughable.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> The swords are not an issue.  If you want to continue to add them to the descriptions for dramatic effect, go ahead.  But we both know that it is for the effect, not for any rational reason.
> 
> You haven't reasoned yet.  Why start?



Not Crazy People know exactly what I am talking about. 

Gun nuts... well, are gun nuts.  There's no reasoning with them.  IN their world, David Koresh and Nancy Lanza are responsible gun owners.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> I didn't ask if you brought 1600 rounds to a range.  I asked for an estimate of how many rounds you fired at the range.  It is not classified info.  Just a simple question.
> 
> As for the BYOG war, that is what we are fighting in Afganistan.  The other side is using what they can find.



Actually, the other side is being funded and supplied by Pakistani Intelligence.  Do try to keep up. 

I think when I first qualified, I might have fired 120 rounds a day.  this is 33 years ago, so I really don't remember.  Certainly nowhere near your pin-up girl's Zombie Apocolypse Arsenal.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



Other than the .22 ammunition, she didn't have enough ammo to do 120 rounds at the range more than one time with any of the 6 firearms that shot centerfire ammunition.  So, despite your claims of hoarding ammo, she could not go for two regular shooting sessions with any one of her guns, except the .22 rifle?   Hard to claim that is much ammo.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I am certainly not crazy.  I know that swords are not a weapon that cause much damage in the modern world.  Perhaps they were fearsome 500 years ago, but they are not an issue now.

Unless you would like to show where I have been irrational about anything in this thread.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Even if they were not responsible, that has nothing to do with our second amendment right.  SOME people and criminals are going to abuse ALL of their rights if possible.  Adam Lanza was a murderer!  Of course he wouldn't follow any laws.  Your reasoning is SO defective.  You must be either a teenager with a poor understanding of the issues or a very naive adult.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > But you
> ...



Gun shops are not responsible for what happens to their merchandise once it leaves their shop, UNLESS they did something illegal.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Please post a link with proof of your allegation about the NRA making it easy for crooks.  

Hello?  Do you realize how much larger and more heavily populated the US is compared to Japan?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Wasn't talking about Adam Lanza.  He was a poor sick kid who needed help. 

I was talking about Nancy, a person who decided that the best thing to do when you have a sick, deluded kid was to keep enough weapons around the house to fight off the Zombie Apocalypse, and then let him play first person shooter games all day until his already unbalanced mind was completely off the edge. 

And, yeah, if we had this right "Well-Regulated", people like this wouldn't pass even a cursory examination to bring guns into their homes.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Please post a link with proof of your allegation about the NRA making it easy for crooks.



you mean when they keep shooting down waiting periods, closing the gun show loophole, regulating private guns sales, limiting background checks?   Are you fucking serious?  




ChrisL said:


> [
> Hello?  Do you realize how much larger and more heavily populated the US is compared to Japan?



Uh, no, not really. 

Japan actually has a GREATER population density than the US does.  126,000,000 million people living on 378,000 Square kilometers.  That's 337 people living to a square kilometer

As opposed to the US, which has 318,000,000 living on 9,600,000 Square KM.  (Or 34 people to a square kilometer.)

if anything, Japan is a lot more densely populated.  Yet oddly enough, you don't hear about drive bys in Tokyo.  Nor do you have the police running around with tanks tear-gassing people when they are upset about something.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yeah, poor Adam Lanza.  Murdered his mother and slaughter a couple of dozen kids & teachers.  His mother was such a horror.   All she did was give up her life trying to connect with her son.  Did she screw up in some ways?  Yes she did.  But she kept trying.  Where was the dad?  Long gone, and washed his hands of his "poor son Adam".

The "well regulated" probably wouldn't have meant anything when she bought firearms.   Had Adam shown he was violent?   In fact, I think there was a check found that she had written for him to buy a gun.  I know he tried to buy one but didn't like the waiting period.  I've seen nothing that said he was unable to buy a gun.  If he was able, his mother certainly would be.  The idea that you know so much about him now, and that authorities would have known then, is ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



YOu also don't hear about protests in Japan.  Nor do you, apparently know that the police can stop and search you or come in your house to search, without a warrant.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> 
> Yeah, poor Adam Lanza.  Murdered his mother and slaughter a couple of dozen kids & teachers.  His mother was such a horror.   All she did was give up her life trying to connect with her son.  Did she screw up in some ways?  Yes she did.  But she kept trying.  Where was the dad?  Long gone, and washed his hands of his "poor son Adam".



If that prepper, Gun-nut c**t hadn't kept a small arsenal in the house and taught him how to use them, no kids would have died.  



WinterBorn said:


> [
> The "well regulated" probably wouldn't have meant anything when she bought firearms.   Had Adam shown he was violent?   In fact, I think there was a check found that she had written for him to buy a gun.  I know he tried to buy one but didn't like the waiting period.  I've seen nothing that said he was unable to buy a gun.  If he was able, his mother certainly would be.  The idea that you know so much about him now, and that authorities would have known then, is ridiculous.



Again, that just shows the gun laws are too lax.  You are making my point for me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> YOu also don't hear about protests in Japan.  Nor do you, apparently know that the police can stop and search you or come in your house to search, without a warrant.



Hey, guy, here's a picture of some Japanese, and they are protesting. Wow. 

But look at those cops on the bottom of the picture. No riot gear. No guns. No Tank spraying them with water or gassing them with tear gas.  

Fricking Japs don't know how to have a fun protest like we do, eh?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You are obsessed with Adam Lanza (or with Nancy Lanza).  That type event is extremely rare.  And yet, it a thread about the NRA's lawyer, you keep focusing on it.   The fact that, at a minimum, 100,000 crimes are stopped every year by armed citizens doesn't seem to matter to you at all.   The fact that a firearm is about all that will stop a thug from doing serious harm to someone weaker than him does not seem to register with you.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Yeah, blame anyone but the asshole who pulled the trigger.  Nice.

The "****", you blame hung in there with her child and endured.   She hung in there with a child that hated to be touched.  With a child that did not allow birthdays or Christmas to be celebrated.  With a child that couldn't tolerate certain foods being served on certain dishes.  But she found a way to connect.

No, I am not making your point for you.  Yu have the benefit of knowing what happened.  Without that little detail, you would have to restrict the rights of people based on what you see in your crystal ball.

Would an in-depth study of the Lanza's have revealed Adam's murderous plans?   Perhaps.  But then, that type of study would cost plenty too.  And would have labelled him as a lunatic, and you don't want them stimatized.

Your ideas seem based on the Adam Lanza story.  That is nice, since it is your obsession.  But it has very little to do with the majority of the shootings  that happen in the US.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> You are obsessed with Adam Lanza (or with Nancy Lanza).  That type event is extremely rare.  And yet, it a thread about the NRA's lawyer, you keep focusing on it.   The fact that, at a minimum, 100,000 crimes are stopped every year by armed citizens doesn't seem to matter to you at all.   The fact that a firearm is about all that will stop a thug from doing serious harm to someone weaker than him does not seem to register with you.



first, I doubt the DGU numbers.  The FBI says that only 200 cases a year of bad guys being killed by good guys with guns.  That you scared off some black guy who was following you doesn't count. 

The reason why Nancy Lanza exists is because the NRA works for the gun industry, and the gun industry likes people like Nancy who buy a shitload of guns and ammo. And their top lawyer murdered a woman and got away with it.  Fuck!


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > YOu also don't hear about protests in Japan.  Nor do you, apparently know that the police can stop and search you or come in your house to search, without a warrant.
> ...



And the protests can be shut down, violently if need be, by the gov't at any time.   

The basic rights guaranteed to us seem to have no value to you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Yeah, blame anyone but the asshole who pulled the trigger.  Nice.
> 
> ...



Adam should have been institutionalized. 

He should not have been allowed to play first person shooter games and given access to Mom's Anti-Zombie Arsenal. 

Now, you want to feel bad for Nancy, I don't.  I would even call her demise "karmic".  

Unfortunately, the other 26 people who died, not so much.  

But, um, "Founding fathers".... er... "Freedom"....


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yet, oddly, you don't see shit in Japan like we saw in Ferguson for the last month. 

Hmmmmmmmm.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



That you doubt the numbers does not change that fact that the are accurate, if on the low end.  The 100k number comes from a study done by the gov't.   

The fact that 100k (as a minimum) crimes are stopped and only 200 criminals are killed shows that the armed civilian is a good thing.  You are helping prove my point.  Other studies show 250k to 350k crimes stopped, but still on 200 criminals killed.   Now how about criminals wounded?  How many of those are there annually?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So you don't want the dangerously insane stimatized by having their name in a database, but you are all for locking them up?   lmao!    Nice.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> That you doubt the numbers does not change that fact that the are accurate, if on the low end.  The 100k number comes from a study done by the gov't.
> 
> The fact that 100k (as a minimum) crimes are stopped and only 200 criminals are killed shows that the armed civilian is a good thing.  You are helping prove my point.  Other studies show 250k to 350k crimes stopped, but still on 200 criminals killed.   Now how about criminals wounded?  How many of those are there annually?



It's a shit number, I don't care where it came from.  

We have a RIDICULOUSLY high crime rate compared to other industrialized democracies.  And this is despite locking up 2 million Americans and having another 7 million on probation or parole. 

Again- Japan only locks up 69,000 people and Germany only locks up 78,000.    Hmmmm. 

um, "Founding fathers".   "Freeeeeeeeedom."


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Someone who was that far gone, yeah.  That's well beyond a little depression you aren't seeking treatment for because you don't want to end up on someone's database.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Yes we do.  Thank you.  Our crime rates are higher across the board.  And you think removing the TOOL for a few types of crime will solve the problem??   Are you that naive?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The Lanza thing is a terrible, and rare, tragedy.

It is not a reason to remove the 2nd amendment rights of 310 million citizens.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Yeah, I guess it helps your argument if you can just say "It's a shit number, I don't care where it came from" when something contradicts what you want, huh?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The number of people locked up in prison isn't what we are discussing.  But if you want to change topics yet again, why not.

from: Wonkbook 11 facts about America 8217 s prison population - The Washington Post
"The single largest driver in the increase in the federal prison population since 1998 is longer sentences for drug offenders."

And the overwhelming majority of those are for drugs that are illegal.   But somehow the people get their hands on them.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Density schemsity.  That means absolutely nothing.  The fact is that the United States has a MUCH larger population and a much more diverse population.  You fail, yet again.    I'm really surprised you haven't pulled a muscle yet, with all the acrobats you're trying to pull here.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Go move to Japan then.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> Yes we do.  Thank you.  Our crime rates are higher across the board.  And you think removing the TOOL for a few types of crime will solve the problem??   Are you that naive?



will it solve all of the problem? Nope.  Will it solve SOME of the problem?  Yup.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



  You are dense.  Like has already been discussed, the guns would just move into the black market and the violence would grow exponentially.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



This guy is all OVER the place.  He has no idea what he's talking about, and every time he gets beat down, he tries to move the goal posts.  He must like abuse because he keeps coming back for more beat downs.  Lol.  

He also seems to have such a poor understanding of America and our history and background and our laws.  I wonder if he's really even from this country?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [Q
> 
> Density schemsity.  That means absolutely nothing.  The fact is that the United States has a MUCH larger population and a much more diverse population.  You fail, yet again.    I'm really surprised you haven't pulled a muscle yet, with all the acrobats you're trying to pull here.



Actually, they've done studies that population density increases violent behavior. 

Variables Affecting Crime - Crime in the United States 2009

We have a larger population, but not that much larger and more spread out.  

And about a third of the population has guns and shouldn't.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Well, except the experience of Australia and the United Kingdom says otherwise.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



It isn't all spread out, genius.  That depends on which city you reside in, in which part of the country.  In inner cities, the population is most certainly dense, kind of like you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> This guy is all OVER the place.  He has no idea what he's talking about, and every time he gets beat down, he tries to move the goal posts.  He must like abuse because he keeps coming back for more beat downs.  Lol.
> 
> He also seems to have such a poor understanding of America and our history and background and our laws.  I wonder if he's really even from this country?



Whinerborn withdrew his original post... So I can' answer that stupidity.  

But, yeah, the reality is, we have a society where a lot of people are getting rich off the causes of crime and no incentive to solve it. 

I mean, if you weren't peeing your panties at the thought of a criminal, you wouldn't be such a good customer for the NRA's masters.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> It isn't all spread out, genius.  That depends on which city you reside in, in which part of the country.  In inner cities, the population is most certainly dense, kind of like you.



Exactly-  in the INNER CITIES, they are more packed in. and they are more violent. 

In Japan, they are evern MORE packed in.  But since they don't give guns to average citizens who have no business having them, Japan had all of 11 gun murders in 2010.  As opposed to our 11 THOUSAND gun murders.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> The Lanza thing is a terrible, and rare, tragedy.
> 
> It is not a reason to remove the 2nd amendment rights of 310 million citizens.



no, but the other 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries are.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> The number of people locked up in prison isn't what we are discussing.  But if you want to change topics yet again, why not.
> 
> ...



Just because you are too much of an ignoramus to connect the dots... 

We have millions of guns and millions of prisoners, and yet oddly, we have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world. 

Now, wait, don't you wingnuts keep claiming we need more guns and more prisons?


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What does this even mean?  





> . . . people are getting rich off the causes of crime and no incentive to solve it.



Clarify please.  

The bottom line is that most of the murders due to gun violence are taking place in the inner cities between gangs.  Are you denying this?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I really don't have the time and inclination to education you. 

But look up "Prison-Industrial Complex", and you will be amazed how big corporations are making all this money off of prisons and why we are locking up guys for life for swiping a slice of pizza.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Clarify please.
> 
> The bottom line is that most of the murders due to gun violence are taking place in the inner cities between gangs.  Are you denying this?



http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/MILUC88.PR

In a study of prosecuted murder cases,
about 80 percent of murder victims knew their
killers and 16 percent were related to their
killers, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) announced today. BJS, a Department
of Justice agency, said more than half of
the victims had a romantic or social
relationship with their murderers.

The data are based on an analysis of
the homicide cases in which there was an
arrest and prosecution in the nation's
75 most populous counties during 1988, BJS said.

Almost half of the victims died in fights
with the offender arising from property disputes,
domestic arguments, insults or feuds. An
estimated 11 percent were involved with
the killer in illegal drug activities and
12 percent were collaborating in other
criminal activities with their killer.

More than 30 percent of the female
victims were killed by a husband compared
to 10 percent of the male victims. Ten
percent of the female victims were killed
by other women.

Most people are killed by people they know.  
With Guns.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



  You cannot explain because you have a very limited understanding of the issues, the complications involved, and the unintended consequences.  You are the one who needs schooling.  Lol!


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Number one, your data is outdated (from 1988).  Also, this mentions nothing about "gun homicides."  It speaks of homicide in general, and it certainly does nothing to detract from the fact that most gun-related homicides in America are due to gang violence.  You cannot refute that because you know it is so.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Not from an ignoramus like you.  Frankly, as boring as Whinerborn's OCD is, he at least does research.  

The problem is, I could explain it to you and you STILL wouldn't understand it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Number one, your data is outdated (from 1988).  Also, this mentions nothing about "gun homicides."  It speaks of homicide in general, and it certainly does nothing to detract from the fact that most gun-related homicides in America are due to gang violence.  You cannot refute that because you know it is so.



post a link from a non-nutter website... 

You want more up to date people are killed by their friends data, here you go. 

Study says victims know their killers

Black females murdered by men are most often killed with a gun and almost always by someone they know, according to the new Violence Policy Center (VPC) report "When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2009 Homicide Data". The annual VPC report details national and state-by-state information on female homicides involving one female murder victim and one male offender. The study uses the most recent data available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report and is released each year to coincide with Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October. According to the study:

• In 2009, 497 black females were murdered by males in single victim/single offender homicides. Black females were murdered at a rate nearly two and a half times higher than white females: 2.62 per 100,000 versus 1.06 per 100,000. Ten percent of black female victims were less than 18 years old.

• Firearms - especially handguns - were the most common weapon used by males to murder black females in 2009. For the 451 homicides where the murder weapon could be identified, 59 percent of black female victims (264 victims) were shot and killed with guns. Of these, 76 percent (201 of 264) were killed with a handgun.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You can explain what?  You have been on this thread for weeks now and have failed to explain really anything.  The things you do "try" to explain get shot down by  . . .  everyone.  Lol!  

Again, most gun-related homicides are due to gang violence.  You going to deny that?


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Yes, in the inner cities, gang members often kill females as well.  Normally, they grew up in the same "hoods," so they are at least acquaintances.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

Crime Victim Services CVS 

From 2010...

In 2010, where the victim-offender relationship was known, 37.4 percent of homicide victims were killed by an acquaintance; 22.2 percent were killed by a stranger; 18.4 percent were killed by an intimate partner (husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend); 15 percent were killed by a family member; and 5.5 percent were killed by a friend.11


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> You can explain what?  You have been on this thread for weeks now and have failed to explain really anything.  The things you do "try" to explain get shot down by  . . .  everyone.  Lol!
> 
> Again, most gun-related homicides are due to gang violence.  You going to deny that?



Uh, yeah, I just did. Several times.  

Most gun related homicides are due to acquaintances--- with guns.  

Yeah, you guys have totally shot me down, by proving Nancy Lanza was a wonderful mother and not at all a Prepper.  That's the universe you weirdos live in.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Am I?   I can connect the dots to show that the majority of the increase in prison population is due to illegal drugs, not firearms.   I can connect the dots to show that the violent crime rates in the US have been dropping since the 70s.  I can connect the dots to show that our country has more non-gun related violent crime than most other countries, so the guns are certainly not the reason for it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Crime Victim Services CVS
> 
> From 2010...
> 
> In 2010, where the victim-offender relationship was known, 37.4 percent of homicide victims were killed by an acquaintance; 22.2 percent were killed by a stranger; 18.4 percent were killed by an intimate partner (husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend); 15 percent were killed by a family member; and 5.5 percent were killed by a friend.11



That is only in the cases where the relationship was known.  That does not claim that 37.4% of homicides victims were killed by an acquaintance.  In fact, in 36% of the homicides, they have no idea of the relationship.

But the information used to create the linked page does show the downward trend in murders.


JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Of the ones they know the relationship, most are acquaintances.  In other words, they knew each other's names or whatever.  In an inner city situation, that can be most gang related incidents.

The actual numbers for your link show that, out of 12,996 murders, they did not know the relationship in 4,696 cases.  And in 1,846 of the cases they did know the relationship, it was a stranger.

So a total 6,502 of the 12,996 murders (50%), we either don't know the relationship or they were strangers.

So it is not actually "most", at all.


I have shown Nancy Lanza was not a prepper.  A prepper could go to the range more than once with what they have "stockpiled".  She couldn't, except for with her .22 rifle.

But you have been flailing around since the beginning, and have not made any worthwhile case for the total disarmament you want.  Luckily, people who think like you are in the minority and not likely to get your way in my grandchildren's lifetime.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Crime Victim Services CVS
> 
> From 2010...
> 
> In 2010, where the victim-offender relationship was known, 37.4 percent of homicide victims were killed by an acquaintance; 22.2 percent were killed by a stranger; 18.4 percent were killed by an intimate partner (husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend); 15 percent were killed by a family member; and 5.5 percent were killed by a friend.11



What is your point here?  This does not negate any of the things I've stated.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Like I said, most gang members are acquainted with one another.  They grew up in the same neighborhoods, attended the same schools, etc.  Even though there are many rival gangs, the communities are pretty tight knit.  

Now what?


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I haven't mentioned Nancy Lanza at all.  You are delusional.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 2, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



He has tried to use Nancy Lanza as proof all gun owners are nuts and that the NRA's attorney should not be allowed to practice law.   lol


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 2, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



His desperation is showing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Like I said, most gang members are acquainted with one another.  They grew up in the same neighborhoods, attended the same schools, etc.  Even though there are many rival gangs, the communities are pretty tight knit.
> 
> Now what?



And they're a bunch of Darkies, so their deaths don't count, right?  

I mean, that's what you really mean here, right?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



You haven't, but your boyfriend has.  He was totally convinced that Nancy wasn't a prepper (even though she had enough weapons to fight the Zombie Apocalypse and all her family members said she was) and that she was a wonderful mother because she was really trying with poor Adam.  Of course, her "really trying" was taking that freak to a gun range and letting him play violent video games all day.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> His desperation is showing.



No, that would be Frustration. 

I honestly get fucking frustrated that you guys are totally cool with dead kids because, heck, most of them are darkies.... er "gang members", and gosh darn, some Founding Father said you could have a gun.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Crime Victim Services CVS
> ...



Dude, don't say things like that. It is presumptive and a set up to fail. That attitude is what got us in the condition we are in already.  Were it not for Al Gore running on strict gun laws in 2000 most people I know would have still been deep into that 'It cant happen in America' dream they were in.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Sep 3, 2014)

It's funny how an NRA counsel has been cleared of a murder charge via technicality and the government dropping the whole matter, but the libtards think it proves the guy actually did it.

But just 20 years ago a serial perjurer was convicted of perjury and impeached and not only have they forgotten, the celebrate this loser and pay big bucks to hear his speeches.

With the left EVERYTHING is politics, E V E R Y D A M N E D T H I N G.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> It's funny how an NRA counsel has been cleared of a murder charge via technicality and the government dropping the whole matter, but the libtards think it proves the guy actually did it.
> 
> But just 20 years ago a serial perjurer was convicted of perjury and impeached and not only have they forgotten, the celebrate this loser and pay big bucks to hear his speeches.
> 
> With the left EVERYTHING is politics, E V E R Y D A M N E D T H I N G.



Oh, no, I think it's a matter of perspective. 

Bill Clinton lied about a BLOW JOB. A blow job that he was willingly given.  No one was hurt, no one died, I think the worse thing was a dress was ruined.  

The NRA guy murdered a woman because she didn't like him having sex with her teenage daughter. 

I think that second thing is a bit worse. 

And today, this guy is in a position to influence our gun policy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Oh look, another piece of bullshit to divert the topic.

No, that is not what she meant.  What she meant was the violence gangs, most of whom have felony records, are responsible for violence using firearms obtained illegally.  Race is not relevant.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yeah, I talked about Nancy Lanza.  I did so because you won't stay on topic.

And no, she wasn't a prepper.  Anyone who can't shoot 200 rounds at the range more than once without running out of ammo for any given firearm, is certainly no prepper.

I found a few references to the family saying she talked about being prepared.  I have no idea why that is a bad idea.  But the whole "Zombie Apocalypse" thing is just bullshit.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Of course it isn't.   

That's why every picture you guys show of gangs is people of color, but it's not about race at all. 

Hey, here's a concept.  Instead of being worried about what color they are or what groups they belong to, let's just admit that people being killed is a bad thing, and they shouldn't have easy access to guns. 

Um... Wait.  "Founding Fathers!!!!! Freeeeeeeeedom!!!!! Liberty."  

Right, whatever.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



More bullshit.  Please show where anyone has said dead kids are ok?

What I HAVE said is that your ideas concerning gun control would likely have little or no effect on violent crime.  And that is the best case scenario.  Given the number of times guns are used toe stop crimes (whether you dislike the number or not), there would likely be more crimes.  The idea that banning something removes it from the hands of the criminals is completely naive or foolish.  You pick which one.

"Golly gee, people died being shot, let's ban all the guns so that no one will ever be shot again" <<<<Lunacy


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Yeah, I talked about Nancy Lanza.  I did so because you won't stay on topic.
> 
> ...



Oh, it was bullshit, all right. but that's the kind of crazy you guys are engaged in. 

As for your pinup girl. 

Nancy Lanza stockpiling guns food as part of prepper movement says sister-in-law GlobalPost

Nancy Lanza's sister-in-law, Marsha, said the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was a gun-hoarding survivalist who had been stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse.

The Belfast Telegraph cited her sister-in-law Marsha Lanza, as telling reporters at her Illinois home that Nancy was part of the "prepper" movement that fears an economic collapse will lead to a breakdown in society.

"She prepared for the worst. Last time we visited her in person, we talked about prepping — are you ready for what could happen down the line, when the economy collapses?"

Nancy Lanza, 52, was also reported to have been stockpiling food in the large home she shared with Adam in Newtown.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



All they have to do is show a valid ID and go thru a background check.   Oh, but since most gangbangers who are old enough have felony records, I guess they can get a legal gun easily.  And your savior, gun bans, won't effect them at all.

Why do the pictures show gang members as people of color?  Because most gang members are people of color?
"The most recent figures provided by law enforcement are 46 percent Hispanic/Latino gang members, 35 percent African-American/black gang members, more than 11 percent white gang members, and 7 percent other race/ethnicity of gang members."   from: Request Rejected

89% of the gang members are people of color.

Now, that said, I could give a rat's ass what color the criminal is.  I care about protecting my family, myself and hopefully others.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> More bullshit.  Please show where anyone has said dead kids are ok?
> 
> ...



Uh, yeah, the problem is, your argument would be good if people had tried those ideas and they failed miserably. Then you'd have an argument, like you have about Communism. People tried it, it didnt' work, let's not do that. 

Except in this case- Countries HAVE banned gun.  They HAVE drastically reduced crime and murder.  It's been tried and it's worked, just fine.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Stockpiling food?  Or making sure she had enough for when bad times or natural disasters hit?   I'm still waiting to see anything about a Zombie Apocalypse as you have repeated a few dozen times.

And if she planned to survive with the ammo she had, she was planning for a pretty peaceful Armeggedon.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> All they have to do is show a valid ID and go thru a background check.   Oh, but since most gangbangers who are old enough have felony records, I guess they can get a legal gun easily.  And your savior, gun bans, won't effect them at all.



Most gangbangers get guns from straw buyers.  For instance, 24% of the guns recovered from gangbangers in Chicago all came from one store in River Forest.  The problem with "background checks" is that your boy Dolhut has managed to so get the laws watered down they are meaningless.  

So this store in River Forest can sell to a known gun trafficker, and that person can do "private sales" to a gangbanger.  




WinterBorn said:


> [
> Now, that said, I could give a rat's ass what color the criminal is.  I care about protecting my family, myself and hopefully others.



a gun in the house is 43 time more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. This isn't about protecting families, it's about you guys wanted a false sense you control your own fate.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And those countries has seen a steady rise in their violent crime rates.  we have not.

Plus, as I have said over and over and over, the US has more violent crime across the board.  There are more non-gun related murders per capita here than in those other countries.  There are more non-gun related rapes, and non-gun related assaults.  So, obviously, the guns are not the problem.  Try actually addressing the PROBLEM.

Also, the legally owned firearms stop crimes more often than they are used to kill.  75% of murders are committed by someone who cannot legally own a gun.  Your bans would not effect them at all.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The whole "more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy" claim has been debunked repeatedly.  I did so thoroughly earlier in this thread.

Sounds like the gun store in Chicago needs to be shut down.  Pull the FFL and it will stop it completely.  And prosecute the gun trafficker.  That will give him a record and put him out of business.

The background check database works fine if the info is submitted.  Anyone with a  felony record or who has beeen convicted of domestic violence is turned down.  Anyone who has been submitted to the database by a mental health professional cannot buy a gun.  But the mental health professional neglect to do so.   And when there is any doubt, as there often is, the sale is denied.  I have seen this happen numerous times.  I had one refused several years ago.  And I watched a guy get denied even though he is a cop and the range master for the city police shooting range.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Most gang members are African Americans.  Sorry if you cannot handle facts.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I think you need to renew your psychiatric medication prescription, seriously.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You're a crazy nut.  This thread is NOT about the Lanza family, you tard.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Does it really matter if she was a prepper or not?  Off topic, but plenty of preppers have never killed anyone.  Probably more postal workers have killed people than preppers, but this guy you're talking with is living with paranoia and fear, and you cannot reason with the insane.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



My boyfriend?    You are crazy.  Seek help.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Lol, good luck talking sense to a liar like JoeB


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> And those countries has seen a steady rise in their violent crime rates.  we have not.



No, they haven't.  But I'm sure  you read that on a gun nutter website right after they discussed what a good mom Nancy Lanza was. 



WinterBorn said:


> [
> Plus, as I have said over and over and over, the US has more violent crime across the board.  There are more non-gun related murders per capita here than in those other countries.  There are more non-gun related rapes, and non-gun related assaults.  So, obviously, the guns are not the problem.  Try actually addressing the PROBLEM.



Guns are PART of the problem, and probably the easiest to control.  Getting rid of racism and economic inequality would be harder, but I'd love to work on those, too.  




WinterBorn said:


> [
> Also, the legally owned firearms stop crimes more often than they are used to kill.  75% of murders are committed by someone who cannot legally own a gun.  Your bans would not effect them at all.



Well, no, because those 75% get their from someone who COULD legally get a gun.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Does it really matter if she was a prepper or not?  Off topic, but plenty of preppers have never killed anyone.  Probably more postal workers have killed people than preppers, but this guy you're talking with is living with paranoia and fear, and you cannot reason with the insane.



Well, yeah, it does matter, because she created an environment where a damaged kid like Adam could get guns, be desensitized to use them and be anti-social enough to want to mow down a bunch of preschoolers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Most gang members are African Americans.  Sorry if you cannot handle facts.



Request Rejected

Um, no, the largest ethnic group that joins gangs are hispanic... Blacks only make up 37% of gang members...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 3, 2014)

Ethnic demographics of gang-membership?

Depends upon which part of the country and which city we're talking about, I suspect.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

In 1999, Hispanics accounted for 47% of all U.S. gang members, African Americans for 34%, whites for 13%, and Asians for 6%.[26]

Law enforcement agencies reported in 2011 that gangs affiliated with ethnicity and non-traditional gangs have expanded in recent years.[27]

Gangs in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The tragedy in Sandy Hook has little or no bearing on the topic.   What say we return to the topic, shall we?

You remember it?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I know you would like to not talk about Sandy Hook, but the NRA should have taken out a billboard. 

"The Sandy Hook Massacre- An NRA Production- Directed by Robert "Lady-Killer" Dowlet."


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I get that you are obsessed by that one particular event.  But since the topic of the thread is Dowlut and the fact that his conviction was overturned and he is able to practice law.   Feel free to start a thread about Sandy Hook.  I will join in.  But using an event that is as small a part of the gun deaths as Sandy Hook is shows your view is skewed.  The entire event amounts to less than 1% of the murders that year.  But that is where you want your focus?  It is not typical of most murders, but that is where you want to focus?   It is laughable.  It has been nothing but a diversion on your part.   Just another example of your dishonesty in the discussion.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I get that you are obsessed by that one particular event.  But since the topic of the thread is Dowlut and the fact that his conviction was overturned and he is able to practice law.   Feel free to start a thread about Sandy Hook.  I will join in.  But using an event that is as small a part of the gun deaths as Sandy Hook is shows your view is skewed.  The entire event amounts to less than 1% of the murders that year.  But that is where you want your focus?  It is not typical of most murders, but that is where you want to focus?   It is laughable.  It has been nothing but a diversion on your part.   Just another example of your dishonesty in the discussion.



The problem is that it's not that one event. 

It's Columbine
and VA Tech
And Aurora
and Tuscon
and Fort Hood -TWICE!!!

And most sane people are of the attitude, No More! 

But not mr. Dowlut, whose big life accomplishment is he murdered a woman who objected to him fucking her underaged daughter, and got away with it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I get that you are obsessed by that one particular event.  But since the topic of the thread is Dowlut and the fact that his conviction was overturned and he is able to practice law.   Feel free to start a thread about Sandy Hook.  I will join in.  But using an event that is as small a part of the gun deaths as Sandy Hook is shows your view is skewed.  The entire event amounts to less than 1% of the murders that year.  But that is where you want your focus?  It is not typical of most murders, but that is where you want to focus?   It is laughable.  It has been nothing but a diversion on your part.   Just another example of your dishonesty in the discussion.
> ...



If you total those events and other mass shootings by strangers you still get less than 1% of the murders for any given year.  Are you upset because these are the ones that kill white people?  Do the others matter less because they are darkies and in the ghetto?

Once again, there are at least 100k crimes stopped by armed citizens.  There are around 11k gun related murders a year and that number is steadily dropping.  The violent crime rates have been dropping steadily for decades, despite what you may want to claim.

Your claims of what sane people believe is very suspect.  I doubt you would recognize sane if it bit you.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I get that you are obsessed by that one particular event.  But since the topic of the thread is Dowlut and the fact that his conviction was overturned and he is able to practice law.   Feel free to start a thread about Sandy Hook.  I will join in.  But using an event that is as small a part of the gun deaths as Sandy Hook is shows your view is skewed.  The entire event amounts to less than 1% of the murders that year.  But that is where you want your focus?  It is not typical of most murders, but that is where you want to focus?   It is laughable.  It has been nothing but a diversion on your part.   Just another example of your dishonesty in the discussion.
> ...


lets cut the  bullshit

your only reason for engaging in your faux indignation over that man's alleged crimes is that you are a hard core gun  owner-hater and you want to bash the NRA.  

Columbine-GUN FREE ZONE thanks to the anti gun assholes
VA TECH-gun FREE ZONE thanks to anti gun assholes
AUROA-gun free zone thanks to anti gun assholles
and YES FORT HOOD-gun free zone with lots of disarmed victims


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 3, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Sorry, I didn't mean to bring that up, but he kept talking about, so I figured I'd comment.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> lets cut the  bullshit
> 
> your only reason for engaging in your faux indignation over that man's alleged crimes is that you are a hard core gun  owner-hater and you want to bash the NRA.
> ...



Let's cut the bullshit. 

The old argument is that if there was just a concerned CCA permit holder, these tragedies would have been prevented... except that never happens. 

Fort Hood was a fucking military base.  Lots of good guys with guns.  But by the time they figured out what Major Jihad was up to. he had already run up his body count. 

Columbine had armed security guards, and VA Tech had a whole fucking police force.  

And, yes, I am pretty indignant that a guy who got away with murder is now helping thousands of murderers get away with their crimes.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> If you total those events and other mass shootings by strangers you still get less than 1% of the murders for any given year.  Are you upset because these are the ones that kill white people?  Do the others matter less because they are darkies and in the ghetto?
> 
> ...



No, there really aren't crimes stopped by armed citizens...  

Cops aren't equipped like they are driving through downtown Fallujah because they feel soooo much safer you and your NRA buddies are out there preventing crimes like a bunch of wannabe Batman-types.   

They dress that way because shit, they never know what they are going to encounter with one of you nuts.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Any NRA members shooting cops?  This idea that the cops are equipped like marines because of the NRA members and law abiding citizens is absolute bullshit.

And yes, there really are crimes stopped by citizens with guns.  You can stamp your feet and pretend differently, but it does not change the facts.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



More lies and bullshit.   First of all, there are very few firearms outside the armory on a military base.  If you were the firearm expert you claimed, you would know this.  So there were damn few good guys with guns.

Second, the Columbine shooting had a lower body count because the armed security guard engaged the shooters and prevented them from killing more people.   FACT CHECK Columbine High s armed guard saved student lives - National Republican Examiner.com   and    NARRATIVE TIME LINE

He is not helping people get away with crimes.  He is helping people maintain their 2nd Amendment rights and have the ability to defend themselves, which you want to take away.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> More lies and bullshit.   First of all, there are very few firearms outside the armory on a military base.  If you were the firearm expert you claimed, you would know this.  So there were damn few good guys with guns.
> 
> Second, the Columbine shooting had a lower body count because the armed security guard engaged the shooters and prevented them from killing more people.   FACT CHECK Columbine High s armed guard saved student lives - National Republican Examiner.com   and    NARRATIVE TIME LINE
> 
> He is not helping people get away with crimes.  He is helping people maintain their 2nd Amendment rights and have the ability to defend themselves, which you want to take away.



There would have been an even lower body count at Columbine if those two couldn't get guns to start with.  

But someone who could legally buy guys got guns for them. 

And, no, the "ability to defend one's self" is meaningless when a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the home.   

You might as well buy a rabid pit bull for home defense.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> Any NRA members shooting cops?  This idea that the cops are equipped like marines because of the NRA members and law abiding citizens is absolute bullshit.
> 
> And yes, there really are crimes stopped by citizens with guns.  You can stamp your feet and pretend differently, but it does not change the facts.



I've never known it to happen once.  

I know three people killed with guns someone brought into their house for "protection". (one murder, two suicides.)


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



One of those was a terminally ill person who wanted to be spared the worst.  

The fact that you have never known someone personally who did does not mean much.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > More lies and bullshit.   First of all, there are very few firearms outside the armory on a military base.  If you were the firearm expert you claimed, you would know this.  So there were damn few good guys with guns.
> ...



What about hunting firearms?  You know, bolt action rifles and the like?  Will you ban those too?

If they had been unable to get guns they could still have killed plenty.  More in fact, if they made bombs.

Look what McVeigh was able to do without firing a shot.

Oh, and quoting the same bogus claim from a debunked 1986 study doesn't make it any more accurate.


----------



## Wildman (Sep 4, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> ...


========================


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> In 1999, Hispanics accounted for 47% of all U.S. gang members, African Americans for 34%, whites for 13%, and Asians for 6%.[26]
> 
> Law enforcement agencies reported in 2011 that gangs affiliated with ethnicity and non-traditional gangs have expanded in recent years.[27]
> 
> Gangs in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



This is from 1999, almost 16 years ago!  Got anything more recent?


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Good point.  

I've always thought that if guns were ever banned, then simple bombs would become the next weapon of choice.  From what I hear, they are fairly cheap for material, easy to put together, and capable of killing a LOT of people at one time.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> What about hunting firearms?  You know, bolt action rifles and the like?  Will you ban those too?
> 
> ...



And who filled McVeigh's head with those ideas, eh?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I'm afraid I don't know who "filled his head with those ideas".   Are you going to suggest it was Robert Dowlut who filled Mcveigh's head with ideas of bombing a federal building?  I hold Mcveigh responsible for his actions.

I know he was angry about the murder of the woman at Ruby Ridge.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


McVieghs Father was a union member democrat McViegh grew up being taught by his father.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Oh, so it was a union man who filled his head.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


The little acorn doesn't fall far from the democratic tree
Let's also not forget his father was a democrat.
Didn't your faher have some kind of influence on how you think?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I notice you didn't answer my question about hunting rifles and shotguns.   Will those be banned in your utopian fantasy?  Of course, many of us hunt with handguns as well.  I suppose a very large single action revolver won't make it thru your bans, will it?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



He did, to a point.  Mine also taught me to think for myself and to question things.  He and I argued about the Vietnam War.  I thought it should never have happened, and he thought we should support it.  Many years later he told me I was right in that argument.  So he also taught me to admit when I am wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Your's taught you but McViegh father also taught him differently.the democrat way of doing things.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 4, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


McVeigh's anti-government tyranny, pro 2nd amendment gun rights, and anti-tax stances sound like those of typical republicans, not democrats.  And you don't show any info about his father's views.  I think you've just made it all up.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

Wow. 

Man, you gun nuts don't want to own any of your own, do you? 

Embrace Lanza and McVeigh.  They did what you fantasize about and would never have the balls to do.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow.
> 
> Man, you gun nuts don't want to own any of your own, do you?
> 
> Embrace Lanza and McVeigh.  They did what you fantasize about and would never have the balls to do.



What?   I'm sorry, but you'll haveto do better than that at connecting McVeigh to the NRA or anyone else I am remotely connected with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.
> ...



McVeigh was an NRA member.   Sorry, guy.  

When you guys talk shit about overthrowing the government, what do you think you are really talking about? 

Do you think the evil Tyrannical Government is going to quiver at the sight of you "No, this really isn't an Assault Rifle" ?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



There are over 4 million NRA members.  Neither I nor the NRA are responsible for the actions of the lunatic fringe.

But I see that you still haven't answered my question.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



McVeigh acted out of a sense of revenge for the federal actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco.   He was not acting as an NRA member.  He was, in his mind, serving up revenge for murders by the federal gov't.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> There are over 4 million NRA members.  Neither I nor the NRA are responsible for the actions of the lunatic fringe.
> 
> But I see that you still haven't answered my question.



Why is he a "lunatic fringe"? 

Frankly, the only difference I see between McVeigh and Dowlut and LaPeirre is that McVeigh actually acted and just didn't talk smack.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> McVeigh acted out of a sense of revenge for the federal actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco.   He was not acting as an NRA member.  He was, in his mind, serving up revenge for murders by the federal gov't.



Yup, because the world is a much worse place because the Federal Government Murked some Nazis and Child molesting cultists. 

No, no, wait. That's a "Public Service".


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The Waco debacle could have been avoided, but they wanted to make an example out of them.  The Ruby Ridge shootings were murder, pure and simple.  

That you can so be so cavalier about such murders shows your true colors.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



If you can't see the difference then you need help.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

Still avoiding my question, I see.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yeah, I don't sit up worrying that we have a few less fucking Nazis in the country.  

The Waco Debacle could have been avoided.  Kiddy-fucker Koresh could have complied with the lawfully applied federal warrants to search his compound and arrest him. 

But he knows what they do to Pedophiles in Prison, so he decided to take his whole sick-ass cult down with him.  

Which I'm good with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I told you the difference.  

The NRA talks smack.  

McVeigh walked the walk. 

What do you you really think a revolution agianst the government is going to look like?  Just asking. Because if you insist the reason why we need Mama Nancy armed like the Zombies are coming because the government might impose "tyranny" on us, what do you think that's going to look like, exactly.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Still not answering the question?     Hmmmm.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 4, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> Here's part of an article recently published by Mother Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




so who the fuck cares now?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



They shot a 14 year old boy in the back as he retreated.  And the Weavers were not Nazis.  They were fundamentalist christians who thought the apocalypse was imminent.  But that didn't harm anyone.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 5, 2014)

BREAKING NEWS::: CAIN KILLS ABEL


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 5, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Um, yeah, other than they were racists and stockpiling weapons.  

So Nancy wasn't a Prepper and the Weavers weren't Nazis.   Next you'll be telling me Koresh was an okay guy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 5, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Whatever you think you know about the Weavers, for a 14 year old boyto be shot in the back and for a mother to be murdered by a sniper as she held a baby in her arms is unacceptable.  Absolutely unacceptable.

That you blame others in this thread of racism and of being unconcerned about the gun deaths, and then say the things you have said is equally unacceptable.   But not surprising.


Now, the reason Timothy McVeigh entered this conversation was by way of showing that your demented plans will change nothing if we do not change the fundamental causes of the violent behaviors.  But since you support violent behavior, as long as it's against the right people, I can understand why that is beyond your comprehension.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 5, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Whatever you think you know about the Weavers, for a 14 year old boyto be shot in the back and for a mother to be murdered by a sniper as she held a baby in her arms is unacceptable.  Absolutely unacceptable.
> 
> That you blame others in this thread of racism and of being unconcerned about the gun deaths, and then say the things you have said is equally unacceptable.   But not surprising.



Seriously, guy, fuck the Weavers.  They were Nazis.  Tapping that 14 year old just deprived the prison-industrial complex of a Swastika-tattooed permanent resident.  THe only mistake they made was after the shootout, they didn't go in and double tap Randy and his pals. 



WinterBorn said:


> [
> Now, the reason Timothy McVeigh entered this conversation was by way of showing that your demented plans will change nothing if we do not change the fundamental causes of the violent behaviors.  But since you support violent behavior, as long as it's against the right people, I can understand why that is beyond your comprehension.



No, you see, here's the problem. You see, after McVeigh did what he did, we put a whole bunch of restrictions in place on who could buy fertilizer and started tracking it.  Because - get this- you didn't have a National Fertilizer Association fighting for the right of crazy shits to make bombs out of their product.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 5, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Do you think it is impossible to build a bomb now?    lmao


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Seriously, guy, fuck the Weavers.  They were Nazis.  Tapping that 14 year old just deprived the prison-industrial complex of a Swastika-tattooed permanent resident.  THe only mistake they made was after the shootout, they didn't go in and double tap Randy and his pals.
> 
> No, you see, here's the problem. You see, after McVeigh did what he did, we put a whole bunch of restrictions in place on who could buy fertilizer and started tracking it.  Because - get this- you didn't have a National Fertilizer Association fighting for the right of crazy shits to make bombs out of their product.



Wow!  Disgusting and stupid.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Do you think it is impossible to build a bomb now?    lmao



Impossible? No.  Harder? Absolutely. 

same thing after 9/11.  After they flew those planes into buildings, we put in a bunch of restrictions.  We put steel doors on cockpits.  We put air marshals on planes. we put better scanners in the airports.  We replaced the minimum wage rent-a-cops with professional TSA agents. You see, that's what you do when you have a tragedy.  You find out what went wrong, you learn from it, you make corrections. 

Unless of course, the Tragedy involves guns. Then you get assholes like Dowlut and LaPeirre coming out talking about "Freedom" and "Founding Fathers" and saying absolutely batshit crazy shit about how we need to have the teachers packing heat.  Because we don't dare deprive Crazy Nancy of her Anti-Zombie arsenal.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The problem is your knee-jerk reactions do not do anything for the actual reasons for the violence.  You want to remove a tool, but ignore the problems that should be addressed and ignore the failings of the systems in place.

You also are willing to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens in your bid for governmental control of more and more of our lives.  The fact that you cannot stay on one topic shows both your ignorance and your inability to win the debate.  That you can only stay with a topic if you make off-the-wall connections and deny facts (simply because you don't like them) shows the lunacy of your side.

And the fact that you insist that one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of a government, and not the people, shows both ignorance and a willingness to toss away rights in a quest for some utopia that will never exist.

That you think only your own questions need to be answered shows your personality and leaves you lacking.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> The problem is your knee-jerk reactions do not do anything for the actual reasons for the violence.  You want to remove a tool, but ignore the problems that should be addressed and ignore the failings of the systems in place.
> 
> You also are willing to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens in your bid for governmental control of more and more of our lives.



Again, your argument would hold validity if no one had every successfully implmented gun control. 

But every other industrialized nation has, every other industrialized nation reduced their murder rates after doing so. 



WinterBorn said:


> [
> The fact that you cannot stay on one topic shows both your ignorance and your inability to win the debate.  That you can only stay with a topic if you make off-the-wall connections and deny facts (simply because you don't like them) shows the lunacy of your side.



yes, yes, let it all out.... Poor baby.  



WinterBorn said:


> [
> And the fact that you insist that one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of a government, and not the people, shows both ignorance and a willingness to toss away rights in a quest for some utopia that will never exist.



Right. Except that England and Australia have tossed away these "rights", they are just as free as we are and they have a fraction of our murder rate.  

But, but, but Founding Fathers.   LIke I give a fuck about what they thought.  If Thomas Jefferson let Sally Hemming pack heat, then I'd take him seriously.  




WinterBorn said:


> [
> That you think only your own questions need to be answered shows your personality and leaves you lacking.



I think that when people speculate about me, it means they usually don't have an argument. 

I pride myself on how many people I've butthurt so bad they complain about me in their sig-lines.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Your quote in my sig-line is not a complaint.  It is mocking you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2014)

No, guy, it's you whining i didn't accept your horseshit about kind employers.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 6, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> The fact that you cannot stay on one topic shows both your ignorance and your inability to win the debate.  That you can only stay with a topic if you make off-the-wall connections and deny facts (simply because you don't like them) shows the lunacy of your side.



yes, yes, let it all out.... Poor baby. 
[/QUOTE]

Poor baby?   lmao    I am the one on the winning side.  You are the one whining like a baby about things done by the tiny minority.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Poor baby?   lmao    I am the one on the winning side.  You are the one whining like a baby about things done by the tiny minority.



Well, you are coming off as a little whiny...


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> No, guy, it's you whining i didn't accept your horseshit about kind employers.



Right, because of your bullshit story about your injury and being mistreated.  Not out of any sense of what is right or wrong.  That would have required acknowledging that threatening someone's children was wrong.

You have lied, whined, ignored facts and changed topics throughout this entire thread.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Because I point out that you reject any facts that don't comply with your view?   lol    Hardly a whine.  Simply a statement.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...





WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Guy, you've been whining for 29 pages now, mostly that I don't respect your magic "right" to own something that can kill your neighbors.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > No, guy, it's you whining i didn't accept your horseshit about kind employers.
> ...



I have a very strong sense of right and wrong. 

It's wrong to fire an employee who has worked hard for you for six years because they got injured and ran up some medical bills. 

It's wrong for the 1% to continue to destroy the middle class.  

It's only class warfare when they fight back. 

Hey, don't look now, guy, rich people are spending a lot of money trying to impose gun control.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




And, no matter how bad it is, if it didn't happen to you, you don't care.  I understand.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> And, no matter how bad it is, if it didn't happen to you, you don't care.  I understand.



No, I don't think you understand. And if I explain it to you again, you still won't understand.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I respect the US Constitution.  I have many things that can kill my neighbors.  They probably have many things that can kill me.  I expect them to behave in a civil manner.  But I don't expect someone's only defense to be a call to 911 and hope the cops get there in time.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



It was your statement that "Those things didn't happen to me, so they don't count and I don't care about them".  I understand that quite clearly.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 7, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> I respect the US Constitution.  I have many things that can kill my neighbors.  They probably have many things that can kill me.  I expect them to behave in a civil manner.  But I don't expect someone's only defense to be a call to 911 and hope the cops get there in time.



I respect the constitution as well.  

I just don't think that it was written on a stone tablet inscribed by God. 

But since a gun in your home is 43 time more likely to kill someone in the home than a bad guy, that's probably not the best defense. 


"waaaaaaahhhhhh, I don't want Kellerman to be true."


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



Since you insist on repeating a stat that has been debunked, I can see that facts don't have much relevance to you.

Ok.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 7, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Well, "Debunking it' would be conducting the same study and coming up with a different result. 

It would not be screaming about how we shouldn't count suicides and since most of those folks were Darkies, they shouldn't count, either.  Which is all anti-Kellerman arguments really consist of. 

But the most telling truth of Kellerman.  After his study came out, the National Rampage Association went to Congress and got all CDC studies of gun deaths and injuries cut.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



What was telling about the Kellerman study was that his criteria for uses in stopping crime was so narrow that it failed miserably as showing the actual facts about gun ownership.

And yes, I will continue to say that the suicides should not be included.  There is absolutely no way you can claim that removing one tool will have an effect on the suicides.  They obviously wanted to die.  They would find a way.  Just like the japanese, living in an almost gun free society, manage to commit suicide at a much higher rate than we do inthe US.

As for your "darkies" nonsense, no one has said that the people of color don't matter.  That is another lie you are telling.  But the hypocrisy in your claims there and your celebration of the murder of a 14 year old boy is amusing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 7, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> What was telling about the Kellerman study was that his criteria for uses in stopping crime was so narrow that it failed miserably as showing the actual facts about gun ownership.
> 
> ...



No, I'm celebrating the shooting of a 14 year old Nazi who thought it was a good idea to shoot at federal agents. 

Keep in mind, the kid had a gun and he shot at these guys.  As opposed to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown who were unarmed.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



He shot at intruders on the family land who had never identified themselves.  If I were still living in the boonies and saw my dog shot, I would certainly return fire.  And I am far from being a Nazi or whatever.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 7, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> He shot at intruders on the family land who had never identified themselves.  If I were still living in the boonies and saw my dog shot, I would certainly return fire.  And I am far from being a Nazi or whatever.



Right. Because the Weaver Family had no idea that there was a warrant out for Randy's arrest and he and all his Nazi buddies were just hanging around with their guns. 

Seriously, the sad thing is they didn't double-tap the survivors.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 7, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Wait, you'd shoot someone after they shot your dog? 

Please turn your guns into your local sheriff.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What exactly did the 14 year old boy do to warrant execution?  Fire at armed intruders?

How about Vicki Weaver?  What was it she did to warrant execution?  

Here is how at least one person saw what happened:   
"Something to Consider
1. Charge against Weaver is Bull Shit.
2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting.
3. Vicki has no charges against her.
4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was
barking at. Some guys in camys shot his dog.
Started shooting at him. Killed his son."


I am amused that you celebrate the murder of citizens simply because they are not politically correct.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



When I lived in a rural area, I would indeed.  I would shoot armed intruder/trespassers who killed my dogs, yes.

As for the Sheriff, he is a nice guy.   I have discussed this sort of thing with him.  As far as he is concerned, someone trespassing in the dark and shooting dogs should be considered very dangerous.  I would be justified in defending my home.

I guess you're ok with FBI snipers shooting a mother holding her 10 month old baby in her arms?  Especially since none of the people in the compound could be considered an imminent threat to anyone?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 7, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> What exactly did the 14 year old boy do to warrant execution?  Fire at armed intruders?
> 
> ...









Okay, VIcki was in a house with Randy and Randy's Nazi buddy, Kevin Harris. But, yeah, they were just law-abiding constitutional gun owners.  Really.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So being in a house with someone you THINK is a Nazi is now a capital offense?   lmao   Thank god you are not in charge and hold an opinion that is in the extreme minority.

Even people high up in the FBI thought the charges against Randy Weaver were bullshit.  They railroaded him because their snitch had been burned and they wanted a new one.  The Weavers were survivalists, but I haven't seen anything suggesting they were Nazis.  Randy Weaver had a friend who had some friends in the Aryan nation.  But Weaver was never connected to any such group.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 7, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> So being in a house with someone you THINK is a Nazi is now a capital offense?   lmao   Thank god you are not in charge and hold an opinion that is in the extreme minority.



Uh, yeah.  The reason why these Nazi nutters move out to remote areas like Ruby Ridge is because no one wants to live next door to them. 

Oh, yeah and the capital offense was shooting and killing a Federal Marshal Francis Degan. 



WinterBorn said:


> [
> Even people high up in the FBI thought the charges against Randy Weaver were bullshit.  They railroaded him because their snitch had been burned and they wanted a new one.  The Weavers were survivalists, but I haven't seen anything suggesting they were Nazis.  Randy Weaver had a friend who had some friends in the Aryan nation.  But Weaver was never connected to any such group.



so Nancy wasn't a prepper and Randy Weaver wasn't a Nazi.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No, Weaver was not a Nazi.

I am thrilled that you even answered.  But the 14 year old child did not kill Marshall Degan.

You'd have done better to look for the source of the quote I posted.  It was written by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson.  He knew that the shooters from the FBI should have been hung out to dry.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

It is funny that you are so quick to convict the Weavers based on little actual information, but you defend Michael Brown when there is ample evidence he committed crimes and used physical force.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

Didn't you mean to say Robert Dowlut instead of Michael Brown?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> Didn't you mean to say Robert Dowlut instead of Michael Brown?



No, I meant Michael Brown.  Earlier JoeB used Brown as an example of how unfair things are.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

Something I find most amusing is JoeB's ability to justify things in his own mind.

In this thread he seems angry that Dowlut is allowed to walk free and practice law, and it is this way because the police officers walked all over his rights.  But Joey still wants the man to pay.  Thinks he is too dangerous to be on the loose.  The only crime he committed happened 50 years ago.  But JoeB is mad.


At the same time, he thinks everyone should just forget about Bill Ayers.  He said "Who cares? I mean, you guys care about what some old hippy did 40 years ago, I'm living in the here and now and so are most people."

So if it is a homegrown terrorist, you live in the here & now.  But if it is a member of the NRA, you care about what happened 50 years ago and are living in the 60s?


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

The "only crime?  Please read the link!  He was a one-man crime spree!

And for Ayers, cons will never leave him alone, will they?  Pretty good parallel with those two, but I don't think Ayers put a bullet in anybody's back.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> The "only crime?  Please read the link!  He was a one-man crime spree!
> 
> And for Ayers, cons will never leave him alone, will they?  Pretty good parallel with those two, but I don't think Ayers put a bullet in anybody's back.


No, Ayers just built bombs that killed indiscriminately.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > The "only crime?  Please read the link!  He was a one-man crime spree!
> ...


Except his bombs didn't kill people.  So they were discriminating.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...



By his choices or by accident?

And actually, if memory serves, at least 3 people died while building pipe bombs.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Let's stop and note that ayers wasn't charged with killing anyone. (Dowlut wAs)

Ayers wasn't present when those bombs went off. 
He blew up
Statues and empty buildings.

Crimes, but not capital ones.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 7, 2014)

Do the allegations against the attorney somehow mean his legal arguments are less valid? that seems to be the insinuation of the anti gun extremists who think what happened 50 years ago somehow undermine the NRA or arguments he advances on their behalf


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

No, I haven't seen that insinuation.  The insinuation I've
seen made is that the NRA encourages gun sales
to criminals by lobbying against background checks and supporting the gun-show loophole, and what better man to support that loophole than a man who got away with murder on a loophole.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> No, I haven't seen that insinuation.  The insinuation I've
> seen made is that the NRA encourages gun sales
> to criminals by lobbying against background checks and supporting the gun-show loophole, and what better man to support that loophole than a man who got away with murder on a loophole.



The idea that there is a "gun show loophole" is laughable.   It has nothing to do with gun shows at all.  It is simply that private citizens are allowed to sell their privately owned property, and that they have no access to the background check system.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 7, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> No, I haven't seen that insinuation.  The insinuation I've
> seen made is that the NRA encourages gun sales
> to criminals by lobbying against background checks and supporting the gun-show loophole, and what better man to support that loophole than a man who got away with murder on a loophole.




when someone claims there is a gun show loophole, I write them off as being either liars or so ignorant that their opinions on gun issues cannot be taken seriously ever again


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

Yet there is access.  The dealers who sell guns at the shows are performing checks instantly in most cases, so the infrastructure is there.

Additionally the NRA (possibly Dowlut) has lobbied against
Taking away guns for individuals with protective orders against them.  They partially won that fight, succeeding in saving the guns of those who have temporary orders against them.  The winners?  The gun industry!  The losers?  The 1
out of 5 women who are murdered by their partner while protected by a temporary order.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 7, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> Yet there is access.  The dealers who sell guns at the shows are performing checks instantly in most cases, so the infrastructure is there.
> 
> Additionally the NRA (possibly Dowlut) has lobbied against
> Taking away guns for individuals with protective orders against them.  They partially won that fight, succeeding in saving the guns of those who have temporary orders against them.  The winners?  The gun industry!  The losers?  The 1
> out of 5 women who are murdered by their partner while protected by a temporary order.



The infrastructure is there for instant background checks, that is true.

I have given my info numerous times to gun dealers.  But, at the very least they will need my SSN, full name, and address.   A dealer has a reason to stay within the law.  An ordinary joe selling his deer rifle doesn't.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

Y


turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > No, I haven't seen that insinuation.  The insinuation I've
> ...



Perhaps you don't want to take my arguments seriously because you lack the ability to successfully challenge them.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > Yet there is access.  The dealers who sell guns at the shows are performing checks instantly in most cases, so the infrastructure is there.
> ...


You are excluding moral reasons for selling a gun to a possible criminal or provably deranged individual.  Conscience should be another reason for wanting to stay within the law.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 7, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> Y
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> ...



well that is really funny but you don't know what a loophole is

the law at gun shows is not different than at any other place within a given state

so when you start with a LIE you are not to be taken seriously

and your whining about what an employee of the NRA did 15 years before the NRA hired him is pathetic


----------



## turtledude (Sep 7, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> Yet there is access.  The dealers who sell guns at the shows are performing checks instantly in most cases, so the infrastructure is there.
> 
> Additionally the NRA (possibly Dowlut) has lobbied against
> Taking away guns for individuals with protective orders against them.  They partially won that fight, succeeding in saving the guns of those who have temporary orders against them.  The winners?  The gun industry!  The losers?  The 1
> out of 5 women who are murdered by their partner while protected by a temporary order.




sounds like a good reason for women to be armed

only a cretin thinks that someone willing to kill his ex is going to obey a gun law

logic

IF THE THOUGHT OF A CAPITAL MURDER CONVICTION DOES NOT DETER YOU

the thought of buying a gun illegally does not either


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > Y
> ...



On May 27, 1999, Wayne LaPierre testified before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime, on behalf of theNational Rifle Association, saying that "We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone," he said. "That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mentally ill are in the system. This isn't new, or a change of position, or a concession. I've been on record on this point consistently, from our national meeting in Denver, to paid national ads and position papers, to news interviews and press appearances."[23]

I guess Wayne LPisrre doesn't know what a loophole
Is now, though he did in 1999.  His masters must have made
Him forget.   Note, he said, "every sale, at every gun show."  I believe that  would include every private sale.

You realize Wayne is only doing the gun manufacturers bidding by changing his mind.  Do you also reverse your position on order?


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

Y


turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > Yet there is access.  The dealers who sell guns at the shows are performing checks instantly in most cases, so the infrastructure is there.
> ...


You may legally legally purchase a gun while under a temporary restraining order, thanks to the NRA, and possibly Robert Dowlut.  When it's a woman dear to you, you might reconsider who you consider complicit.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 7, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...



uh no I was pointing out you are clueless about what the laws are and what a loophole is

the law as to private citizens selling guns in INTRA STATE commerce is the same (at least in my state) whether I am at a gun show, the Knights of Columbus Hall, my gun club or my back porch

and one of the biggest problems many of us have with the NRA is that it compromises with asshole gun banners


----------



## turtledude (Sep 7, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> Y
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> ...




constitutional rights should remain intact until they are deprived by due process of law where the target has had an opportunity  to be heard, produce evidence and be represented by counsel

why do you hate "innocent until proven guilty"


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > Y
> ...


You inadvertently made "target" a double entendre.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 7, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


Y


turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


Yet it is illegal to sell a gun from your porch to
individuals who are known to be:


Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.
Fugitives from justice
Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
Non-U.S. citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the United States or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the United States
Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition
The "loophole" makes it conveniently impossible to know this.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> No, Weaver was not a Nazi.
> 
> ...



I couldn't give a fuck what some pencil pusher at the FBI said. 

Point was, Weaver's Nazi Buddy Harris DID shoot the Marshal.  

Seriously fuck these Nazis and Preppers and other freaks.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> It is funny that you are so quick to convict the Weavers based on little actual information, but you defend Michael Brown when there is ample evidence he committed crimes and used physical force.



I guess I consider shooting a federal marshal a more serious crime than "Grand Theft Cigar".


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > It is funny that you are so quick to convict the Weavers based on little actual information, but you defend Michael Brown when there is ample evidence he committed crimes and used physical force.
> ...



So do I.   But neither Vicki Weaver nor her 14 year old son shot a federal marshall.   In fact, the only thing Vicki Weaver had in her hand when she was executed by an FBI sniper was her 10 month old baby.  But then, she had been in a room with someone you THINK was a Nazi, so you claim that makes her execution a public service.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So you support someone threatening someone's children, but want people who are not politically correct to be executed?   Nice.

Sorry, but unless someone breaks the law they are entitled to the same freedoms you enjoy, despite your most fervent wish that the gov't remove everyone who isn't like you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



They were in a room with NAZIS with GUNS, who had just murdered a federal marshal. 

Gee, I don't know, you are a Federal Marshal, people are shooting at you, you see something moving in the trees and fire to defend yourself after one of your teammates has just been killed, I'm just not seeing that as out of line. 

Similarly, Vicky got hit because she was in the line of fire behind Nazi Randy and a bullet that missed him.  

These were people who turned their home into an armed fort and went to fortified positions whenever anyone approached the house.  

Like I said.  Public Service Shooting.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> So you support someone threatening someone's children, but want people who are not politically correct to be executed?   Nice.
> 
> Sorry, but unless someone breaks the law they are entitled to the same freedoms you enjoy, despite your most fervent wish that the gov't remove everyone who isn't like you.



They did break the law. 

They shot and killed a Federal Marshal.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I have no doubt you don't care what Coulson said.  It goes against what you want so you will try to dismiss it.

But Danny Coulson was a Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI, hardly just a pencil pusher.  

He also created and commanded the FBI Hostage Rescue team.  So he might know a bit more about tactical situations than either of us.  So his opinion does carry weight.  At least with rational people.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> I have no doubt you don't care what Coulson said.  It goes against what you want so you will try to dismiss it.
> 
> ...



This was the same Hostage rescue team that let Waco drag on for two months before they all burned themselves anyway.  

No, seriously, fuck these Nazis.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Execution without a trial and guilty by association.  Nice to see you are equally disdainful of other parts of the US Constitution.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Execution without a trial and guilty by association.  Nice to see you are equally disdainful of other parts of the US Constitution.



I think htey kind of gave up their rights when they went to war with the Federal Government. 

Randy could have ended this AT ANY TIME.  He could have walked down the road with his hands up and said, "Okay, I give up."


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Yeah, you have said that.  You haven't said how you think you know the Weavers were nazis, but that is ok.  I understand that you only accept facts that support your argument and reject any that call it into question.  Just more of the "It's a shit number, I don't care where it came from.", huh?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Sure, and gone to prison for a crime he didn't commit.  And he was treated so fairly, wasn't he?


----------



## Esmeralda (Sep 8, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


It's the same thing as the Catholic church defending pedophiles.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> s


Yet it is illegal to sell a gun from your porch to
individuals who are known to be:


Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.
Fugitives from justice
Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
Non-U.S. citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the United States or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the United States
Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition
The "loophole" makes it conveniently impossible to know this.[/QUOTE]

and yet when the brady bill was passed, and Clinton claimed it stopped HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS from buying (from dealers) 

a) only 12 were prosecuted for lying on the form

b) crime did not go down

so why do you push a law that won't decrease crime?


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Moron alert--that is not true-nothing like it


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Hey SFBs, Kevin Harris's killing of the USM Deputy was RULED JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY A FEDERAL JUDGE


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Ruled JUSTIFIABLE because DUM Degan shot sammy weaver in the back


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 8, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > s
> ...



and yet when the brady bill was passed, and Clinton claimed it stopped HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS from buying (from dealers)

a) only 12 were prosecuted for lying on the form

b) crime did not go down

so why do you push a law that won't decrease crime?[/QUOTE]Why not discuss the results of increased background checks in Colorado?  I think I know.

In the first year, 72 felons were denied purchasing a gun.  Say that was applied in all 50 states.  Pretty good results, huh?  Crime does go down.   Easily. 

 And not a worthy soul was denied his rights.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Yeah, you have said that.  You haven't said how you think you know the Weavers were nazis, but that is ok.  I understand that you only accept facts that support your argument and reject any that call it into question.  Just more of the "It's a shit number, I don't care where it came from.", huh?



You mean opposed to you claiming Nancy Lanza wasn't a prepper even though all of her relatives said she was?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Sammy shot Degan first, after Degan shot their dog. 

Um, not really. But you keep telling yourself that...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Uh, no, not really.  He was acquitted by a jury because Sammy shot the fatal shot.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 8, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> All this happened almost 50 years ago but it's been more or less unknown to the general public. Despite the NRA's high profile, they haven't talked about the history of one of their most important staff. Moreover, they're not talking now. They won't discuss Robert Dowlut's history and he won't either. That's kind of strange. The NRA tells us guns are good so why aren't they talking?



So, this is just slander and libel?

Pretty much all you Communists have to offer the nation, isn't it - Herr Goebbels?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Sammy shot Degan first, after Degan shot their dog.
> 
> Um, not really. But you keep telling yourself that...



Comrade Stalin, are you *sure* you want to start lying about Ruby Ridge again?

I *will* humiliate you, just as I did last time.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 8, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > All this happened almost 50 years ago but it's been more or less unknown to the general public. Despite the NRA's high profile, they haven't talked about the history of one of their most important staff. Moreover, they're not talking now. They won't discuss Robert Dowlut's history and he won't either. That's kind of strange. The NRA tells us guns are good so why aren't they talking?
> ...


Dowlut could certainly sue for libel if any of this was untrue...

But don't look for that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Sammy fired the fatal shot??   Really?  I have read the various versions of the story of what happened, but never one that had Sammy killing Marshal Degan.  Every account I have read has Harris firing the shot that killed Degan.

And no, he was not acquitted because Sammy fired the fatal shot.  There may be some questions concerning what happened on the mountain that night, but the court records are very clear.  Kevin Harris was acquitted on the grounds of self defense.  But it does not surprise me that you would lie to try and win your point.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, you have said that.  You haven't said how you think you know the Weavers were nazis, but that is ok.  I understand that you only accept facts that support your argument and reject any that call it into question.  Just more of the "It's a shit number, I don't care where it came from.", huh?
> ...



I saw no evidence that she was a prepper.  I don't know one single active shooter who has so few rounds per gun.  And most of them are not preppers.  Being a prepper means being prepared for societal collapse.  If she had that small amount of ammo (for the centerfire weapons) she was not prepared.

So I have an explanation for my denial.  You simply say you don't like the number and stamp your feet like it matters.  You have no rational reason why you will not accept the numbers.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Continuing to lie does not change the facts.

I challenge you to produce one link showing valid information that Sammy shot Degan.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 8, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> Dowlut could certainly sue for libel if any of this were untrue...
> 
> But don't look for that.



The demagogue party needs to be sued for libel. Top demagogues and their media engage in some of the most outrageous slander and libel - depending on the idea that public figures cannot or will not sue them.

Just like the National Enquirer of the 1970's - the Demagogue National Convention (DNC) thinks it is above the law, just as it is immune from ethics or common decency. I have advocated before that every demagogue candidate, every demagogue spokes-puke. every lying cocksucker at the NY Times and NBC be sued every time they slander and libel the opposition. Tie the entire demagogue party up in court for the next decade.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...


Why not discuss the results of increased background checks in Colorado?  I think I know.

In the first year, 72 felons were denied purchasing a gun.  Say that was applied in all 50 states.  Pretty good results, huh?  Crime does go down.   Easily.

And not a worthy soul was denied his rights.[/QUOTE]


if those people were not incarcerated who knows if they were actually unable to get a gun

so you are talking out of your ass

the issue was-did crime go down as a result

if those 72 people were people who had decades old marijuana or draft evasion convictions-who cares because most people like them are not going to commit violent crime

CAN YOU PROVE THAT CRIME WENT DOWN AS A RESULT

NONE OF THE STUDIES OF THE BRADY ACT could prove so


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Sammy fired the fatal shot??   Really?  I have read the various versions of the story of what happened, but never one that had Sammy killing Marshal Degan.  Every account I have read has Harris firing the shot that killed Degan.
> 
> And no, he was not acquitted because Sammy fired the fatal shot.  There may be some questions concerning what happened on the mountain that night, but the court records are very clear.  Kevin Harris was acquitted on the grounds of self defense.  But it does not surprise me that you would lie to try and win your point.



I have read the official reports and spoke to LEOs familiar with the story

the USMS started the shooting by shooting the weaver dog because it was going to alert the weavers.  Sammy fired a wild shot in the vicinity of some of the USMS agents including the one that killed their dog.  Randy called sammy to come to him and Sammy started running towards his home.  Degan shot sammy in the back and then Kevin harris killed Degan.  It was a righteous shooting of Degan.  Degan should have been tried for murder for shooting Sammy in the back.  Lon Horiuchi also should have been tried for murder along with the superior (Potts) who gave the illegal order to shoot when there was no threat

Horiiuchi claimed that Harris and Weaver were pointing rifles at an FBI helicopter so he shot and wounded them and then killed Vicky Weaver trying to shoot a running Kevin Harris.

The helicopter was more than 5 miles away at the time


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Sammy fired the fatal shot??   Really?  I have read the various versions of the story of what happened, but never one that had Sammy killing Marshal Degan.  Every account I have read has Harris firing the shot that killed Degan.
> ...



That is an accurate assessment.    Pity that JoeB. has no qualms about lying.  It makes the discussion less productive.

The changes in the rules of engagement were completely unjustified.  The FBI was spoiling for a fight.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > It is funny that you are so quick to convict the Weavers based on little actual information, but you defend Michael Brown when there is ample evidence he committed crimes and used physical force.
> ...



there was no crime..Degan engaged in activities that justified harris killing him-ie shooting a boy in the back

A federal judge said so

sucks to be a defender of a fascist action by the government but that appears to be your lot

you support law enforcement shooting kids in the back when they are right wing racial separatists


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



RW was Green Beret.  He was a separatist.  The Feds figured he'd be a good guy to help them infiltrate WHITE SUPREMACISTS.  Weaver said no-leave me alone.  He did his service honorably and he didn't want to get involved.  SO he was set up with an entrapment to force him to help.  when he wouldn't the Feds decided to fuck him over.  I worked for the federal government for almost 25 years.  99% of the agents I worked with were honest hardworking patriots-Democrats and Conservatives.  My bosses-both parties, were for the most part very good people.  One, a democrat, was appointed a federal judge.  I told my congressman friend and my college buddy who had the ear of Orrin Hatch, to support this man even though it was right before the 96 election.

and none of us had any use for what was done with the weavers.  its was an abomination.  and it wasn't Bush or Clinton.  Randy weaver and his surviving family members got over 3 million dollars that us tax payers had to pay.
Potts, Horiuchi and others should have paid.  Potts gave the illegal orders-he should be in prison,  Horiuchi should have known the orders were illegal. the only guy to pay for his crimes is Degan-he is dead


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



uh you are lying.  sammy was the first killed.  Sammy shot in the general vicinity of the dog killer

Harris shot Degan

you are so FOS its funny


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

1. On about August 24, 1992, the fourth day of the siege on the Weaver family, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson wrote a memo:

OPR 004477
Something to Consider
1. Charge against Weaver is Bull Shit.
2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting.
3. Vicki has no charges against her.
4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was
barking at. Some guys in camys shot his dog.
Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the

shooting [of Degan]. He [Weaver] is in pretty strong legal position."[10][55]


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 8, 2014)

turtledude said:


> 1. On about August 24, 1992, the fourth day of the siege on the Weaver family, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson wrote a memo:
> 
> OPR 004477
> Something to Consider
> ...




Yeah, I posted this memo too.   Joey's comment was something about not caring what an FBI pencil pusher thought.  You see, facts don't really matter to Joey.  He has this idea of utopia and is absolutely sure if we could ban guns, kill the 1%ers, and give everyone a union job, we would be returned to Eden.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > 1. On about August 24, 1992, the fourth day of the siege on the Weaver family, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson wrote a memo:
> ...




People like him make things like the Killing fields or the Stalinist purges happen


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 8, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




if those people were not incarcerated who knows if they were actually unable to get a gun

so you are talking out of your ass

the issue was-did crime go down as a result

if those 72 people were people who had decades old marijuana or draft evasion convictions-who cares because most people like them are not going to commit violent crime

CAN YOU PROVE THAT CRIME WENT DOWN AS A RESULT

NONE OF THE STUDIES OF THE BRADY ACT could prove so[/QUOTE]
Too early to tell - the stats aren't out yet, but there are numbers on how many people were rejected:

The most common reasons for denial varied: 1,412 were due to an arrest or conviction of assault; 381 because the applicant had a restraining order against them; 166 for arrest or conviction of sexual assault; and 41 were because of a homicide conviction, and arrests or convictions for other crimes. There were a total of 6,198 private sale background checks from July through December, with 122 of those denied during that period.

Though it does defy common sense that denying guns r


turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




if those people were not incarcerated who knows if they were actually unable to get a gun

so you are talking out of your ass

the issue was-did crime go down as a result

if those 72 people were people who had decades old marijuana or draft evasion convictions-who cares because most people like them are not going to commit violent crime

CAN YOU PROVE THAT CRIME WENT DOWN AS A RESULT

NONE OF THE STUDIES OF THE BRADY ACT could prove so[/QUOTE]

Too soon to tell.  It was only in effect the last 6 months of 2013.  But marijuana busts don't seem to be in play.  Reasons for denial are this:

 The most common reasons for denial varied: 1,412 were due to an arrest or conviction of assault; 381 because the applicant had a restraining order against them; 166 for arrest or conviction of sexual assault; and 41 were because of a homicide conviction, and arrests or convictions for other crimes. There were a total of 6,198 private sale background checks from July through December, with 122 of those denied during that period.

But if defies common sense that denying these people
Gun purchases did not reduce crime


----------



## turtledude (Sep 8, 2014)

we don't have to prove gun purchases decreased crime.  Yo have to prove that restrictions decrease crime

You cannot.  we should have a free society and there should be a severe and strict burden on the control freaks who want to rape our liberty.  

want to restrict our freedom-you better prove beyond doubt that your solutions do some good


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

Found this:

Why expanding background checks would in fact reduce gun crime - The Washington Post

Missouri’s repeal of its permit-to-purchase licensing and private handgun sale background checks law in August 2007 provides an example. Immediately following the repeal of this law, the share of guns recovered by Missouri police agencies that had an unusually short time interval between retail sale and crime — which is indicative of trafficking — more than doubled. The share of crime guns that had originally been sold by Missouri gun dealers rose sharply. [5]

There is also evidence that repeal of this law increased gun violence. Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that when the mean from first three years of data following the repeal of the law are compared with the mean from the prior nine years, the rate of homicides with guns increased 25 percent in Missouri while nationally there was a 10 percent decline.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Sammy shot Degan first, after Degan shot their dog.
> ...



Uh, yeah, guy, because nothing makes you sound more rational than talking about the Nazis on Ruby Ridge.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You mean like your irrational lying about what happened on Ruby Ridge and in court after?   lol


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> 1. On about August 24, 1992, the fourth day of the siege on the Weaver family, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson wrote a memo:
> 
> OPR 004477
> Something to Consider
> ...



I think the problem with this logic is that you ignore the concept of "accessory" laws.  

Weaver got a pass because people felt bad for him, not because he was innocent.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



guy, nothing makes you gun nuts sound sillier than trying to make martyrs out of these Crazy Nazis in Idaho. 

Maybe you need to throw in a side of "Koresh wasn't a kiddy-diddler".


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I am not making them a martyr.  I am simply calling you on your lies.  What you have said in this discussion of the entire Ruby Ridge incident has been nothing but lies.  If they are so bad, why lie about them?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> 
> RW was Green Beret.  He was a separatist.  The Feds figured he'd be a good guy to help them infiltrate WHITE SUPREMACISTS.  Weaver said no-leave me alone.  He did his service honorably and he didn't want to get involved.  SO he was set up with an entrapment to force him to help.  when he wouldn't the Feds decided to fuck him over.  I worked for the federal government for almost 25 years.  99% of the agents I worked with were honest hardworking patriots-Democrats and Conservatives.  My bosses-both parties, were for the most part very good people.  One, a democrat, was appointed a federal judge.  I told my congressman friend and my college buddy who had the ear of Orrin Hatch, to support this man even though it was right before the 96 election.
> 
> ...



Naw, Weaver wasn't a Nazi.  He just lived with the rest of the Nazis and went to their meetings and churches.  

Seriously, the only thing the FBI did wrong was not double tap these guys after the shootout.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> 
> I have read the official reports and spoke to LEOs familiar with the story
> 
> ...



Sammy shot first. 

So let me get this straight.  

Officer Wilson in Ferguson was perfectly justified in shooting and UNARMED Michael Brown because Brown stole some cigars and was "rushing" him. 

But Marshal Degan wasn't justified in shooting at a bunch of Nazi fucks who were shooting at him? 

gun nuts. You guys are soooooo funny.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Let me get this straight, first you claim Sammy shot the marshall.  Then you claim that Harris was not prosecuted because Sammy shot the marshal.   And now you are wailing about Degan shooting at people shooting at him?

The first shots fired were by the feds, not the civilians.   And Degan was not shot by Sammy.   Sammy was shot in the back while retreating,

Considering the crime Randy Weaver was charged with, the amount of force used here was a travesty of justice.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

Come on, Joey, tell us again how the 14 year old kid (who was shot in the back) was the one who shot the marshal?

Tell us again how Harris got off because Sammy shot the marshal?

Tell us again where you have any info that Weaver was a nazi?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Come on, Joey, tell us again how the 14 year old kid (who was shot in the back) was the one who shot the marshal?
> 
> Tell us again how Harris got off because Sammy shot the marshal?
> 
> Tell us again where you have any info that Weaver was a nazi?



You mean you are saying an injured man couldn't get a shot off during a firefight? 

The Nazis shot first.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, Joey, tell us again how the 14 year old kid (who was shot in the back) was the one who shot the marshal?
> ...



I am saying that Sammy did not shoot the marshal.  But you have said he did and that harris got of because Sammy killed the marshal.  Both of those are lies.  Sammy did not shoot the marshal and Harris was acquitted on grounds of self-defense.

But keep lying.  It makes your arguments look weaker and funnier.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



He might have. That's called "reasonable doubt".  Again, we are talking about Idaho here, a state where they keep so racially pure that there's a lot of inbreeding.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



LMAO!!     Oh, now it's "He might have"?  lol

No, he didn't.  Harris shot the marshal.  Degan was killed by a bullet from Harris' gun, not Sammy's.

You really have no problem playing it fast & loose with facts, do you?


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


 JoeB hopes other gun owners are treated like the Weavers by the ATF I suspect.  Calling them Nazis is his way of justifying government imposed murder on peaceful citizens who merely wanted to be left alone.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> Found this:
> 
> Why expanding background checks would in fact reduce gun crime - The Washington Post
> 
> ...


that study has been debunked since all it did was suggest a correlation rather than causation

Its sad that you are in favor of government murder of citizens but its mindsets of people like you that require freedom loving americans to be well armed.  God help us if someone like you gets into a position of power


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > 1. On about August 24, 1992, the fourth day of the siege on the Weaver family, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson wrote a memo:
> ...


you are lying again.  tell me how many felonies you have prosecuted or criminal federal appeals you have handled.  the entire weaver case is one of the real nadirs of the US law enforcement community and is a disgrace to all of us who worked for the federal government.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Come on, Joey, tell us again how the 14 year old kid (who was shot in the back) was the one who shot the marshal?
> 
> Tell us again how Harris got off because Sammy shot the marshal?
> 
> Tell us again where you have any info that Weaver was a nazi?


I think JOe has wet dreams about shooting someone like sammy weaver in the back


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Of course he does.  And when he is caught lying about what happened, he tries this "he might have" nonsense and tries for reasonable doubt.  lol    Then ends it with insults aimed at the state.  No admission that he lied, he just keeps rolling along.  And he wonders why he is not believed.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > Found this:
> ...


Debunked?...by wingnuts?


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...




LOL that is the typical idiocy of those who side with criminals against honest citizens

why do you work to make the criminals working conditions safer?


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


We wish to make guns harder for criminals to get.  It is you who accommodate them.  Criminals can purchase guns openly in gun shows in 33 states because of the NRA, and numbskulls like you.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...



you don't care if you disarm 1000000 honest people if it delays one criminal a couple hours from getting a gun
criminals violate federal felony laws anytime they touch a gun.   assholes like you want criminals to face UNARMED victims. Low wattage twits like you think people who rob and rape are going to obey gun laws that are only directed at honest people

mental midgets like you think that the people least likely to abuse others with guns need more laws directed at them


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


You actually accommodate criminals and justly it with myth.  Nobody has disarmed 1,000,000 honest people with background checks, or anything else.  Wake up from your paranoid delusion, nutter!

As if that was possible.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...



how are you going to enforce universal background checks

and why are criminals going to conduct them

you dullards never think things through


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



It's funny how the libs are all concerned with restricting the rights of honest gun owners here in the States, but aren't at all concerned with our southern border where drug dealers and illegals come through and MURDER American citizens!!!  They are certainly cherry pickers with their concerns about "crime" are concerned, aren't they?


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> It's funny how the libs are all concerned with restricting the rights of honest gun owners here in the States, but aren't at all concerned with our southern border where drug dealers and illegals come through and MURDER American citizens!!!  They are certainly cherry pickers with their concerns about "crime" are concerned, aren't they?



that is because most serious gun owners don't vote for Liberals and other assholes and the liberals want to punish gun owners for voting against socialists, communists, collectivists, obamatards, Hillary whores etc


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny how the libs are all concerned with restricting the rights of honest gun owners here in the States, but aren't at all concerned with our southern border where drug dealers and illegals come through and MURDER American citizens!!!  They are certainly cherry pickers with their concerns about "crime" are concerned, aren't they?
> ...



I can't think of another reason.  They must know that their background checks are not going to stop a person who is intent upon committing mass murder, or your average gang banger.  

Then, they'll think they're so smart and say "oh, so you're against laws against murder too?"  And I'll say, "no, you bozos, committing murder is NOT a constitutional RIGHT!"


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 9, 2014)

"In Honor of the THOUSANDS of American Citizens Killed Each Year by Illegal Aliens"

Victims of Illegal Aliens Memorial


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> I think JOe has wet dreams about shooting someone like sammy weaver in the back



JoeB Stalin has wet dreams about marching his neighbors into forced labor camps where they will toil and suffer until they die.

IOW, he's a typical democrat.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


First, logic fails when you say background check laws will fail because criminals will avoid them.  They don't avoid the checks.  I've already shown you that.  They get caught.  They don't get their guns.

Secondly, saying a law is a dumb law just because people will break it, says the same thing about the futility of all law - and we know that is not the case- laws do act successfully to deter crime.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...



Some laws do deter crime.  But the illegal drug trade in this country also shows the futility of a ban.  And for the space, a gun will bring a much higher price, when smuggled in.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


Though not an intention of the background check laws, the prices of "hot" guns will go up, as criminals cannot buy guns from honest people, which will further reduce common gun crimes. 

I thought conservatives wanted to reduce "urban" crime.  Come on guys!


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> Though not an intention of the background check laws, the prices of "hot" guns will go up, as criminals cannot buy guns from honest people, which will further reduce common gun crimes.
> 
> I thought conservatives wanted to reduce "urban" crime.  Come on guys!



Hey SFB, criminals don't buy guns from honest people as it is


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> First, logic fails when you say background check laws will fail because criminals will avoid them.  They don't avoid the checks.  I've already shown you that.  They get caught.  They don't get their guns.
> 
> Secondly, saying a law is a dumb law just because people will break it, says the same thing about the futility of all law - and we know that is not the case- laws do act successfully to deter crime.



sorry SFB-they don't get prosecuted.  12 people were prosecuted of the "hundreds of thousands" clinton said were stopped from buying a gun from a licensed dealer

and how do you enforce UBGCs?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> We wish to make guns harder for criminals to get.  It is you who accommodate them.  Criminals can purchase guns openly in gun shows in 33 states because of the NRA, and numbskulls like you.



Lying again?

You must be a democrat.

While there is no requirement for private individuals to conduct a background check before selling their personal property to another private party - a clearly absurd concept, it is already illegal to KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to a convicted felon.

Hey, I get it - if you tell the truth, your argument falls apart, so it's George W. Bush's fault that you lie.....


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > We wish to make guns harder for criminals to get.  It is you who accommodate them.  Criminals can purchase guns openly in gun shows in 33 states because of the NRA, and numbskulls like you.
> ...




the SFB anti gun morons ignore human nature, reality and common sense

they think people who commit major league felonies and traffic in narcotics will either obey or be deterred to the point of not committing additional crimes by a gun law

they also believe that people who have never committed a crime with their weapons, should be required to obey additional laws to stop them from doing stuff they have never done

at first you can attribute such stupidity to ignorance or a lack of IQ

but after the facts have been rammed up their asses dozes of times and they still keep crapping back the same idiocy, you have to assume they are dishonest mendacious assholes whose real motivations have NOTHING to do with crime


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > Though not an intention of the background check laws, the prices of "hot" guns will go up, as criminals cannot buy guns from honest people, which will further reduce common gun crimes.
> ...



Yes, they do.  Winterborn has already admitted he'll sell a gun, no questions asked.  I supposed you do too, from your back porch.

.

"I have given my info numerous times to gun dealers. But, at the very least they will need my SSN, full name, and address. A dealer has a reason to stay within the law. An ordinary joe selling his deer rifle doesn't."  Winterborn


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...



You asked for proof that background checks reduced crime and I gave it.  You aren"t gonna believe it, so I don't think you are an honest debater. 

Laws like this will make it harder, not easier for a criminal to ply his trade.

How will background checks impede you, if you are already obeying the law?  How do they stop your well-armed militia?  If these laws seriously affect your current activities, maybe your current activities need some revision.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...



That is an admission that using the background check system gives someone enough info to own your ID.  I think you are being quite inventive to suggest it means I would sell my guns, much less that I would sell them to someone I do not know.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



why could none of the studies designed to support the brady bill find any evidence that those checks decreased crime?

and lets suppose some guy with a clean record who lives out in the country sells his pistol to his neighbor and fails to drive 45 minutes into town to do the BGC?  you want him to go to jail I suspect.  you want him to be branded a felon so he cannot ever own a gun again.  that is the scheme behind the private background check drive


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




does anyone trust the government to let them have a complete list of every gun every citizen owns?


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


Violent crime did go down after the Brady bill. 

There are politicians and gun control proponents who claim the Brady Act was a factor in producing the visible drop in homicide and violent crime of the last several years (for a display of homicide rates, see chart). For example Bill Clinton said: "I would close the gun show loophole, because the Brady bill has worked superbly. It’s given us a 35 percent drop in gun crime and a 31 year low in the homicide rate, and kept a half a million people — felons, fugitives, stalkers, from getting handguns." (April 12, 2000,  NBC’s Tom Brokaw discusses gun control with the president) And Sarah Brady, Chairwoman of Handgun Control Inc., claimed: "The new FBI report demonstrates that the significant drop in the homicide rate last year is clearly linked to new efforts at gun tracing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the Brady Law, and state anti-gun trafficking initiatives such as Virginia's one-gun-a-month law." (Oct. 18, 1999 U.S. Newswire). The first part of Sarah Brady's statement is true. "Gun tracing," which is directed at criminal activity, has proved to be very effective (see enforcing the laws we already have). However it is extremely doubtful that the "Brady Law" was "clearly linked" to a "significant drop in the homicide rate last year [1998]."
For example, California, which has had at least a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases since 1965 (see California's Handgun Waiting Period Law, 1952-1990: Did it Work?, by Clayton Cramer), experienced a greater decrease in its homicide rate (17.5%), in 1998, than the rest of the nation (7.4%). (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1997 and 1998)

Yes, selling a gun without a background check should be a crime with some punishment affixed.  It doesn't look like any of you would comply, otherwise.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Impenitent said:
> ...


I would expect you to come up with a list of guns sold, just like any other dealer.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> why could none of the studies designed to support the brady bill find any evidence that those checks decreased crime?
> 
> and lets suppose some guy with a clean record who lives out in the country sells his pistol to his neighbor and fails to drive 45 minutes into town to do the BGC?  you want him to go to jail I suspect.  you want him to be branded a felon so he cannot ever own a gun again.  that is the scheme behind the private background check drive


Violent crime did go down after the Brady bill.

There are politicians and gun control proponents who claim the Brady Act was a factor in producing the visible drop in homicide and violent crime of the last several years (for a display of homicide rates, see chart). For example Bill Clinton said: "I would close the gun show loophole, because the Brady bill has worked superbly. It’s given us a 35 percent drop in gun crime and a 31 year low in the homicide rate, and kept a half a million people — felons, fugitives, stalkers, from getting handguns." (April 12, 2000,  NBC’s Tom Brokaw discusses gun control with the president) And Sarah Brady, Chairwoman of Handgun Control Inc., claimed: "The new FBI report demonstrates that the significant drop in the homicide rate last year is clearly linked to new efforts at gun tracing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the Brady Law, and state anti-gun trafficking initiatives such as Virginia's one-gun-a-month law." (Oct. 18, 1999 U.S. Newswire). The first part of Sarah Brady's statement is true. "Gun tracing," which is directed at criminal activity, has proved to be very effective (see enforcing the laws we already have). However it is extremely doubtful that the "Brady Law" was "clearly linked" to a "significant drop in the homicide rate last year [1998]."
For example, California, which has had at least a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases since 1965 (see California's Handgun Waiting Period Law, 1952-1990: Did it Work?, by Clayton Cramer), experienced a greater decrease in its homicide rate (17.5%), in 1998, than the rest of the nation (7.4%). (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1997 and 1998)

Yes, selling a gun without a background check should be a crime with some punishment affixed.  It doesn't look like any of you would comply, otherwise.[/QUOTE]

yeah clinton claimed that and morons weren't smart enough to understand two things

denying felons access to legal weapons does not decrease crime if they then get weapons someplace else because NO ONE PROSECUTED THEM

2) only 12 people were prosecuted of the 100,000s Clinton brayed about

3) how does gun tracing decrease homicides-that was a bogus report-read it and get back to me,  we all read it in my office.  

4) you confuse correlation with causation

5) clinton was lying-his own DOJ report could find that the only crime that might have been decreased by the brady bill was suicides among men 55-60 in age and that was due to the waiting period not the checks.

how are you going to enforce the private Background checks without full registration

I am glad you are on record for wanting to ruin lives of people who may not do a stupid check. I would hope if their lives are ruined, they would ruin the lives of those who pushed the law on them


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




but private sellers have no duty to keep records of what they own or what they sell

are you suggesting that you also want complete gun registration-a claim that anti gunners deny is behind the UBGC movement but which I claim is their real goal?


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Impenitent said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


No, not complete registration, but the way I understand the Colorado law, the private seller must relinquish the gun to a dealer, while the dealer runs the background check.  If it checks out ok, the deal is then done.  But if the buyer doesn't pass, the dealer retains the gun until the original seller passes the background check, then he can have the gun back.  If neither can pass the background check, the gun is turned over to law enforcement. 

 Lots of records there.  Lots of bad guys not getting guns.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> JoeB hopes other gun owners are treated like the Weavers by the ATF I suspect.  Calling them Nazis is his way of justifying government imposed murder on peaceful citizens who merely wanted to be left alone.



Then they should have followed the law if they wanted to be left alone.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> you are lying again.  tell me how many felonies you have prosecuted or criminal federal appeals you have handled.  the entire weaver case is one of the real nadirs of the US law enforcement community and is a disgrace to all of us who worked for the federal government.



Unless you're like the copy boy, I don't imagine a nut like you would last very long in any federal agency.  

The only problem iwth the Weaver Case is they let these Nazi fucks live.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Hey douche bag, want to put up some serious jack

I can prove what I say-put up or shut up


You are too stupid to even understand what a Nazi is

but have you put that sign on your door yet

JOE B IS AFRAID OF FIREARMS AND MY HOUSE IS UNARMED
PLEASE COME IN AND FUCK ME HARD AND STEAL ALL I HAVE SINCE
I AM TOO COWARDLY TO FIGHT BACK


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 9, 2014)

turtledude said:


> Hey douche bag, want to put up some serious jack
> 
> I can prove what I say-put up or shut up
> 
> ...



I think anyone who would encounter me not expecting me to fight back is in for a really nasty surprise. 

I just don't fight back with guns.  Nor do I think we should give guns to crazy people, Nazis, Preppers, or anyone who thinks he needs a gun to fight the 'Government". 

And, no, guy, I doubt you'd have ever passed a Federal psych exam.   I mean, you can't go a whole page without coming off like a murderous nut.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



There is plenty of speculation that Randy Weaver did not break the law.  Higher ups in the FBI are among those who think this way.  That is why he was not prosecuted.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I am sorry that you can't get the federal gov't to kill the people you dislike or that are not politically correct enough.

But the feds killed two people, without justification.   That is plenty.   Your insistence that they are Nazis is still without any evidence.  But feel free to give us a link to any you find.  Until you do I will assume this is just another lie from you.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Hey douche bag, want to put up some serious jack
> ...



you are setting a record for ignorant assumptions about a topic you are clueless about.  

you need to put that sign up

and buy a big jar of KY jelly

it won't hurt so bad

if you are afraid of guns you are going to get OWNED by those who have them and use them

you are going to be some  scum bag's own private peg boy


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




cowards who fluff the government want men with guns to do their dirty work.  they want big brother to kill people who don't agree with their fellation of big brother.  its a cowardly thing


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Hey douche bag, want to put up some serious jack
> ...



I'm sure everyone is suitably scared.  You are so tough.  But then, if you don't use guns to defend yourself, I guess you just hope and pray that who ever attacks you doesn't use guns either?  I mean, that is your entire defensive strategy, isn't it?   "Oh I hope they don't have a gun"?   And the hope that teh cops show up pretty fast, after you call 911.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 9, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




I think if some scumbag breaks into his home he will be lying naked in his bed with his legs spread saying "Please be gentle" and then he will show the mope where all his money is


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



Whatever, guy.  The fact they hung with Aryan Nation assholes is proof enough.  The ATF had this guy's number.  

But just remember. 
Nancy wasn't a prepper.
Weaver wasn't a Nazi
David Koresh wasn't a kiddie diddler, 
and Dowlut is an outstanding member of the bar despite the fact he murdered a woman. 

That's some pretty fucked up shit right there.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> 
> you are setting a record for ignorant assumptions about a topic you are clueless about.
> 
> ...



Never needed a gun to defend myself.  Ever. In 52 years.  Not even when I was in the Army. 

But you seem pretty obsessed about being violated in a homosexual way.  Ugh.  Really, seeing your sexual fantasies is not a pretty thing, Dude.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> I'm sure everyone is suitably scared.  You are so tough.  But then, if you don't use guns to defend yourself, I guess you just hope and pray that who ever attacks you doesn't use guns either?  I mean, that is your entire defensive strategy, isn't it?   "Oh I hope they don't have a gun"?   And the hope that teh cops show up pretty fast, after you call 911.



Your the scared little guys who live in mortal terror.  I really don't.  

again, gun in the house, 43 times more likely to kill bad guys.  Known a lot of people who've had to bury loved ones who died from a gun they bought for "protection".


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> I am sorry that you can't get the federal gov't to kill the people you dislike or that are not politically correct enough.
> 
> But the feds killed two people, without justification.   That is plenty.   Your insistence that they are Nazis is still without any evidence.  But feel free to give us a link to any you find.  Until you do I will assume this is just another lie from you.



They had justification.  They shot and killed federal agents.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



They murdered a 14 year old boy who had committed no crime.  Then they murdered a mother holding a 10 month old baby in her arms, when there was no imminent threat to anyone.   The entire Ruby Ridge debacle was unnecessary and more should have been prosecuted.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yeah, tell us again how you want the feds to execute people and how you cheer the murder of women and children, then go on about how fucked up something is.

1) If Nancy was a prepper, she sucked at it.
2) I'm still waiting for any evidence that Randy Weaver was a nazi.
3) No one here has defended Koresh.  
4) Dowlut faced his punishment and was subsequently released due to police bungling on an amazing scale.  And the prosecutors elected not to go after him again.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Yeah, we know.  You've known 3, one of whom was dying of a terminal disease and should have been allowed to end his own suffering and not be kept in pain for someone else's selfish reasons.

You finally got it right.     "again, gun in the house, 43 times more likely to kill bad guys."     I have no problem with a gun in the house being used to kill bad guys.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No crime, except shooting at federal agents.  

I'll agree, it was a debacle.  They never should have tried to reason with these nuts.  They never should have tried to reason with the nuts at Waco, either.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yawn, I guess i'm just getting tired of typing the same thing and watch you go into denial. 

Sorry, guns in the house are 43 times more likely to kill people in the house than a bad guy. 

And, no, the guy shouldn't have killed himself. It was actually kind of inconsiderate to his wife who found him.  He also could have killed someone when his "trial run" sent a bullet flying across the parking lot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Yeah, tell us again how you want the feds to execute people and how you cheer the murder of women and children, then go on about how fucked up something is.
> 
> ...



1) 7 guns, 1600 rounds of ammunition, 7 swords, a shitload of other military paraphenalia.  Someone needed to tell her Zombies aren't real.

2)
The Randy Weaver Ruby Ridge Trial An Account

_Vicki and Randy were slipping further and further away from mainstream life. They adopted a conspiratorial world view that linked Jews to the Illuminati, Masons, and the Trilateral Commission. Randy began sleeping in a flak jacket with a loaded gun under his pillow. In an interview with a reporter for a Waterloo paper, they said they planned to build a house in the woods with a defensible 300-yard "kill zone" around its perimeter. They became increasingly isolated, as their radical beliefs caused them to lose former friends. In 1983, the couple left Iowa for good, with Randy driving a moving van and Vicki following behind in a pickup truck, heading west to meet the end time in the mountains.

Within a year of their arrival, the Weavers had made both friends and enemies. Randy befriended a number of locals who shared his racist and religious views, but those same views, as well as property disputes and his habit of constantly firing off bullets into the surrounding hillside set some other neighbors against him. One upset neighbor reported to the Boundary County sheriff that Randy had threatened to kill President Reagan and the governor of Idaho, and soon Weaver was the focus of unwelcome attention from federal law enforcement officials. Randy called the report of his alleged threat "a smear campaign" and sent a letter to the Secret Service agent who interviewed him demanding an apology.
_
Moving right along.

3) Come on, we know you all want to.  So you are calling Waco a righteous kill, right/

4) Law Enforcement blunders aside, there was no evidence he didn't do what he was accused of. He killed that woman. Period.  Life for a life.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



1) Nancy had lots of .22 LR ammo, but less than 200 rounds of anything else.  Zombies?  I saw a few references to her family saying she was talking about being prepared, but the whole "zombie" thing is more of your bullshit.  And the samurai swords??   LMAO!!   You still include those like they matter.  lol

2) Yes, Randy & Vicki Weaver were religious survivalists and perhaps racists.  Anything to show they were nazis?  Or is that just more lying on your part?  Surely you know what a nazi actually is?  Just because someone is a racist does not mean they are a nazi.  But then, you have kept saying that Sammy killed the marshal, and that was a lie.  So I'm not really sure why anyone expects the truth from you.  You have lied over and over and over in this thread.  That makes it hard to believe much of anything you say.

3) Come on now, I stick with facts.  You are the one who cannot help but lie.

4) Talk to the prosecutors.  There are constitutional rights that were violated.  He served 6 years and then was released.  You claim one thing, but the prosecutors didn't see fit to retry him.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You were more accurate the first time.  Now you are back to the claim that has been debunked.

So he should have suffered more pain, more indignities and taken longer to die, all so someone else could wait?  Bullshit.  Perhaps he should have done it another way, but our laws do not allow terminally ill patients to determine their own fates.  Medical technology is used to keep them alive whether they have a good life or a miserable one, and whether there is hope or only dispair.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Shooting at intruders on their land who had already killed their dog and fired at them.  And obviously they were not acting as most federal agents do, since they shot a fleeing 14 year old in the back and killed him.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

1) you have that much ammo, all I can think is "zombies'.  No reason why anyone should have that much ammo. 

2) Oh, they were racist and anti-semitic, but man, don't call them Nazis.  They didn't wear the armbands! 

3) So you are saying Koresh got what was coming to him? 

4) The prosecutors should have gone after him.  Regardless of what they did, he murdered a woman. A woman whose only crime was she didn't like this 20 year old guy doing her 15 year old daughter. But the totally right guy to Represent the National Rampage Association. 

Nice people you associate with and champion.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Shooting at intruders on their land who had already killed their dog and fired at them.  And obviously they were not acting as most federal agents do, since they shot a fleeing 14 year old in the back and killed him.



Um, yeah, the fact that a Federal Marshal was killed pretty much negates any "Sammy was an innocent kid." 

Well, man, I mean, those Federal Marshall totally deprived the Aryan Brotherhood in prison their mascot.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> 1) you have that much ammo, all I can think is "zombies'.  No reason why anyone should have that much ammo.
> 
> 2) Oh, they were racist and anti-semitic, but man, don't call them Nazis.  They didn't wear the armbands!
> 
> ...



1) You yourself said you fired at least 100 rounds every time you went to the range.  Have you tried to buy ammo lately?  Finding .22lr is tough, and when you do they often limit you to one box.  The ammo for the other guns she had was equally difficult to get.  If I have a chance to buy a brick of .22s, I certainly do so.  (1 brick = 500)

2) Words do have actual meanings.  I would suggest you use words that fit the actual facts, instead of picking words for their inflammatory value.  Oh, and the Weavers never once did anything illegal where their racial beliefs are concerned.  So you are advocating execution for what they THOUGHT, not what they did.  Even the FBI agreed the charges against Randy Weaver were bogus.

3) I don't believe I have discussed Koresh at all, except that he was part of the reason McVeigh blew up the federal building and that the feds could have taken him when he went into town.

4) It is telling that you want to prosecute one person for their crimes, but want union thugs to have a free pass to threaten people and destroy property.

You have no idea who I associate with.  As for my championing people, that is not what I have done.  I expect the federal law enforcement to act in a lawful manner.  I expect every citizen to be treated as though they are innocent until proven guilty.  And I expect gov't agents to refrain from executing citizens unless they are an imminent threat.

Unlike you I do not want people murdered for what they think.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Sammy was murdered by a federal marshal.  He was shot in the back as he ran away from the fighting.

If someone starts shooting at you, on your land, you have every right to return fire.  The feds should not have been there.  And Harris is the one who shot Degan, despite your continued lies to the contrary.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The marshal was killed in a firefight that they initiated. 

And Sammy was indeed an innocent kid.  Unless you want to persist in the claim that he killed Degan, he committed no crime.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Hey moron-that study counted a gun in the house as INCLUDING GUNS BROUGHT TO UNARMED HOMES BY CRIMINALS OR MURDERS.  In fact that GREAT MAJORITY OF THE HOMES STUDIED INVOLVED SUCH A GUN

Only DULLARDS who don't follow this issue are stupid enough to repeat that disgraced study



SFB


----------



## turtledude (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




but harris was acquitted of killing Degan 

SFB


----------



## turtledude (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




that's like saying I have never needed a fire extinguisher so no one else needs them.

Most gun hating males are eunuchs or fairies

that's a fact


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And hopefully you never will need a gun to defend yourself.   But assuming that no one will ever need a gun to defend themselves is blatantly wrong.  People do use guns to stop crimes.  At least 100,000 times per year they do so.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 10, 2014)

> But you seem pretty obsessed about being violated in a homosexual way. Ugh. Really, seeing your sexual fantasies is not a pretty thing, Dude.



See, this is what they call "projection" where an individual places there fears, and inadequacies, on another person as a self defense mechanism....when they "project" like this, they don't have to deal with these fears in their own life...

If you are obsessed with this sort of attack, don't project it...get help with it....go see a psychiatrist or social worker and they can help you with sexual fears and homophobia....it will take time...but you can get better....


----------



## turtledude (Sep 10, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




I whacked a mugger and caused his cohort to be captured and charged with several crimes including defecation in a police car


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

I think you are one of these people who just argues to hear himself talk, and I am wondering if I should keep feeding your black hole of emotional need.   But anyway. 




WinterBorn said:


> 1) You yourself said you fired at least 100 rounds every time you went to the range.  Have you tried to buy ammo lately?  Finding .22lr is tough, and when you do they often limit you to one box.  The ammo for the other guns she had was equally difficult to get.  If I have a chance to buy a brick of .22s, I certainly do so.  (1 brick = 500)



Um, I was a trained professional acting as part of a "well-regulated" military unit.  If I had that amount of ammo in my barracks or my residence, they'd have wanted to have a word with me.  

But, hey, it was a good thing Nancy had all that Ammo around.  Her son totally took out those Zombies...oh, wait, those were preschoolers.  My bad. 




WinterBorn said:


> 2) Words do have actual meanings.  I would suggest you use words that fit the actual facts, instead of picking words for their inflammatory value.  Oh, and the Weavers never once did anything illegal where their racial beliefs are concerned.  So you are advocating execution for what they THOUGHT, not what they did.  Even the FBI agreed the charges against Randy Weaver were bogus.



NO, any reasonable definition of Nazi would probably fit the Weavers.  Anti-Semitic, Racist and against the government.  

And I advocate their execution becuase they murdered a federal agent. 

As for the FBI guy, in the case of both Ruby Ridge and Waco, the Hostage Negotiation Team did a lot of CYA when the shit hit the fan and they had to explain why they gave nutbags so much leash. So, yeah, blaming the Hostage Rescue Team and the snipers was a great way to go. 




WinterBorn said:


> 3) I don't believe I have discussed Koresh at all, except that he was part of the reason McVeigh blew up the federal building and that the feds could have taken him when he went into town.



Well, okay, then what was your opinion of Koresh.  Was the government right to take him down or not? 

Simple enough. No evading. 



WinterBorn said:


> 4) It is telling that you want to prosecute one person for their crimes, but want union thugs to have a free pass to threaten people and destroy property.
> 
> You have no idea who I associate with.  As for my championing people, that is not what I have done.  I expect the federal law enforcement to act in a lawful manner.  I expect every citizen to be treated as though they are innocent until proven guilty.  And I expect gov't agents to refrain from executing citizens unless they are an imminent threat.
> 
> Unlike you I do not want people murdered for what they think.



Um, yeah, breaking property of scabs is not quite the same as murdering a woman because you were statutoraly raping her daughter and didn't want to get turned in. 

Frankly, I'd love it if  union thuggery weren't necessary because we had strong laws that protected working folks.  THat would be even better.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> 
> Hey moron-that study counted a gun in the house as INCLUDING GUNS BROUGHT TO UNARMED HOMES BY CRIMINALS OR MURDERS.  In fact that GREAT MAJORITY OF THE HOMES STUDIED INVOLVED SUCH A GUN
> 
> ...



Actually, I've studied Kellerman pretty extensively.  39 of the 43 murders were suicides.   .5 was an accident. and 3.5 were homicides, usually between family members or acquaintances.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 10, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Sammy was a future Nazi convict looking for a place to happen.  seriously, being raised in that environment, he was just destined for a lifetime in police custody.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Jeez, you are really stretching here, aren't you.  It is ok that he was murdered because you think he was destined to be something you don't like?   What a spiteful piece of shit you must be.

First you claim he was a murderer.  Then, without admitting you lied, you claim he should have died because of some bullshit you know nothing about.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I think you are one of these people who just argues to hear himself talk, and I am wondering if I should keep feeding your black hole of emotional need.   But anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What a load of bullshit.  If you had had a gun in the barracks that was not military issue you would have been in trouble.  In fact,if you had had any ammunition at all you would have been in trouble.  But we are not talking about a privately owned firearm.   And the 2nd amendment was not to provide for a gov't force.

One person shot BACK at and killed a federal agent.  Sammy Weaver did not kill a federal agent.  Vicki Weaver to not kill a federal agent.  And randy Weaver did not kill a federal agent.

And the agents did not give them any leash.  They set up and assaulted them on a bogus charge.  The agents and the sniper SHOULD have done time.

Simple question, yes indeed.  Much like the one I asked numerous times.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




suicides are not a criminal issue

I don't feel unsafe because the dude down the road ate a revolver after being told he has ALS or his entire family was wiped out in the world trade center bombing


----------



## turtledude (Sep 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




still that idiocy. what sammy was, was the son of a guy who served his country honorably in the Green Beret and then adopted some unpopular views known as "white separatism".  was Randy weaver a racist-perhaps
was he an anti semite-probably 

was he a Nazi-no-there is no evidence of that


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

turtledude said:


> still that idiocy. what sammy was, was the son of a guy who served his country honorably in the Green Beret and then adopted some unpopular views known as "white separatism".  was Randy weaver a racist-perhaps
> was he an anti semite-probably
> 
> was he a Nazi-no-there is no evidence of that



Naw, he just moved with all the Aryan Nations assholes. 

I think when you join racist hate groups and start talking about assassinating the President, you move out of "Served his country" and into "All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic".


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> suicides are not a criminal issue
> 
> I don't feel unsafe because the dude down the road ate a revolver after being told he has ALS or his entire family was wiped out in the world trade center bombing



It's not about you, dude.  It's about the 32,000 gun deaths we have every  year because we let people have guns who just plain shouldn't have them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> What a load of bullshit.  If you had had a gun in the barracks that was not military issue you would have been in trouble.  In fact,if you had had any ammunition at all you would have been in trouble.  But we are not talking about a privately owned firearm.   And the 2nd amendment was not to provide for a gov't force.



No, the second Amendment was for having a militia back in the days before we had professional armies and police forces.  It's not relevent today.  



WinterBorn said:


> [
> One person shot BACK at and killed a federal agent.  Sammy Weaver did not kill a federal agent.  Vicki Weaver to not kill a federal agent.  And randy Weaver did not kill a federal agent.



No, but they were accomplices.  And just because a jury of inbreds felt bad for them doesn't take away from that. 



WinterBorn said:


> [
> And the agents did not give them any leash.  They set up and assaulted them on a bogus charge.  The agents and the sniper SHOULD have done time.
> 
> Simple question, yes indeed.  Much like the one I asked numerous times.



No, the Weavers and Harris should have done time.  Lots of Time.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > still that idiocy. what sammy was, was the son of a guy who served his country honorably in the Green Beret and then adopted some unpopular views known as "white separatism".  was Randy weaver a racist-perhaps
> ...



And none of that, even if it were true, is a reason for execution without a trial.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



You know, that's probably what Mike Brown was thinking during "Grand Theft Cigar", but a whole shitload of Wingnuts think shooting him was fine.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No, the 2nd Amendment was written to allow the population to be armed.  It is as relevant today as ever.

Your dramatic attempts as belittling language aside, the feds were WAY out of line during the entire debacle.

This memo from FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson shows that.

"OPR 004477
Something to Consider
1. Charge against Weaver is Bull Shit. 
2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting.
3. Vicki has no charges against her.
4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was
barking at. Some guys in camys shot his dog.
Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the

shooting [of Degan]. He [Weaver] is in pretty strong legal position.""

Both the internal 1994 Ruby Ridge Task Force Report and the public 1995 Senate subcommittee report on Ruby Ridge criticized the rules of engagement as unconstitutional.   In other words, the feds fucked up.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Funny that you bring his name up so many times.  Brown had actually committed crimes and been convicted of violent crimes.  Yet you defend him.  Weaver had not been convicted of anything and had lived an honest life, but you celebrate the slaughter of his son and wife.  You are a sick fuck.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> No, the 2nd Amendment was written to allow the population to be armed.  It is as relevant today as ever.




No, it's not relevant at all.  First, if your logic is you needs your gun to fight the gummit, the gummit has tanks and planes and drones.  That's going to be a one-sided fight.  

if you needs your gun to fight them coloreds, the fact is, a gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. 




WinterBorn said:


> [
> Your dramatic attempts as belittling language aside, the feds were WAY out of line during the entire debacle.
> 
> This memo from FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson shows that.
> ...



Again, Coulson was a paper-pusher trying to cover his ass after a debacle.  Until he was the one who had crazy Nazis pointing guns at him, he really didn't have much to say.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Funny that you bring his name up so many times.  Brown had actually committed crimes and been convicted of violent crimes.  Yet you defend him.  Weaver had not been convicted of anything and had lived an honest life, but you celebrate the slaughter of his son and wife.  You are a sick fuck.



Um, Brown had never been convicted of a violent crime. 

Official Michael Brown had no felony conviction as juvenile

_A juvenile court official said Wednesday that Ferguson Police shooting victim Michael Brown was never convicted of a serious felony such as first-degree murder or second-degree murder. The information came out in St. Louis County Circuit Court as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and GotNews.com petitioned to have Brown's juvenile record made public, if it existed._

The Nazis did kill a federal agent.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The fight would be much more one-sided if every citizen were unarmed.  Every despot and petty dictator has disarmed the population they wished to subdue.  There is a reason for that.  And the fact that you think the fight would be completely one-sided is nice.  Perhaps you could inform the gov't of that fact.  The reports they have done show it would be difficult to subdue the US civilian population.

Yeah, you make the same bullshit claims over and over.  The fact is that the task force and the Senate subcommittee agreed with Coulson.  Your assessment of the entire fiasco is in disagreement with pretty much every shred of evidence.  But you keep pretending.   It fits in with all the lies you have told.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> The fight would be much more one-sided if every citizen were unarmed.  Every despot and petty dictator has disarmed the population they wished to subdue.  There is a reason for that.  And the fact that you think the fight would be completely one-sided is nice.  Perhaps you could inform the gov't of that fact.  The reports they have done show it would be difficult to subdue the US civilian population.



Um, that's not true.  Usually, most petty dictators have had no problem getting people with guns who were happy to shoot their neighbors.  The mythology of the "disarmed populace" is exactly that.  The problem with these countries was "too many guns".  Nazi Germany, Bolshevik Russia, Communist China-  what you had were populations with lots of guns and lacking basic humanity because years of war and starvation beat it out of them. 

Frankly, given the kind of racist, homophobic and misogynistic shit that falls out of the mouths  of Wingnuts, I'm a lot more worried about you guys having guns than the government. 




WinterBorn said:


> [
> Yeah, you make the same bullshit claims over and over.  The fact is that the task force and the Senate subcommittee agreed with Coulson.  Your assessment of the entire fiasco is in disagreement with pretty much every shred of evidence.  But you keep pretending.   It fits in with all the lies you have told.



The Senate at that time was made up of the same kinds of Wingnuts who tried to defend David Koresh and impeach Clinton over a blow job.  So that gets you nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Funny that you bring his name up so many times.  Brown had actually committed crimes and been convicted of violent crimes.  Yet you defend him.  Weaver had not been convicted of anything and had lived an honest life, but you celebrate the slaughter of his son and wife.  You are a sick fuck.
> ...



Other sources suggest he was convicted of violent crimes, but until they release the records we won't know.    Have you seen the picture from his FaceBook page?  The one with him holding a wad of money in his mouth and a pistol in his hand?  Brown was, at the very least, a violent criminal.  Much more so than Randy Weaver, which was my point.

The Weavers did not kill a federal agent.  And to use the agent's death as justification for the entire mess ignores the fact that the feds changed the rules of engagement, invaded the Weaver's private property, set Randy Weaver up on bogus charges, and the feds fired first the night Sammy Weaver was murdered.  All of that happened before the fed was killed.  But ignoring the facts or lying about the facts has been your trademark move all thru this thread.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



"Frankly, given the kind of racist, homophobic and misogynistic shit that falls out of the mouths  of Wingnuts, I'm a lot more worried about you guys having guns than the government."????    That is hilarious, considering that you defend Michael Brown, who we know committed crimes, but celebrate the murder of two innocent civilians who had not committed any crime whatsoever.  Your hypocrisy is amazing.

Did they defend Koresh or did they condemn the methods used to kill him?

Also, did they try to impeach Clinton over a blowjob or because he lied?    Now I understand why you think lying is acceptable.  But it is actually not.   Your characterization of the impeachment is another lie from you.  The charges were not about the blowjob.  He was charged with perjury and obstruction.  

But we are not going down another deadend topic so that you can avoid the one at hand.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Other sources suggest he was convicted of violent crimes, but until they release the records we won't know.    Have you seen the picture from his FaceBook page?  *The one with him holding a wad of money in his mouth and a pistol in his hand?*  Brown was, at the very least, a violent criminal.  Much more so than Randy Weaver, which was my point.



You mean THIS picture.







Well, sorry, man.

Cop Under Investigation For Posting Fake Picture Of Mike Brown News One

*Kansas City police officer Marc Catron is under internal review after posting racially inflammatory Facebook posts about the uprising in Ferguson in response to the police murder of 18-year-old Michael Brown, including a picture “mistakenly” identifying Brown as a murder suspect.

As previously reported by NewsOne, Joda Cain, 17, is accused of murdering his great-grandmother, Jacqueline Bell, 71, at her home in Portland, Oregon then stealing her car to flee the area.*




WinterBorn said:


> [
> The Weavers did not kill a federal agent.  And to use the agent's death as justification for the entire mess ignores the fact that the feds changed the rules of engagement, invaded the Weaver's private property, set Randy Weaver up on bogus charges, and the feds fired first the night Sammy Weaver was murdered.  All of that happened before the fed was killed.  But ignoring the facts or lying about the facts has been your trademark move all thru this thread.



Weaver was also pointing guns at his neighbors, made threats against President Reagan that put him on the Secret Service's radar.  And, yes, he tried to buy an illegal weapon. 

So the ATF, Secret Service, US Marshals and FBI were all wrong and Poor Gruppenfuhrer Weaver was the victim.  Right.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> "Frankly, given the kind of racist, homophobic and misogynistic shit that falls out of the mouths  of Wingnuts, I'm a lot more worried about you guys having guns than the government."????    That is hilarious, considering that you defend Michael Brown, who we know committed crimes, but celebrate the murder of two innocent civilians who had not committed any crime whatsoever.  Your hypocrisy is amazing.



Guy, i've already proven you wrong about Brown twice.  



WinterBorn said:


> Did they defend Koresh or did they condemn the methods used to kill him?



A little of both.  And they looked like real jackholes when Keri Jewel Testified how Koresh had molested her when she was 10.  



WinterBorn said:


> Also, did they try to impeach Clinton over a blowjob or because he lied?    Now I understand why you think lying is acceptable.  But it is actually not.   Your characterization of the impeachment is another lie from you.  The charges were not about the blowjob.  He was charged with perjury and obstruction.



I think it's acceptable to lie when the question never should have been asked to start with. Even the judge had ruled that whether he had sex with Lewisnky or not was irrelevant to whether he had harassed Jones.  ANd then she threw out the charges from Jones because she suffered no consequences for refusing Clinton's advances. 

But Ken Starr spent 70 million on a panty-sniffing raid, dammit. 



WinterBorn said:


> But we are not going down another deadend topic so that you can avoid the one at hand.



Quite right. You've dug yourself in deep enough already.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > "Frankly, given the kind of racist, homophobic and misogynistic shit that falls out of the mouths  of Wingnuts, I'm a lot more worried about you guys having guns than the government."????    That is hilarious, considering that you defend Michael Brown, who we know committed crimes, but celebrate the murder of two innocent civilians who had not committed any crime whatsoever.  Your hypocrisy is amazing.
> ...



Dude, you have been caught lying how many times in this thread???
And there is video tape of Brown committing a violent crime.  That you want to downplay that shows more about your argument than you wish.

Have I defended Koresh?  Have I said he shouldn't have been arrested?   No, I have not.  But I have said that they had plenty of opportunity to arrest him in town.  Instead they decided to take a more violent and dangerous route.

Whether the line of questioning should have been allowed or not has no bearing on my argument.  You claim they tried to impeach Clinton because he got a blowjob.  That was a lie.

I have no dug myself any sort of hole.  But you have dug one deep enough with your lies to show you are clueless.  The baseless arguments have only added to the depth.  
Tell us again how many guns Nancy Lanza had?  
Tell us again how Sammy Weaver shot a federal agent?  
Tell us again that Nancy Lanza believed in zombies?  
Tell us again how the societal differences between Japan & the US are relevant when talking about suicides, but not relevant when talking about murders?  
Tell us again how Harris was acquitted because it was Sammy Weaver who killed the deputy?  
Tell us again how the Bill of Rights was written to protect gov't rights?  
Tell us again how the samurai swords were relevant in a discussion of the council for the NRA?
Tel us again how you know that making guns harder to get will stop suicides?

The list goes on and on.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Dude, you have been caught lying how many times in this thread???
> And there is video tape of Brown committing a violent crime.  That you want to downplay that shows more about your argument than you wish.



I noticed you didn't answer how that wasn't him with the wad of money in his mouth.  Yeah, you looked silly claiming that.  

Sorry, "Grand Theft Cigar" isn't a capital offense.  



WinterBorn said:


> [
> Have I defended Koresh?  Have I said he shouldn't have been arrested?   No, I have not.  But I have said that they had plenty of opportunity to arrest him in town.  Instead they decided to take a more violent and dangerous route.



Uh, no, guy.  They had a valid warrant. the Davidians started shooting because they were a bunch of crazy fucks who were following a pedophile. 

And when Koresh realized he was going to the big house and what they do to his kind in prison, he took his whole deluded flock with him.  



WinterBorn said:


> [
> Whether the line of questioning should have been allowed or not has no bearing on my argument.  You claim they tried to impeach Clinton because he got a blowjob.  That was a lie.



Well, no, the question was, was he lying because he like something like 50% of men at that time, doesn't consider a blow job to be sex.   And Ken Starr spent 70 million trying to prove there was something other than blow jobs.  





WinterBorn said:


> [
> I have no dug myself any sort of hole. ...
> The list goes on and on.



True, you do sound a little whiny, guy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



My mistake.  I thought the pic was of Brown.  

But this pic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



is Brown committing strong arm robbery.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> My mistake.  I thought the pic was of Brown.



Why would you think that/  That was debunked weeks ago. 






WinterBorn said:


> [
> But this pic
> 
> 
> ...



Or it's a picture of him getting into a fight with someone who called him a name. 

But since that store clerk never filed a robbery report, all we have is speculation. 

But let's say he was guilty of "Grand Theft Cigar".   Certainly that's a lot less serious than shooting a Federal Marshall.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I answered.  I simply didn't answer fact enough for you.  Which is kind of funny, since you have attempted to ridicule me for answer too fast on other occasions.  lol

Strong armed robbery is not a capital offense.  You are correct.  But since you think having racist beliefs IS a capital offense, your ideas on the matter are laughable.

The FBI knew they could have taken Koresh in town.  Yes, they had a warrant.  That really doesn't change what I said.

Look, you claimed they tried to impeach Clinton because of a blowjob.  The actual charges against Clinton were perjury and obstruction of justice.  Those are the facts.  So you lied again.  lol

And whiny??   lol    I am not the one calling for the removal of constitutional rights.  I am not the one who wants citizens shot based solely on what they believe.  I am not the one celebrating the murder of a 14 year old boy and his mother.    I am not the one trying to cook the numbers and ignore the results of numerous studies.

No, I am not whining.  I am enjoying making you look like a fool.  Of course, with your repeated lies you do make it easy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



It certainly is a lot less serious.   But then, strong arm robbery (the actual crime he committed) is far more serious than any crime committed by Sammy Weaver or Vicki Weaver.   And the evidence is certainly more substantial than the evidence that Randy Weaver altered two shotguns.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Because I haven't followed the case very closely?  And since it actually has no relevance to the topic of this thread, I have no problem saying that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

The black hole of emotional need whines some more. 



WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> I answered.  I simply didn't answer fact enough for you.  Which is kind of funny, since you have attempted to ridicule me for answer too fast on other occasions.  lol
> 
> Strong armed robbery is not a capital offense.  You are correct.  But since you think having racist beliefs IS a capital offense, your ideas on the matter are laughable.



No, murdering a federal marshal is a capital offense. 



WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> The FBI knew they could have taken Koresh in town.  Yes, they had a warrant.  That really doesn't change what I said.



The Warrant wasn't for Koresh, it was to inspect the guns he was selling at gun shows and the kits he was using to convert them to full automatic weapons.  So they really did kind of need to get into his house.  



WinterBorn said:


> [Look, you claimed they tried to impeach Clinton because of a blowjob.  The actual charges against Clinton were perjury and obstruction of justice.  Those are the facts.  So you lied again.  lol



The fact is the Senate couldn't convict him on either of those charges.  



WinterBorn said:


> And whiny??   lol    I am not the one calling for the removal of constitutional rights.  I am not the one who wants citizens shot based solely on what they believe.  I am not the one celebrating the murder of a 14 year old boy and his mother.    I am not the one trying to cook the numbers and ignore the results of numerous studies.



"waaaah, you want to take away my rights." 
"waaaah, you think it's okay to shoot Nazi haters!"
"waaaah, you don't accept the NRA's  bogus studies"

Seriously, guy, you are one serious fucking whiner.  



WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> No, I am not whining.  I am enjoying making you look like a fool.  Of course, with your repeated lies you do make it easy.



And yet you are the one getting unhinged here.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Actually, it has a lot of relavence.  The reason we have cops armed like they are is because we have too many guns.  

Sadly, it also means they shoot the occassional kid


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



And again, the store clerk never filed a robbery report.  

The Nazi Weavers did shoot at federal agents, and threatened violence against anyone who came up to their compound.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The black hole of emotional need whines some more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, murdering a marshal is a capital offense.  But Sammy Weaver and Vicki Weaver did not murder anyone.  Yet you celebrate their deaths because of their beliefs.

No, the senate did not convict him of either crime.   But the point is that you claimed they tried to impeach Clinton because of a blowjob.  That the questions should not have been asked or whether he was convicted or not does not change the fact that you lied about why they tried to impeach Clinton.  The charges were perjury and obstruction, not getting a blowjob, as you claimed.

I am not crying about you wanting to take away my rights.  I am simply arguing your ridiculous points.

I think your celebration of the murder of two people because of their beliefs is sick.  Not crying, just calling you a sick fucker.

And the study you refuse to accept was not done or funded by the NRA.  That you deny that at least 100,000 crimes are stopped annually by civilians with guns does not make the facts any less true.  And I am not crying, I am mocking you.

Unhinged?   lmao    That you can make that accusation without any shred of evidence shows it is simply another lie.  Keep lying.   It makes your argument look even worse.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the guns in this country are used to commit a murder.  And many of those were gotten illegally.   We have over-armed cops because they face violent people.  

And no, it has no relevance to the topic.


----------



## Joe Steel (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> ... No, the 2nd Amendment was written to allow the population to be armed.  It is as relevant today as ever. ...



No.  The Second Amendment guarantees civilian control of the military.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Whether a report was filed or not does not change the facts of what Brown did.   

Did Sammy Weaver know it was federal agents that shot his dog and fired at him?   I mean, before he was shot in the back while running away?   The feds had nightvision gear, but the murdered 14 year old boy did not.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > ... No, the 2nd Amendment was written to allow the population to be armed.  It is as relevant today as ever. ...
> ...



No, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizen's right to bear arms.   And the SCOTUS has agreed with that consistently.


----------



## Joe Steel (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > No.  The Second Amendment guarantees civilian control of the military.
> ...



First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution.  Secondly, it's a clown show.  No reasonable person can accept anything the Court says as a substantive analysis or explanation.  They may have the authority they gave themselves but they don't have any authority based on reason.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



But they CAN rule on the constitutionality of given laws.  And those rulings have consistently ruled that it is an individual right.


----------



## Joe Steel (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution.  Secondly, it's a clown show.  No reasonable person can accept anything the Court says as a substantive analysis or explanation.  They may have the authority they gave themselves but they don't have any authority based on reason.
> ...



Not consistently.  Heller was the first time.  Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke.  He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



If it is not consistent, when has SCOTUS ruled it a collective right?


----------



## Joe Steel (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Not consistently.  Heller was the first time.  Scalia's opinion creating the personal right, however, is a joke.  He found the "original intent" of the founding generation in court decisions passed down in the 70 or so years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and gun cult propaganda.
> ...



Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment.  The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia.  The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."  

The militia of the Second Amendment is not a bunch of guys who show-up in the town square with their own guns.  It is the portion of the People who can act as a army.  Thus, the Second Amendment declares the People's right to determine and control who may act in a military capacity.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



and morons like you are unable to come up with a sensible way of preventing that


----------



## turtledude (Sep 11, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...




if the right only applied to militia members, Miller would have lost on standing.  

Your understanding of constitutional law is as piss poor as your support for freedom in america


----------



## turtledude (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Funny that you bring his name up so many times.  Brown had actually committed crimes and been convicted of violent crimes.  Yet you defend him.  Weaver had not been convicted of anything and had lived an honest life, but you celebrate the slaughter of his son and wife.  You are a sick fuck.
> ...



are you  a closet nazi?  seems to be so

Nazis were gun banners

You are a gun banner

Nazis used men with guns to kill people who Nazis disliked

You support men with guns killing people you don't like


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



No, the framers were clear in their intent, at least those who wrote about it in other papers.  They wanted the population to have the means to defend the country against foreign armies or our own gov't.   The idea that the population is armed makes the freedoms much more difficult to take away.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


The 2nd Amendment wording was an acquiescence to the slave states to allow slave posses.  They existed with constitutional guarantee.  You'll see the same sort of thing in the Confederate constitution.  It is even more specific that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for militias.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 11, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution.  Secondly, it's a clown show.  No reasonable person can accept anything the Court says as a substantive analysis or explanation.  They may have the authority they gave themselves but they don't have any authority based on reason.



You claimed that "*NRA General Counsel Robert Dowlut Convicted of Murder"  *which means you are a fucking liar, since Dowlut was in fact NOT convicted. Given that you *are* indeed a fucking liar, then one cannot view you as reasonable - lying is not reasonable in discussion. Ergo, you have no authority to comment on what a "reasonable person" would or would not do.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



No, the constitution recognizes that a citizen militia is necessary, and allows for the citizens to bear arms.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> Yes, murdering a marshal is a capital offense.  But Sammy Weaver and Vicki Weaver did not murder anyone.  Yet you celebrate their deaths because of their beliefs.
> 
> No, the senate did not convict him of either crime.   But the point is that you claimed they tried to impeach Clinton because of a blowjob.  That the questions should not have been asked or whether he was convicted or not does not change the fact that you lied about why they tried to impeach Clinton.  The charges were perjury and obstruction, not getting a blowjob, as you claimed.



Impeached for a blow-job. Sorry. Deal with it.  You wingnuts got so obsessed with this man's sex life you couldn't see straight.  




WinterBorn said:


> [
> I am not crying about you wanting to take away my rights.  I am simply arguing your ridiculous points.
> 
> I think your celebration of the murder of two people because of their beliefs is sick.  Not crying, just calling you a sick fucker.



Yeah, I don't spend a lot of time crying over dead Nazis... the only good kind of Nazi. 



WinterBorn said:


> [
> And the study you refuse to accept was not done or funded by the NRA.  That you deny that at least 100,000 crimes are stopped annually by civilians with guns does not make the facts any less true.  And I am not crying, I am mocking you.
> 
> Unhinged?   lmao    That you can make that accusation without any shred of evidence shows it is simply another lie.  Keep lying.   It makes your argument look even worse.



Guy, you are definitely unhinged.... 

But, no, 100,000 DGU's would mean everyone would know someone who did it.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yes, I was going to bring that up too.  There are MANY accompanying documents, some of them the founders personal papers, which clearly denote the exact intent of the founders when it comes to the 2nd amendment, and that is that they wanted the citizenry to be armed and ready to go at a moment's notice.  They also wanted the citizens to have protection against a tyrannical government.  

The people on this thread are lying about the intent of the framers of the constitution.  It is quite obvious by reading accompanying documents that the intent was for Americans to be armed.  

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT



> *VI. Conclusion*
> English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.
> 
> These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a _free_state, just as it says.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Whether a report was filed or not does not change the facts of what Brown did.
> 
> Did Sammy Weaver know it was federal agents that shot his dog and fired at him?   I mean, before he was shot in the back while running away?   The feds had nightvision gear, but the murdered 14 year old boy did not.



1) The Marshals identified themselves. 
2) It wasn't like he didn't know who was after him. 
3) Do we know this happened at night?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2014)

turtledude said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



Uh, yeah. We have a sensible way.  Strict licensing and gun control.  HOld gun sellers criminally liable.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The impeachment was on specific charges.  No mention of a blowjob at all.

And I don't spend a lot of time crying over dead thugs or union thugs.  

100,000 DGUs would mean 1 person in every 3,139.    I know two personally, and am one myself.   You probably know one as well.  They just don't want to hear your lies, so they avoid the topic.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



1) They identified themselves to Randy Weaver.  The stories differ as to whether they did to Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris. It is known that their camo clothing had no badges or other markings identifying them as federal agents.
2) No one was after Sammy Weaver.  And this was the first incursion by the feds.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



How about we hold the violent criminals liable and keep them in prison?

And I am fine with holding gun sellers criminally liable, as long as you do the same for any other type of commerce.  You know, like holding Ford Motor Company liable for how their products are used?  If the gun seller breaks the law, burn him.  If he doesn't, then he is not liable.   The person responsible is the person committing the crime.


----------



## Impenitent (Sep 11, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...


Your accompanying documents don't describe how the slave holding states were encouraged to sign the constitution.  The militias in the slave states were slave patrols.  The slave states wanted these to remain under state control, fearing that the Federal Congress would free the slaves (which is what Lincoln did, after the slave states seceded, and had no congressional votes.) 

Slavery can only exist in a police state, and the police state was imbedded in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam (Sep 11, 2014)

I heard he was framed by the American communist party.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 11, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



A police state cannot exist in a situation where citizens have the power to fight back effectively.  Granted, the militias were used as slave patrols.  That was, obviously, a perversion of their original intent.   But the right of the citizens to be armed makes a police state virtually impossible to maintain without the acceptance of the people.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




your fascist wet dreams are unconstitutional .  and it shows you are a low wattage dullard. Criminals are exempt from licensing.  I wonder if you have the intellectual ammunition to understand why.  I sort of doubt it.  You have been proven dumber than a toad on this issue


----------



## turtledude (Sep 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution.  Secondly, it's a clown show.  No reasonable person can accept anything the Court says as a substantive analysis or explanation.  They may have the authority they gave themselves but they don't have any authority based on reason.
> ...




Joe Squeal has spammed this slandergasm on at least three different boards-here, Debate Politics and PoliticalHotwire

I wonder if Joe Squeal Is a paid mother jones mother fucker.  He's dumber than a lobotomized weasel


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 11, 2014)

Impenitent said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I don't think that negates the original intent of the founders.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 11, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> I don't think that negates the original intent of the founders.



Impotent is clueless when it comes to this issue.  he is a gun banning retard


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 11, 2014)

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I don't know why people would deny the real intent of the 2nd amendment and why they are so fearful, or why they think that guns would just disappear.  Of course, they MUST know that banning guns would have disastrous consequences, and crime related to guns would be even worse.  NONE of them would be kept track of, and there would be no licensing or other procedures to follow.  It would move them to the underground market where such regulations are not required.


----------



## turtledude (Sep 11, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




generally the people who most want to disarm honest citizens are the ones who engage in activities that most likely justify honest citizens shooting their sorry asses


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 11, 2014)




----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> The impeachment was on specific charges.  No mention of a blowjob at all.
> 
> And I don't spend a lot of time crying over dead thugs or union thugs.
> 
> 100,000 DGUs would mean 1 person in every 3,139.    I know two personally, and am one myself.   You probably know one as well.  They just don't want to hear your lies, so they avoid the topic.



Yep, specific charges about a blow job. What did he lie about?  A blow job. What was he trying to obstruct? That he had gotten a blow job.  Impeached for a blow job. By assholes like Gingrich and LIvingston and Hyde who had mistresses on the side.  

Yup, Working Folks wanting a fair wage are just the same as Nazis who kill Federal Agents. 

Your figure is 100,000 DGU's A YEAR.  I'm 52.  Which means that the figure now drops to 1 in 60


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


>



If fire extinguishers burned down 43 homes for every home they saved, then they would be pretty useless.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> I don't know why people would deny the real intent of the 2nd amendment and why they are so fearful, or why they think that guns would just disappear.  Of course, they MUST know that banning guns would have disastrous consequences, and crime related to guns would be even worse.  NONE of them would be kept track of, and there would be no licensing or other procedures to follow.  It would move them to the underground market where such regulations are not required.



I couldn't care less what the Founding Slave Rapists thought or what their intents were. 

And your logic is that banning guns would have disasterous results or cause worse crime ignores the fact that countries that have banned guns have LESS crime than we have.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

turtledude said:


> [
> your fascist wet dreams are unconstitutional .  and it shows you are a low wattage dullard. Criminals are exempt from licensing.  I wonder if you have the intellectual ammunition to understand why.  I sort of doubt it.  You have been proven dumber than a toad on this issue



Scalia takes a dirt nap. 
Hillary appoints his replacement as Lawrence Tribe. 
The Second Amendment becomes about Militias and Militias only. 

The problem with guns is NOT "criminals". The problem with guns are suicides, kids who find daddy's revolver in the nightstand, and the couple that ends an argument over who drank the last can of _Milwaukee's Best_ with a gunshot.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The impeachment was on specific charges.  No mention of a blowjob at all.
> ...


 
Once again, read the actual charges.

And people stop crimes and forget to brag to all their friends.  Amazing.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Those same countries have less violent crime that does not involve guns.  Why do you think that is?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> How about we hold the violent criminals liable and keep them in prison?
> 
> And I am fine with holding gun sellers criminally liable, as long as you do the same for any other type of commerce.  You know, like holding Ford Motor Company liable for how their products are used?  If the gun seller breaks the law, burn him.  If he doesn't, then he is not liable.   The person responsible is the person committing the crime.



Ford isn't knowingly marketing their product to drunk drivers and then finding ways to water down background checks. 

But if you really want to make a comparison to cars. 

To own a car, I have to 

1) Get a license.
2) Only operate it on designated roads that are patrolled by police. 
3) Carry insurance at all times.
4) Get it checked once ever two years to make sure it isn't creating excessive exhaust


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Nope. Sorry. 

Let's try again.  

100,000 DGU's a year.  I've never known one. 

32,000 Gun DEATHS a year.  I've known three.  

Sorry, if this happened as often as you claim, I'd know at least nine.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Not with the criminals?  lol   Now you have moved into truly twisted fantasyland.

As I have said, suicides who want to die will kill themselves.  I have no problem with laws requiring proper storage of firearms.  Any couple who does that is, hopefully, doing so before they breed.  We can call it chlorine in the gene pool.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Whole lot of reasons.  The primary one being that they are social democracies that don't let people starve or children die of treatable diseases, because they don't have fucking retards who say shit like "Well, the Founding Slave Rapists didn't put that in the constitution."


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...



Again, guy, you are the one who is pissing himself over the thought of criminals. 

Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner were upstanding citizens until they went on their shooting sprees.  And they were able to get guns pretty easily.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No, you only have to do those things if you operate your car on public roads.  If you keep it on your private property you can drive it without a license, be uninsured, and drive however you want.  You still might have to get it checked, based on what state you are in, but that is about pollution.  When guns cause pollution they can be included.

The people who sell guns follow the rules, get background checks, and file all the proper paperwork.  Then some nutball does something, and you want the seller prosecuted???   Oh, and the gun sellers don't market their products to people who want to commit crimes or find ways to water down background checks.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



So taking away guns will change that?  Or will we see more bombings like McVeigh did?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yep, they were.  As soon as you get your crystal ball functioning, let us know.  Then you can predict which people will murder others and we can stop them.  But we are not disarming the 100k to 350k who stop or prevent crimes with their guns.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> No, you only have to do those things if you operate your car on public roads.  If you keep it on your private property you can drive it without a license, be uninsured, and drive however you want.  You still might have to get it checked, based on what state you are in, but that is about pollution.  When guns cause pollution they can be included.



Oh, yeah.  You can use it, but not for it's specific purpose.  Okay. I'm game.  You can have a gun, but you aren't allowed to fire it or own bullets.  Works for me.  Since all those DGU's involved criminals seeing guns and running away, that works.  




WinterBorn said:


> [
> The people who sell guns follow the rules, get background checks, and file all the proper paperwork.  Then some nutball does something, and you want the seller prosecuted???   Oh, and the gun sellers don't market their products to people who want to commit crimes or find ways to water down background checks.



The problem is, the gun sellers avoid the background checks.  And the NRA fights ANY attempts at background checks, they've kept the private buyer and gun show loopholes open.  

In 2002, they sued a gun shop and the manufacturer after the DC Sniper incident. The gun shop sold to John MOhammed knowing he was felon, and Malvo knowing he was a minor.  And after they had to pay the families a big payout, the gun manufacturers did tighten .... oh,wait, no they didn't.  They went to Congress and got a law passed that exempted gun sellers from liability.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Yep, they were.  As soon as you get your crystal ball functioning, let us know.  Then you can predict which people will murder others and we can stop them.  But we are not disarming the 100k to 350k who stop or prevent crimes with their guns.



That never fucking happens, so I'm all for disarming them. 

Maybe then we'd get you guys to do something about poverty rather than snuggling up to your guns and thinking you are safe. 

We'd have to issue you some humanity, first.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> So taking away guns will change that?  Or will we see more bombings like McVeigh did?



After what McVeigh did, they put strict regulations on the selling of fertilizers and tracked who was buying them. 

But you didn't have a National Fertilizer Association saying that the Founding Fathers wanted people to have Fertilizers to make Bombs to blow up Federal Buildings.  Because that would be some fucking crazy shit if you said it out loud. 

Oh, wait. That's exactly what the NRA says about guns.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Once again, since you obviously cannot comprehend, is a fertilizer bomb the only bomb that can be made by an amateur??

And your strawman comparisons are ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Of course it happens.  Your denial does not change anything.  Work on that constitutional amendment, then we'll talk.

Two different topics.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



No, but of the things you can make bombs out of are controlled, which is why after the WTC 93 and OKC bombings, we haven't seen another big truck bomb attack in this country.  

Because nobody wants their product associated with that.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The "gun show loophole" is the same as the private buyer issue.  And no, the gun sellers do not have anything to do with either of those.  If they sell firearms as a business, they have to have an FFL.  If they have an FFL they do background checks on every firearm the business sells.

John Mohammed was not a felon.  He could not buy a gun because he had a restraining order out against him.  I'll look for more info, but at least 2 sources say Mohammed stole the AR15 he used.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Bullshit.  I could make a bomb that would flatten your house with items not controlled and without spending more than $200.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



And are you saying that the supply is controlled by the businesses?  Since they don't want their product associated with it?  lmao!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> The "gun show loophole" is the same as the private buyer issue.  And no, the gun sellers do not have anything to do with either of those.  If they sell firearms as a business, they have to have an FFL.  If they have an FFL they do background checks on every firearm the business sells.
> 
> John Mohammed was not a felon.  He could not buy a gun because he had a restraining order out against him.  I'll look for more info, but at least 2 sources say Mohammed stole the AR15 he used.



I'm sure you'll find it the same place you found that picture of michael brown with a gun and a wad. 

All them darkies look the same to you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

> Bullshit.  I could make a bomb that would flatten your house with items not controlled and without spending more than $200.



Guy, no one wants to hear your masturbation fantasies.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Oh please.  Your attempts to paint me as a racist are laughable.  I defy you to find one post I have made that says anything even remotely racist.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



You mean other than your passionate defenses of the Racist Nazi Weaver family?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> > Bullshit.  I could make a bomb that would flatten your house with items not controlled and without spending more than $200.
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, no one wants to hear your masturbation fantasies.



LOL!   You don't want to hear the facts either.  They ruin your fantasies.

But I'll tell you one bit that will ruin your fantasies.

The shooting by Mohammed and Malvo was not particularly impressive.  None of the shots were very long, and they picked targets of opportunity.  Virtually any hunter could do as well or better.

Your dreams of banning guns will never come close to removing hunting firearms.  And a deer rifle is FAR more dangerous than the 9mm handguns you wet your pants over.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Have I defended their racism?   Have I been a racist?  

I defended them because they committed no crime concerning their racist views.  And I am adamantly against prosecuting (or executing) someone based solely on what they believe.

Still waiting for any racist posts of mine.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > > Bullshit.  I could make a bomb that would flatten your house with items not controlled and without spending more than $200.
> ...



The families of the 10 people they killed would disagree. 

But man, why is it that you can't get a gun nut to talk and they always come back to their snuff fantasies?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The families would disagree with my assessment of the difficulty of the shots made??  Why would they do that?

I am not talking snuff fantasies at all.  I am discussing shooting and hunting.  Most hunters can hit a dinner plate sized target at 300 to 400 yards.  This is how they take game.    I don't think any of the shots Mohammed and Malvo took were over 100 yards, and they had a rock solid rest from which to shoot.  These are facts that prove my point.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> The families would disagree with my assessment of the difficulty of the shots made??  Why would they do that?
> 
> I am not talking snuff fantasies at all.  I am discussing shooting and hunting.  Most hunters can hit a dinner plate sized target at 300 to 400 yards.  This is how they take game.    I don't think any of the shots Mohammed and Malvo took were over 100 yards, and they had a rock solid rest from which to shoot.  These are facts that prove my point.



Yeah, guy, you talk about shooting all the time. 

someone is compensating for certain "shortcomings".


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The families would disagree with my assessment of the difficulty of the shots made??  Why would they do that?
> ...



It is a hobby of mine.   I don't think my discussions of a hobby is relevant.  I do not talk about it overmuch.  This is just another of your dodges.  You have done it over and over in this thread.

Oh, and your attempt at an insult with the "shortcomings" line is almost amusing.  Please keep your mind on the topic and off my genitals.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



My hobby happens to be writing.  I don't talk about it every other post or spend weeks on it like you have.  This is like your third fucking week on this thread, guy.  

And, yes, I suspect like most gun nuts, it's really tiny.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



And you have been writing in this thread for 3 weeks.   

I have not talked about shooting much in this thread.  What I have talked about is constitutional rights, social problems, criminal behavior and a host of other topics you have introduced to divert attention from your last series of lies.  I find it most amusing that you try and make my participation in our dialogue mean something besides it being a discussion.  Yes, I have stayed in the conversation.  Just as you have.

Please spare us your sexual fantasies and stay on topic.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Why would the families disagree with my assessments?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> And you have been writing in this thread for 3 weeks.
> 
> ...



Guy, like most gun nuts, you can only be mocked because you can't be reasoned with. 

"Waaah, the Founding Fathers said I can have a gun!!!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Why would the families disagree with my assessments?



Why don't you look the families up and discuss the merits of Malvo's marksmanship with them. 

Just make sure you bring your Penis Compensator, because I suspect some of those discussions could get ugly.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



LMAO!!!   Oh that is rich.  You deny the results of federal studies because it doesn't fit with your ideology, and I am the one being unreasonable?   You cheer the murders of 2 citizens because of what they believe or think, and I am unreasonable?  You have lied over and over and over, but I am being unreasonable?  lol


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



YOu are the one who claimed that they would disagree.  I simply asked why.  I am not defending anything that sick fuck did.  I am simply commenting on the relative difficulty of the shots.  Since you claim you used to frequent the shooting range, you should understand what I mean.  Or was that simply another lie?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I understand perfectly. 

Mohammed and Malvo never, ever should have been allowed to buy guns. 

But they were anyway.  

But you want to talk about their "Marksmanship".


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I brought up their marksmanship, yes.  As an aside concerning the hunting firearms that you will never get banned.  It was more relevant than many of your dodges.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



And still you do not answer my simple question concerning your claim.  You said the families would disagree.  I am asking why they would.  You still have not answered.  Funny how you dodge so much.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> I brought up their marksmanship, yes.  As an aside concerning the hunting firearms that you will never get banned.  It was more relevant than many of your dodges.



We don't need to. 

Just get them so heavily regulated that only the wealthiest enthusiasts can afford it.  

That works.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Gee, I'm sure I owuld love to see that conversation. 

WhinerBorn: "Gee, those two snipers weren't very good marksman.  they shot your loved one at close range!" 

Relative: "What kind of sick bastard are you?" 

Whinerborn: "I'm someone who just loves his guns!"


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Absolute strawman.   I made a comment on the relative difficulty of the shots.  I said they were not particularly impressive.  You claimed the families of the victims would disagree.  You did not say they would be mad at me for talking about it.  You said they would disagree.  Now you have no reasons for why they would disagree??

In other words, I said the shots were not impressive.  You said the relatives would disagree.  Why would the relatives think any of those shots were impressive?????

But I understand if you want to keep trying to divert the discussion away from what you said.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No, that won't happen either.

But, for the sake of argument, lets say it does.  How do you propose the state conservation agencies replace the money in their budgets that hunters put there??  Often it is the lion's share of the budget.  Going to replace that with federal money?

And how would you propose the animal populations be controlled?

Oh, and will you and the other anti-gun nuts be donating hundreds of thousands of pounds of meat to various food banks, soup kitchens and homeless shelters?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

Your arguments throughout this thread have been typical of your ilk.

You formed an idea based on emotions and kneejerk reactions.  You then proclaim it to be a solution.  You ignore the fact that your "solution" doesn't solve the problem, and that it cause a plethora of other problems.

When confronted with facts you either try to divert the topic in another direction or you attack the other person.  Neither of which helps your argument.

You come into the argument woefully unprepared and lacking knowledge on the topic, but claim expertise.  So you lie.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And your actual agenda is, once again, revealed.   You are saying you want to see hunting firearms so heavily regulated by the gov't that only the wealthy can enjoy the sport.   And this is based, not on actual crimes, but on what someone told you COULD happen.   lol


----------



## turtledude (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




and only a moron thinks people who plan mass murder will not be able to get a gun

listen dullard

the MORE likely one is to ignore capital death sentences

THE MORE LIKELY gun control laws won't impede them

WHY DO YOU WANT TO DISARM HONEST PEOPLE


----------



## turtledude (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Tribe has now adopted the individual rights position.  Tribe is too Old.  

Amar is more likely as is Karlan


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



If THAT is your view, then you should be for outlawing swimming.  It serves no purpose and kills WAY more people than guns every year.  You are afraid and obviously live in fear.  What a pathetic excuse for a man you must be.


----------



## ChrisL (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



What a POS you are.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> 1) The Marshals identified themselves.



No, they sure didn't.

Degan and his hit squad were using stealth to assault weaver and his family. A dog found them and began to bark. Degan murdered the dog. The Weaver boy Sammy saw Degan murder his dog and took a wild shot in the direction of the intruders. Degan then murdered Sammy. Kevin Harris saw Degan murder the young boy and shot, killing Degan.



> 2) It wasn't like he didn't know who was after him.



The young boy had no idea who the armed invaders were, he knew that a man with a gun slaughtered his dog. He had every reason to believe that man would murder him - which in fact he did.



> 3) Do we know this happened at night?



It was 6:34 AM according to official records, when Marshall Michael Degan murdered Sammy Weaver.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 12, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> 1) They identified themselves to Randy Weaver.  The stories differ as to whether they did to Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris. It is known that their camo clothing had no badges or other markings identifying them as federal agents.
> 2) No one was after Sammy Weaver.  And this was the first incursion by the feds.



The ATF and Marshalls task force reported that the first contact was when Degan shot and killed the family dog. Sammy returned a single shot, when Degan murdered him. Harris reacted to the murder of the boy by shooting and killing Degan.  ATF troopers wounded Harris as he retreated to the cabin in a hail of gun fire.

No words were spoken. 

Fata Decisions mdash All about Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge by David Lohr mdash Crime Library


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> No, that won't happen either.
> 
> ...



Yeah, guy, please try to convince us your cruelty to animals has redeeming social value.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Your arguments throughout this thread have been typical of your ilk.
> 
> You formed an idea based on emotions and kneejerk reactions.  You then proclaim it to be a solution.  You ignore the fact that your "solution" doesn't solve the problem, and that it cause a plethora of other problems.
> 
> ...



It solves the exact problem I want  solved. 

Punishing the fuck out of gun nuts for being assholes.  

It'll probably reduce the murder rate, too.  Because every other country that has banned guns has seen a drop in the murder and suicide rates.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > 1) The Marshals identified themselves.
> ...



Which means the sun was already up.  6:34 was the MORNING, last time I checked.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Swimming doesn't kill anyone. 

NOT knowing how to swim kills people. 

You aren't very bright, are you?


----------



## Joe Steel (Sep 13, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Before Heller, I don't know that we can say the Court ever has addressed the nature of the right declared by the Second Amendment.  The Court's decisions always have been about what guns a person may possess and have associated that right with the militia.  The Court, however, has misinterpreted the word "militia."
> ...



That's not right.  The Founders feared a "standing," or professional, army.  They wanted a civilian military which they thought couldn't be used to oppress the citizens the way the English army did.  The Second Amendment guarantees control of the military to the People not the government.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



My hunting is far less cruel than death by starvation or disease.  But I see you have no answers for the questions I asked.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Your arguments throughout this thread have been typical of your ilk.
> ...



Solves the problem of how you can punish gun owners?  lol  Figures.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



If the shooting happened just after sunrise, the agents were prowling around the property at night.

It does not change any of the facts.  Sammy Weaver was murdered by federal agents who did not identify themselves and wore no identifying badges or insignia.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



And maintaining an armed population still accomplishes that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Gee, however did those poor animals get by without you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [Q
> 
> If the shooting happened just after sunrise, the agents were prowling around the property at night.
> 
> It does not change any of the facts.  Sammy Weaver was murdered by federal agents who did not identify themselves and wore no identifying badges or insignia.



6:45, the sun was up, and everyone could see who everyone was.  

Sammy the Nazi was told they were federal agents and shot at them anyway. But that kid probably had more balls than you do.  YOu just talk smack about shooting the government.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



Who told him they were federal agents??   Or did they tell him AFTER they shot him in the back?

More lies and attempts at distraction?   Where have I talked smack about shooting the gov't??   Come on, Sparky, show us all??  Or admit you are lying again.  I'm challenging you to show where I have talked smack about shooting the gov't.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Awww look, someone is clueless and trying to be sarcastic.

Those animals got by without us when there were predators to keep their number in check.  Not many big predators in the lower states. 

Feel free to counter any point I made concerning hunting and hunters.  My guess is that you cannot, so you are sticking with petty remarks.  Typical.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



You the one who thinks Nancy needed to be armed for the Zombie Apocolypse because we needs to fight us the gummit.  Come one, why don't you spineless asshole own your bullshit rhetoric. 

The federal agents identified themselves.  And they had been after these Nazis for months.  But there were crazy Nazi fucks who took pot shots at anyone who got too close.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Naw, man, I'm just having fun watching you try to spin your sadism as a public service. 

Let's be honest, you just get off on killing things, don't you?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

Here are some facts that might help educate you.

The last info I saw showed the whitetail deer herd in Alabama alone was estimated to be around 1.5 million animals.  Wildlife biologists say we need to remove a third of them every year to maintain a stable herd.  How do you propose that the wealthy hunters kill 500,000 animals every year?  Or how do you propose to remove those animals?

Safari International donates over 400,000 lbs of meat annually.  This gives food banks, homeless shelters and soup kitchens at least 1.6 million servings of high quality protein that does not have steroids or antibiotics in it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Lying again?   I did not say Nancy Lanza needed to be armed for a Zombie Apocalypse.

I am happy to own what I say.  The problem is, you have a habit of lying about what I said.


No, the federal agents did not identify themselves.  And while the prosecution and setting up of Randy Weaver had been going on for months, the feds had not been on their property or seen by the Weavers.  This was the feds first foray into the woods around the Weaver cabin.    So, once again, you are lying about what actually happened.  I guess that makes it easier to denigrate the family.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I enjoy hunting.  The killing is only a minor part of that.   It is a predator/prey relationship.  It requires no spin.  I go to great lengths, considerable expense and some physical discomfort to make sure all my kills are as humane as possible.  In 35 years of hunting, I have had only one deer run after I shot it.  I tracked it less than 100 yards before I found the carcass.  The rest fell immediately or almost immediately.  Certainly much less painful than slow starvation or being hit by a car and suffering.   My hunting also removes invasive species from our environment.  The feral hogs are a huge problem in many areas.

And, other than coyote, all of the animals I hunt are eaten.  Either I eat them or friends & family do.  tasty meat that is far more healthful than what you buy in the grocery store.   Plus, I am willing to kill the meat I eat.  Unlike you, who pays someone else to kill it and sell it to you wrapped in plastic & styrofoam.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

More info for your education:

Populations

According to the website above, the current deer population in the US is around 20 million animals.   Given adequate food that population can double every 2-3 years.  To maintain a stable herd, as I said before, requires the removal of more than 6.5 million animals.  But your brilliant plan is to limit hunting to only the top 1%??


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 13, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> Lying again?   I did not say Nancy Lanza needed to be armed for a Zombie Apocalypse.
> 
> I am happy to own what I say.  The problem is, you have a habit of lying about what I said.
> ...



Uh, this Nazi endangered his family by engaging in a standoff with the Federal Government.  

And, no, this wasn't the first foray.  They had arrested him several months earlier by posing as interested buyers of his property.  

This was a family of inbred Nazi degenerates who murdered a federal officer.  I don't have to "denigrate" them.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The standoff started after this.  There were no feds around, to the Weaver's knowledge, prior to this night.  There is absolutely no way Sammy Weaver could have known these men in camo clothing, with no identifying insignia, were federal agents.  They had just shot his dog and he fired a couple of shots their way and ran.  he was shot in the back, never knowing who killed him.  Your attempts to twist the facts is laughable.  Not surprising, but laughable.

Care to offer any evidence that there was any inbreeding?   Or how about any degenerate behavior?   Or were those just two more lies?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Also, since it was after daybreak, Degan would have seen that it was a 14 year old boy and that he was leaving when he shot him in the back.  Some hero you have there.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> The standoff started after this.  There were no feds around, to the Weaver's knowledge, prior to this night.  There is absolutely no way Sammy Weaver could have known these men in camo clothing, with no identifying insignia, were federal agents.  They had just shot his dog and he fired a couple of shots their way and ran.  he was shot in the back, never knowing who killed him.  Your attempts to twist the facts is laughable.  Not surprising, but laughable.
> 
> Care to offer any evidence that there was any inbreeding?   Or how about any degenerate behavior?   Or were those just two more lies?



You mean other than being Nazis?  

"But, but, but, they weren't Nazis. They were the most wonderfulest people in the world!" 

Sadly, the internet is full of shit by Nazis and Gun Assholes trying to make these people into heroes, but if you look hard enough, you can find an unbiased source. 

The Randy Weaver Ruby Ridge Trial An Account

_Weaver never had any intention of returning for his court date. A letter written by Vicki to the U. S. Attorney for Idaho (addressed in the letter as the "Servant of the Queen of Babylon") promised they "will not bow to your evil commandments...whether we live or whether we die." When the February court date passed, with Randy as a no-show, a failure to appear warrant was issued for Weaver's arrest and the case sent to the U. S. Marshal's Service. In light of what became a constant stream of threatening letters to the federal government, Dave Hunt, deputy U. S. Marshal, reluctantly considered calling in Special Operations Group (SOG), an elite marshals force used for raids and difficult fugitive cases. 
_
Hmmmm..   

And then you have this. 

_The presence of children complicated the Marshal's Service task, especially given Randy Weaver's practice of sending his gun-toting children out in front of him to greet strangers._

Swell guy you make a hero out of, someone who uses children as human shields. 

_A SOG surveillance team consisting of six marshals entered the Weaver property on August 21, 1992, with the intent of scouting out positions for an undercover plan to capture Weaver. At about* 10:45 a.m.*, near the end of the operation, three marshals were moving back down the mountain to rejoin their other comrades. The Weaver's yellow Lab, Striker, had caught a whiff and ran down the road to investigate, followed by Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris. The dog closed in on the retreating three marshals, Arthur Roderick, Larry Cooper, and 15-year SOG veteran Billy Degan. Soon the dog had Cooper cornered. As Harris came up behind the dog, Cooper rose and shouted, "Back off! U.S. Marshal!" Seconds later, from behind a stump, Degan rose to his knee and shouted, "Freeze! U.S. Marshal!" _


Wait, wait? WHat was that? THey DID Identify themselves?  It was 10:45 AM, as in "not dark out". 

But, man, they were just fighting for gun rights, man.  They were like awesome people being oppressed by the government.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> Also, since it was after daybreak, Degan would have seen that it was a 14 year old boy and that he was leaving when he shot him in the back.  Some hero you have there.



Really?  Frankly, bullets start flying, you don't have time to card people.  

Point was, you claimed they shot these folks at night.  It was actually 10:45 in the morning.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Where did you get that info?   All I have seen is much earlier.

Also, if these agents were worth a shit they would have recognized the Sammy.

And when have you been in a situation where bullets were flying?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Wow, you finally found an actual account of what went on.  Although, as I have said before, the accounts differ.

The accounts I have read give a somewhat different account.  Such as the comments earlier that the marshals did not identify themselves and that the shooting happened between 6am and 7am.

The account in the link you posted also shows the gov't agents were fully aware that there were children at the cabin, and were aware who they were.  They would have known who Sammy was.   So one of them knew he was a kid and still shot him in the back.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

I notice you backed away from the hunting discussion.  I guess you realized the folly there?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2014)

*The accounts I have read give a somewhat different account.*

you should probably spend less time on Gun Nutter websites, then.  

When you give kids weapons and train them to shoot federal agents, the designation of "child" becomes meaningless.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I notice you backed away from the hunting discussion.  I guess you realized the folly there?



Naw, just got bored with you trying to rationalize your sadism as a public service.  I'm actually kind of getting bored with this entire thread, actually.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> *The accounts I have read give a somewhat different account.*
> 
> you should probably spend less time on Gun Nutter websites, then.
> 
> When you give kids weapons and train them to shoot federal agents, the designation of "child" becomes meaningless.



Well, since a high ranking agent with the FBI questioned the account of the events and stated that the charges against Weaver were bogus, I think the one you found might be lacking some fundamental elements.  Like accuracy.

And the account you quoted had Sammy Weaver listed as 13 years old.  That is a child.  And that he was shot in the back shows the agents were guilty of murdering a child.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I notice you backed away from the hunting discussion.  I guess you realized the folly there?
> ...



I would imagine you ARE tired of this thread.  Having your lies repeatedly pointed out and exposed would get tiresome.

What you claim is my "sadism" is a time honored tradition.   And, as I have said before, at least I have the decency to kill my own meat and not rely on someone else to do the dirty work and then claim my own innocence.   lol

Feel free to find a new thread in which to tell your lies.  It seems to be a habit with you.   But the fundamental facts remain the same.  And you have not disputed the ones I presented.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > *The accounts I have read give a somewhat different account.*
> ...



No, they executed a NAZI who was firing on federal agents. 

Seriously, how many hate crimes would that little fuck have been involved in had he lived? 

Retroactive abortion. I'm all for it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> [
> 
> I would imagine you ARE tired of this thread.  Having your lies repeatedly pointed out and exposed would get tiresome.
> d.



No, what bores me is that you are kind of fucking nuts, and you are totally good with that. We have 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries in this country every year because people like you aren't laughed at.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2014)

Unwatch.  i'm done.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



We have less than 10,000 gun related murders a year and over 100,000 instances where a privately owned gun stopped a crime.  Your twisting of the facts and ridiculous claim that banning guns would stop people determined to commit suicide are routinely ridiculed by people like me.  So the public sees them as lies.

I am not laughed at because I do not lie. (unlike you)

I am not nuts.  I am not the one celebrating deaths.  I am not the one lying over and over.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Unwatch.  i'm done.



Ok by me.  It was fun humiliating and educating you.  Hopefully others found it as educational.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2014)

Only people who've agreed with you here are nuttier than you are.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Only people who've agreed with you here are nuttier than you are.



The overwhelming majority of people in this country disagree with what you want.   Only an extreme minority of lunatics are calling for bans on all firearms, as you have.  I guess most people in this country are "nuts" by your definition.   That speaks volumes about your own mental instability.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 14, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Only people who've agreed with you here are nuttier than you are.
> ...




+ what apparently seems to be an OCD --LOL


----------



## Joe Steel (Sep 14, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > That's not right.  The Founders feared a "standing," or professional, army.  They wanted a civilian military which they thought couldn't be used to oppress the citizens the way the English army did.  The Second Amendment guarantees control of the military to the People not the government.
> ...



Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.  In either case, it's not what the Second Amendment is intended to d.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



So you say.  Many constitutional scholars disagree with you and think that is exactly what the 2nd was meant to do.


----------



## Joe Steel (Sep 14, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.  In either case, it's not what the Second Amendment is intended to do.
> ...



There's the problem.  At best, the Second Amendment is unclear and ambiguous.  Anyone can find in it whatever the want to find.  The only prudent course of action is to ignore it.  Short of that, it should be interpreted in the most minimal way possible, giving the text only the meaning supported by common rules of construction.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 14, 2014)

> At best, the Second Amendment is unclear and ambiguous.



Only for those seeking to get rid of it..."shall not be infringed" is only hard for anti gunners to understand...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 14, 2014)

> We have 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries in this country every year because people like you aren't laughed at.



You do realize that of the 32,000 or so gun deaths only 11-12,000 are gun murders, the majority of the rest are suicides by people taking their own lives...and accidental gun deaths....only between 600-700 each year....now compare that number to the number of times people use guns to save lives, and stop violent criminals...1.4 millions (an average of 15 different gun studies on how often people use guns in self defense)

So...gun save lives...


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



LMAO!!   Of course, since you want guns gone, you would want the amendment ignored.

But I believe that our rights and freedoms should be assumed unless you can show solid evidence to the contrary.  You wish to take away a fundamental, constitutional right.  That does not happen by default.  It is not easy for a reason.  It should not be easy to remove a freedom from our citizens.


----------



## Joe Steel (Sep 14, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > There's the problem.  At best, the Second Amendment is unclear and ambiguous.  Anyone can find in it whatever the want to find.  The only prudent course of action is to ignore it.  Short of that, it should be interpreted in the most minimal way possible, giving the text only the meaning supported by common rules of construction.
> ...



Of course.  It does more harm than good.



WinterBorn said:


> But I believe that our rights and freedoms should be assumed unless you can show solid evidence to the contrary.  You wish to take away a fundamental, constitutional right.  That does not happen by default.  It is not easy for a reason.  It should not be easy to remove a freedom from our citizens.



You're assuming facts not in evidence.  The so-called personal freedom to possess guns is at issue.  It has not been shown to exist except by misconstruction of the Second Amendment.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 14, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



More harm than good?   10k gun related murders is, admittedly, a terrible thing.  100k crimes stopped by civilians with guns is not.  65 million gun owners and 10k murders.  If every gun related murder was committed by a legal gun owner (they are not, not by a long shot) the it would still only amount to 0.015% of the gun owners.  99.9% have not killed anyone.

Also, hunters (the overwhelming majority using guns) donate between 1.5 and 1.9 million servings of high quality protein to homeless shelters, soup kitchens and food banks.  Recreational shooting is at an all time high for popularity.  Hunting is a sport enjoyed by millions and used to provide food for many families.

More harm than good?  I doubt that very much.


You claim the right has been shown to exist only by misconstruction of the 2nd Amendment.   I disagree.  And so do plenty of constitutional scholars.  Your assumption that the right granted must now be denied, simply because you and a few others disagree, is ridiculous.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Which means the sun was already up.  6:34 was the MORNING, last time I checked.



It would be starting to get light at that time of year. 

So your point is that Degan knew he was murdering a young boy when he shot?

Look, they brought FBI assassin Lon Horiuchi along - their only purpose was to murder people.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 15, 2014)

Something truly ironic about the op....just can't put my trigger finger on it.?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> If the shooting happened just after sunrise, the agents were prowling around the property at night.
> 
> It does not change any of the facts.  Sammy Weaver was murdered by federal agents who did not identify themselves and wore no identifying badges or insignia.



The assault began at 4:00 AM.

What they were doing for 2.5 hours is unknown.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Something truly ironic about the op....just can't put my trigger finger on it.?



A leftist spreading outright lies?

That's not ironic duhs, that's typical.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 15, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Something truly ironic about the op....just can't put my trigger finger on it.?
> ...


any credible proof they are lies?
or is it your standard disclaimer leftist are all liars?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 15, 2014)

> of is your standard disclaimer leftist are all liars?



Among a number of other things....


----------



## daws101 (Sep 15, 2014)

*My brother says you're a lefty pinko rag. True?*
Here's where we're coming from: We believe all people should have equal opportunity in life, that all children should be able to go to good schools, and that everyone should have health care. Call that what you will–we're not insulted by being called left, liberal, progressive, whatever. (We've noticed, though, that the people who resort to name-calling are often just trying to distract the public from their own misdeeds.) Political inclinations notwithstanding, we will cheerfully investigate any people or entities of any political persuasion, right, left, or center, if their behavior warrants it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


> any credible proof they are lies?
> or is it your standard disclaimer leftist are all liars?



Robert Dowlut has never been convicted of any crimes - much less murder.

What is your word for what your fellow Communist did - if not "lie?"


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


> *My brother says you're a lefty pinko rag. True?*
> Here's where we're coming from: We believe all people should have equal opportunity in life, that all children should be able to go to good schools, and that everyone should have health care. Call that what you will–we're not insulted by being called left, liberal, progressive, whatever. (We've noticed, though, that the people who resort to name-calling are often just trying to distract the public from their own misdeeds.) Political inclinations notwithstanding, we will cheerfully investigate any people or entities of any political persuasion, right, left, or center, if their behavior warrants it.



How about those who claim that enemies of the party are convicted of murder, when no conviction exists?


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 15, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > any credible proof they are lies?
> ...



Actually, Robert Dowlut WAS convicted of the crime.  The conviction was overturned because of police misconduct.  But since Dowlut is a member of the Bar Association, he is qualified to practice law, as he has been doing for years.


----------



## EconChick (Sep 15, 2014)

This reminds me of what you liberal dum dums did before the 2012 election.  If you have nothing of substance to run on, make shit up or beat the drum on something so inconsequential it might as well be made up.

I call that Sandra Fluke-ismmm's. 

But now things are even worse.  You merry little mental midgets are crashing so badly in the polls that even that portion of America that was so fucking gullible in 2012 can't help you.

Sorry, dude, even Flukeisms like your OP can't pull you libs out of your November nightmare.


----------



## Joe Steel (Sep 16, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> > You're assuming facts not in evidence.  The so-called personal freedom to possess guns is at issue.  It has not been shown to exist except by misconstruction of the Second Amendment.
> ...



The acceptance of a personal right to guns is not universal and the number of so-called constitutional scholars who support is irrelevant.  The NRA has been promoting gun "rights" for decades and has attracted functionaries who are willing to churn-out "scholarship" to fit the NRA's requirements.  It's become a profitable occupation so their credibility is suspect at best.


----------



## WinterBorn (Sep 16, 2014)

Joe Steel said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Joe Steel said:
> ...



I never said it was universal.   But I think you have tried to slant things to make anyone disagreeing with your position look like a shill for the NRA.  That is, obviously, not the case.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 16, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > any credible proof they are lies?
> ...


you just proved my point about credibility.
you're lying when you claim I'm a communist.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 16, 2014)

daws101 said:


> [you just proved my point about credibility.
> you're lying when you claim I'm a communist.



Come on duhs, you're not fooling anyone here.

Your filthy party advocates for a command economy under the rule of a central, authoritarian state.

That's Communism, bud.

I don't care if you consider it "pure" Marxism or not - it is Communism as practiced by Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, China, and the USSR.

The democrats are recreating the Soviet Union in America - pure and simple.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 16, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > [you just proved my point about credibility.
> ...


only in your fantasies..


----------

