# Gun registration in California?  They just signed a law giving gun owner information to outside parties..



## 2aguy (Oct 1, 2021)

This is just one reason not to give in to the insane demand to register guns...

*California Governor Gavin Newsom, having survived his recall election, has taken the next step in his agenda on gun control.  He signed California Assembly Bill 173 into law, amending the California Penal Code Section 11106 to include this new authorization to release personally identifiable information about every California gun owner to researchers.*









						California Reveals Gun Owner Identities to Gun Violence Researchers
					

Be careful of what you ask for, Governor Newsom.




					redstate.com
				












						California proves the dangers of complying with gun registration
					






					armedamericannews.org
				




Now.....these law abiding Americans can be targeted by blm/antifa thugs and the various other thug groups deployed by the democrat party...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Now.....these law abiding Americans can be targeted by blm/antifa thugs and the various other thug groups deployed by the democrat party...



Works for me.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Oct 1, 2021)

Californica.  Go figure.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Oct 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> This is just one reason not to give in to the insane demand to register guns...
> 
> *California Governor Gavin Newsom, having survived his recall election, has taken the next step in his agenda on gun control.  He signed California Assembly Bill 173 into law, amending the California Penal Code Section 11106 to include this new authorization to release personally identifiable information about every California gun owner to researchers.*
> 
> ...


Will they have to register fly swatters, rat traps and cans of Raid as well?  All just tools for getting rid of vermin.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 1, 2021)

This is no joke.....next thing you know people will hear a knock on their door....and some leftist lunatic will be there waiting to scream at them or throw shit at them.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 1, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Works for me.


why am i not surprised.....


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 1, 2021)




----------



## 2aguy (Oct 1, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> This is no joke.....next thing you know people will hear a knock on their door....and some leftist lunatic will be there waiting to scream at them or throw shit at them.



That is part of the plan……and they also want these people targeted by thieves who will now know where guns are.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2021)

Imagine if some red state did this with the names and addresses of women who had an abortion.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Oct 1, 2021)

Did you read the text?  It seems to me that researchers can only get identifying information if you were convicted of a crime: 

13202.
 (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (g) of Section 11105 and subdivision (a) of Section 13305, every public agency or bona fide research institution concerned with the prevention or control of crime, the quality of criminal justice, or the custody or correction of offenders may be provided with criminal offender record information, including criminal court records, as required for the performance of its duties, including the conduct of research. The California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis and researchers affiliated with the center shall be provided with criminal offender record information as required for its research. The material identifying individuals shall only be provided for research and statistical activities and shall not be transferred, revealed, or used for purposes other than research or statistical activities. Reports or publications derived from this information shall not identify specific individuals. Reasonable costs to the department associated with the department’s processing of that data may be billed to the researcher. If a request for data or letter of support for research using the data is denied, the department shall provide a written statement of the specific reasons for the denial. A person shall not be denied information pursuant to this section solely on the basis of that person’s criminal record unless the person has been convicted of a felony or another offense that involves moral turpitude, dishonesty, or fraud."

And the registry itself is not specifically mentioned as being information they can release to the researchers in any case anyway.  It specifically states the registry is to be released to prosecutors for both civil and criminal cases.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox (Oct 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> This is just one reason not to give in to the insane demand to register guns...
> 
> *California Governor Gavin Newsom, having survived his recall election, has taken the next step in his agenda on gun control.  He signed California Assembly Bill 173 into law, amending the California Penal Code Section 11106 to include this new authorization to release personally identifiable information about every California gun owner to researchers.*
> 
> ...


Don't give in. Muslims want to plunge a thing into you, adding  hole to your body, that does not belong on your body. Muslims don't want a person to put a hole into them, with a gun.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> That is part of the plan……and they also want these people targeted by thieves who will now know where guns are.



What, I thought you guys said guns protect you from burglars?  Now you are saying they make them more likely. 

Of course, 500,000 guns are stolen every year....  so we already have a problem.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Oct 2, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Imagine if some red state did this with the names and addresses of women who had an abortion.


Pussyhat Armageddon.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> What, I thought you guys said guns protect you from burglars?  Now you are saying they make them more likely.
> 
> Of course, 500,000 guns are stolen every year....  so we already have a problem.




Moron...

Burglars rob homes when people are not there, robbers go in when people are there...

And, you idiot....normal people don't want to have to worry about having to defend themselves because idiots like you told criminals to target them in order to steal their guns....


----------



## hjmick (Oct 2, 2021)

I don't miss living in California even a little bit...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron...
> 
> Burglars rob homes when people are not there, robbers go in when people are there...
> 
> And, you idiot....normal people don't want to have to worry about having to defend themselves because idiots like you told criminals to target them in order to steal their guns....



Uh, guy, gun nuts aren't normal.  The best argument for gun control is listening to you gun nuts rant about all the people you want to shoot.  

The reality- Rest of the world limits gun ownership, and they don't have nearly the levels of murder, crime or other problems we have.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, gun nuts aren't normal.  The best argument for gun control is listening to you gun nuts rant about all the people you want to shoot.
> 
> The reality- Rest of the world limits gun ownership, and they don't have nearly the levels of murder, crime or other problems we have.




The rest of the world has murdered hundreds of millions of people...in modern times......not the dark ages.......

More people were murdered in the six years between 1939-1945....12 million innocent men, women and children, than 82 years of criminals murdering criminals with guns  in the United states...about 812,000.

Japan murdered 3 million innocent men, women and children, China 70 million, Russia 25 million..

Sell that crap to biden voters...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, gun nuts aren't normal.  The best argument for gun control is listening to you gun nuts rant about all the people you want to shoot.
> 
> The reality- Rest of the world limits gun ownership, and they don't have nearly the levels of murder, crime or other problems we have.


Rest of the world limits gun ownership.....so when they cant get a gun they strap a bomb to themselves and kill just as many people as the gun massacres do..........


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

Harry Dresden said:


> Rest of the world limits gun ownership.....so when they cant get a gun they strap a bomb to themselves and kill just as many people as the gun massacres do..........




And don't forget......they also mass murder their citizens.....they do that too....


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> What, I thought you guys said guns protect you from burglars?  Now you are saying they make them more likely.
> 
> Of course, 500,000 guns are stolen every year....  so we already have a problem.


The problem is too many thieves.  Work on criminal control and leave law abiding citizens alone.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> he rest of the world has murdered hundreds of millions of people...in modern times......not the dark ages.......
> 
> More people were murdered in the six years between 1939-1945....12 million innocent men, women and children, than 82 years of criminals murdering criminals with guns in the United states...about 812,000.
> 
> Japan murdered 3 million innocent men, women and children, China 70 million, Russia 25 million..



Gunny you list all these things, and never mention the Genocide of Native Americans in the United States or slavery. 

Okay, news flash.  Human being treat eachother pretty shabbily, and when governments pander to the worst in us, there's not much you can do about it. 

Idiots with guns are not going to prevent government from acting badly...  Germans owned lots of guns before WWII.  Not a one of them rushed out and stopped the Nazis from carting off their Jewish neighbors.  It was more like, "Can I have his stuff?"  

Having guns in this country didn't stop the government from carting off hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans, either. (Yes, yes, you'll point out that FDR ordered that, while ignoring that Republicans like Earl Warren were completely on board. You are so fucking predictable that we can anticipate your sad arguments.

Here's the thing.  Most people won't go out there and put their neck out for anyone.  Period. Full stop.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The problem is too many thieves. Work on criminal control and leave law abiding citizens alone.



Actually, most gun murders are domestic arguments that got out of hand, not theft.  

Sorry you don't get that.  

If all the police had to deal with is theft, we'd have a pretty easy life.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Gunny you list all these things, and never mention the Genocide of Native Americans in the United States or slavery.
> 
> Okay, news flash.  Human being treat eachother pretty shabbily, and when governments pander to the worst in us, there's not much you can do about it.
> 
> ...




There was no genocide against indians in this country....they died primarily of diseases they had no immunity for....you liar.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, most gun murders are domestic arguments that got out of hand, not theft.
> 
> Sorry you don't get that.
> 
> If all the police had to deal with is theft, we'd have a pretty easy life.




Moron....most gun murders are committed by criminals....with long histories of crime and violence committing murder.....of baby mommas, and relatives as well as other criminals...you liar.

The Criminology of Firearms
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

*Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.*

*While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Gunny you list all these things, and never mention the Genocide of Native Americans in the United States or slavery.
> 
> Okay, news flash.  Human being treat eachother pretty shabbily, and when governments pander to the worst in us, there's not much you can do about it.
> 
> ...




The democrat party, the party you vote for, was created by slave owners...the slave rapists you constantly bring up...you vote for that party.....the democrat party was the party of slavery, started the Civil War to keep black human beings as slaves, enacted jim crow laws, started the klan, and to this day works to segregate our country by race......

That's on you...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> There was no genocide against indians in this country....they died primarily of diseases they had no immunity for....you liar.



They died primarily because we took their land, crowded them on reservations, and sent the army out to kill them. 

We hunted the Plains Buffalo to near extinction in order to deprive them of a food source. 







2aguy said:


> Moron....most gun murders are committed by criminals....with long histories of crime and violence committing murder.....of baby mommas, and relatives as well as other criminals...you liar.



Again, most murders are committed by family or friends of the deceased.    So let's make it harder for THOSE people to get guns.   The problem is, of course, is you can't do that without also making it harder for gun fetishists to get guns....  




2aguy said:


> The democrat party, the party you vote for, was created by slave owners...the slave rapists you constantly bring up...you vote for that party.....the democrat party was the party of slavery, started the Civil War to keep black human beings as slaves, enacted jim crow laws, started the klan, and to this day works to segregate our country by race......



We threw those people out in the 1960's... and Tricky Dick welcomed them with open arms.


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Works for me.


what a POS.


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, gun nuts aren't normal.  The best argument for gun control is listening to you gun nuts rant about all the people you want to shoot.
> 
> The reality- Rest of the world limits gun ownership, and they don't have nearly the levels of murder, crime or other problems we have.


If you take out liberal run,  anti gun inner cities your last statement is pure bullshit.

But you knew that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 3, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> If you take out liberal run, anti gun inner cities your last statement is pure bullshit.
> 
> But you knew that.



You mean the parts of the country where people actually live?


----------



## maybelooking (Oct 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> You mean the parts of the country where people actually live?


so its your contention that there are NO areas that are densely populated that are conservative run and have low violent crime rates?

of course you know there are.  they are the areas liberals constantly claim (falsely) are providing the guns to the liberal run areas.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 3, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> so its your contention that there are NO areas that are densely populated that are conservative run and have low violent crime rates?
> 
> of course you know there are. they are the areas liberals constantly claim (falsely) are providing the guns to the liberal run areas.



That's the point.  The only reason why Republicans run anything is that we give big empty spaces representation for being big empty spaces...


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, most gun murders are domestic arguments that got out of hand, not theft.
> 
> Sorry you don't get that.
> 
> If all the police had to deal with is theft, we'd have a pretty easy life.


I was referring to stolen guns, not murders.  You want to talk about murders resulting from domestic arguments?  To that, I say not enough women are armed.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> They died primarily because we took their land, crowded them on reservations, and sent the army out to kill them.
> 
> We hunted the Plains Buffalo to near extinction in order to deprive them of a food source.
> 
> ...




Those people are already criminals, with long histories of crime and violence and are already banned from owning, carrying or buying guns....they still get them illegally...because they are criminals, often drug dealers and they need their guns to protect themselves from other criminals...

They are not normal people, living their normal lives.......

If we keep them locked up, they can't get guns.....but the political party you support, the democrat party, the party created by slave rapists.......keeps releasing known, violent gun offenders...that is the problem....you.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Oct 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, gun nuts aren't normal.  The best argument for gun control is listening to you gun nuts rant about all the people you want to shoot.


You seem to be, as usual, projecting. The only one posting murder fantasies here is YOU, Joey!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> I was referring to stolen guns, not murders. You want to talk about murders resulting from domestic arguments? To that, I say not enough women are armed.



Uh, yeah, women shooting their husbands more often wouldn't be a good thing.   It's that time of the month, bang, bang.  



2aguy said:


> Those people are already criminals, with long histories of crime and violence and are already banned from owning, carrying or buying guns....they still get them illegally...because they are criminals, often drug dealers and they need their guns to protect themselves from other criminals...



Blah, blah,  most gun murders are domestic violence, and all gun suicides are.    

So we ban guns, then we only have to concertrate on the criminal gun use, that's a manageable number


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, women shooting their husbands more often wouldn't be a good thing.   It's that time of the month, bang, bang.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you saying women are too unstable to own guns?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 4, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Are you saying women are too unstable to own guns?



I'm saying nobody is terribly stable during a domestic argument.  

Adding more guns into that mix would be a bad thing.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, women shooting their husbands more often wouldn't be a good thing.   It's that time of the month, bang, bang.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The people doing the shooting of their baby mommas are already felons, unable to buy, own or carry guns.........and the morons doing the research include drug dealers murdering drug buyers in their home as "domestic" shootings...you doofus.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm saying nobody is terribly stable during a domestic argument.
> 
> Adding more guns into that mix would be a bad thing.




Except that doesn't happen...the ones doing the shooting have long histories of violence and crime and most of them are already banned from owning guns......you moron.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The people doing the shooting of their baby mommas are already felons, unable to buy, own or carry guns.........and the morons doing the research include drug dealers murdering drug buyers in their home as "domestic" shootings...you doofus.



Um, yeah, drug dealers shooting drug buyers in their home doesn't sound like a very good business practice... just saying.  

The reality- when more people got locked up in their homes in 2020, the murder rate went up... this isn't a big surprise.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, women shooting their husbands more often wouldn't be a good thing.   It's that time of the month, bang, bang.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As the Ayatollah of Stupidtown, you can ban anything you wish. 'We'', on the other hand, have a constitution to protect our rights and to protect us from Ayatollahs.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Gunny you list all these things, and never mention the Genocide of Native Americans in the United States or slavery.
> 
> Okay, news flash.  Human being treat eachother pretty shabbily, and when governments pander to the worst in us, there's not much you can do about it.
> 
> ...


Actually, your assessment of people treating each other pretty badly is an endorsement for being able to protect yourself and your family.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Oct 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> There was no genocide against indians in this country....they died primarily of diseases they had no immunity for....you liar.


That's not entirely true either.  Blankets used by people who died of small pox were given to Indian tribes in the West to eliminate them.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 4, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> That's not entirely true either.  Blankets used by people who died of small pox were given to Indian tribes in the West to eliminate them.



That is a lie…..the only documented case was at a fort under siege….. small pox was already ravaging the area and the British gave Indian allies blankets from their infirmary….. they did not give blankets to hostile indians.

this is one of the great historical myths that leftists lie about all the time


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm saying nobody is terribly stable during a domestic argument.
> 
> Adding more guns into that mix would be a bad thing.


Obviously, taking guns out of the equation isn't doing a lot of good.

Lots of women's lives would be saved if more of them were armed and proficient in arms.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Oct 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> That is a lie…..the only documented case was at a fort under siege….. small pox was already ravaging the area and the British gave Indian allies blankets from their infirmary….. they did not give blankets to hostile indians.
> 
> this is one of the great historical myths that leftists lie about all the time


I think you had better do some more research.  Yes, there are.  Check out the story of Fort Pitt.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 4, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I think you had better do some more research.  Yes, there are.  Check out the story of Fort Pitt.




Yeah....that story is a lie...

Again....smallpox was already all throughout the area.......

*Smallpox did break out among the Indian tribes whose warriors were besieging the fort—19th-century historian Francis Parkman estimated that 60 to 80 Indians in the Ohio Valley died in a localized epidemic. But no one is sure whether the smallpox was carried by Ecuyer’s infected blankets or by the clothing Indian warriors had stolen from the estimated 2,000 outlying settlers they had killed or abducted.*









						Smallpox Blankets: Did Settlers Use Them to Commit Genocide?
					

The 1837–38 epidemic spawned the narrative that white settlers spread “smallpox in the blankets” to clear American Indians off the land. Is it myth or fact?




					www.historynet.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 5, 2021)

Hollie said:


> As the Ayatollah of Stupidtown, you can ban anything you wish. 'We'', on the other hand, have a constitution to protect our rights and to protect us from Ayatollahs.



Again, most of us are a little tired of having to run our lives around your fetish. 




Hollie said:


> Actually, your assessment of people treating each other pretty badly is an endorsement for being able to protect yourself and your family.



Not really.  Most people don't rush out the doors with their guns when the government is taking away their neighbors.  

Just ask David Koresh. 



Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Obviously, taking guns out of the equation isn't doing a lot of good.
> 
> Lots of women's lives would be saved if more of them were armed and proficient in arms.



A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy... no, this wouldn't be a good thing.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, most of us are a little tired of having to run our lives around your fetish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That lie again.  The guy who did that study retracted it and you still use it……his work was so crappy even when he did it over he still used the crappy methods


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> That lie again. The guy who did that study retracted it and you still use it……his work was so crappy even when he did it over he still used the crappy methods



Never retracted... if anything, he was being generous.  

If you assume that the 23,000 suicides and 35% of the 15,000 homicides happened with guns in the home, but only 200 or so bad guys were shot by guns, it comes out to more than 43 to 1.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, most of us are a little tired of having to run our lives around your fetish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, I'm not convinced you are the spokes-leftist for "most of us". 

Record firearms sales are a result of leftist policies that coddle the worst of the worst.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, most of us are a little tired of having to run our lives around your fetish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What antigun horseshit study did you get that from?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Never retracted... if anything, he was being generous.
> 
> If you assume that the 23,000 suicides and 35% of the 15,000 homicides happened with guns in the home, but only 200 or so bad guys were shot by guns, it comes out to more than 43 to 1.



Moron I gave you the study he did after he retracted the first one…..and he said he wanted a gun in his home for his wife, you doofus.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Never retracted... if anything, he was being generous.
> 
> If you assume that the 23,000 suicides and 35% of the 15,000 homicides happened with guns in the home, but only 200 or so bad guys were shot by guns, it comes out to more than 43 to 1.



Moron that isnt what he found after he had to redo the study.   You are insane.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, most of us are a little tired of having to run our lives around your fetish.


Me owning guns has zero affect on your life.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Never retracted... if anything, he was being generous.
> 
> If you assume that the 23,000 suicides and 35% of the 15,000 homicides happened with guns in the home, but only 200 or so bad guys were shot by guns, it comes out to more than 43 to 1.




You are a moron......

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon. Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----
*

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. 
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Never retracted... if anything, he was being generous.
> 
> If you assume that the 23,000 suicides and 35% of the 15,000 homicides happened with guns in the home, but only 200 or so bad guys were shot by guns, it comes out to more than 43 to 1.


Suicide isn't a valid argument for gun control.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Oct 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> This is just one reason not to give in to the insane demand to register guns...
> 
> *California Governor Gavin Newsom, having survived his recall election, has taken the next step in his agenda on gun control.  He signed California Assembly Bill 173 into law, amending the California Penal Code Section 11106 to include this new authorization to release personally identifiable information about every California gun owner to researchers.*
> 
> ...


Translation:  Your information is being given to burglars and gang-bangers so that when away from your home, they can steal your firearms and commit crimes with them and even if they are in safes, you will be held accountable for the crimes they commit, whereas they will be set free by bought and paid for District Attorneys by George Soros.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 6, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Again, I'm not convinced you are the spokes-leftist for "most of us".
> 
> Record firearms sales are a result of leftist policies that coddle the worst of the worst.



No, it's just proof how much the gun industry can manipulate the 3% of the population who are gun fetishists. 

The reality- most Americans want tighter gun laws... and that number would probably be higher if most Americans realized how lax our gun laws are. 






The problem is dedication. Most sane people who don't own guns maybe pay attention for a day or two after some nut shoots up a pre-school or a movie theater, and they ask, "How was that nut able to get a gun?"  The gun fetishists are on all the time....


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are a moron......
> 
> Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....



Except he didn't retract, he clarified. Yes, you get down to 2.7 if you take out the suicides and accidents... but those things still happen because there was a gun in the home. 

Now, you say that you should count all the times a gun fetishist waves a gun at his black neighbor as a DGU.  





But by that same token, now often does a domestic abuser terrorize his family with a gun but never shoots them?  

Sorry, man, your fetish is too expensive for the rest of us.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except he didn't retract, he clarified. Yes, you get down to 2.7 if you take out the suicides and accidents... but those things still happen because there was a gun in the home.
> 
> Now, you say that you should count all the times a gun fetishist waves a gun at his black neighbor as a DGU.
> 
> ...



Moron, 43 down to 2.7?  That is a retraction and even with that, as my links show, he still used faulty data…..


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 6, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Me owning guns has zero affect on your life.



Except for the active shooter drills, security doors, militarized police, etc. that I have to pay for or deal with because it's only a matter of time before one of you goes nuts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron, 43 down to 2.7? That is a retraction and even with that, as my links show, he still used faulty data…..



No, it's a clarification....  that for every bad guy shot in a home, 39.7 people killed themselves, .6 died in stupid accidents and 2.7 was a family member killing another family member. 

NONE of those deaths would have happened if there was no gun in the home.  Period.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except for the active shooter drills, security doors, militarized police, etc. that I have to pay for or deal with because it's only a matter of time before one of you goes nuts.



330 million people.

12 went nuts and shot people in mass public shootings in 2019

Total killed…73.

Deer killed 200….should we have deer catchers at all the school?

Lawn mowers killed between 90-100, shoild we ban lawn mowers?

Ladders killed 300…. Ban ladders?

Bathtubs killed 350….ban tubs and only allow shower stalls?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> No, it's a clarification....  that for every bad guy shot in a home, 39.7 people killed themselves, .6 died in stupid accidents and 2.7 was a family member killing another family member.
> 
> NONE of those deaths would have happened if there was no gun in the home.  Period.



43 to 2.7 is not clarification you idiot, that is a complete disaster and embarrassement.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> No, it's a clarification....  that for every bad guy shot in a home, 39.7 people killed themselves, .6 died in stupid accidents and 2.7 was a family member killing another family member.
> 
> NONE of those deaths would have happened if there was no gun in the home.  Period.



Moron criminals who murder family members will murder them without guns….knives, clubs, fire, barehands….you idiot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> 330 million people.
> 
> 12 went nuts and shot people in mass public shootings in 2019



Actually, we had 417 mass shootings in 2019.  

If you are going to lie, at least lie effectively. 









						There were more mass shootings than days in 2019
					

365 days. 417 mass shootings.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




43,000 gun deaths, 70,000 gun injuries....  your fetish is too expensive.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except for the active shooter drills, security doors, militarized police, etc. that I have to pay for or deal with because it's only a matter of time before one of you goes nuts.


Me owning guns has absolutely nothing to do with any of that.  Those things happen because people who AREN'T law abiding citizens are breaking the law.  You have no right to trample on my rights because of what they do.  Go after them and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The reality- most Americans want tighter gun laws... and that number would probably be higher if most Americans realized how lax our gun laws are.



If the Constitution can be said to do one thing it is to frustrate and render impotent the ignorant, emotional whims of authoritarian leftists, whipped into a frenzy by statist demagogues, trying to act against our original, fully retained, fundamental rights.

Our rights are not subject to polling . . . 


"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections."

_West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette_, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)​​​


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, we had 417 mass shootings in 2019.
> 
> If you are going to lie, at least lie effectively.
> 
> ...



No, you dont get to lie.  Gang shootings are not the same as mass public shootings.  One is specific to criminals shooting at other criminals, mass public shootings are lone events by individuals. Targeting unarmed victims in a public location…not the same in any way.

There were 12 mass public shootings in 2019, 2 in 2020.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, we had 417 mass shootings in 2019.
> 
> If you are going to lie, at least lie effectively.
> 
> ...



The majority of those deaths are suicides and do not count…… but you have to dishonestly include them because the actual gun murder number was 10,258 in 1019….with the majority of the victims criminals 70-80% of the victims were criminals and of the rest the majority are friends, family and other associates of the crimjnals.

Completely different crimes and victim groups and you have to lie about them.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> No, it's a clarification....  that for every bad guy shot in a home, 39.7 people killed themselves, .6 died in stupid accidents and 2.7 was a family member killing another family member.
> 
> NONE of those deaths would have happened if there was no gun in the home.  Period.




Are you this stupid?  yes.....you are...

*Aubrey Puli Padi, 46, let himself into her home and ‘lay in wait’, armed with knives, a hammer, gloves and a length of cord.*

*He ‘concealed himself’ in the house and set a 3.30am alarm so he could sleep and be assured his ex would be asleep to allow him to carry out the attack.*









						Estranged husband hid in house and murdered wife with child sleeping feet away
					

Aubrey Puli Padi has been jailed for 23 years for killing carer Tamara.




					metro.co.uk
				




*A suburban woman on the run from her estranged husband was attacked and murdered by him last night in Wisconsin, according to police.*
*
38-year-old Christian Loga-Negru has been charged with murder and kidnapping and remains in jail on  $1 million bond.

Arlington Heights police were aware of trouble at the home he shared with his estranged wife. They’ve been married for less than a year. Earlier this month his wife got a restraining order. Recently she’s been living in Mount Pleasant, Wisc at a friend’s to hide from her husband.  But police say Loga-Negru found her and ambushed her at 8 p.m. Wednesday as she got out of a car.
*
*Loga-Negru had checked into a local Super 8 Motel in Wisconsin Tuesday and police say he drove his injured wife there after attacking her with a hatchet. Someone there spotted the wounded woman bleeding from the head and called 911.*









						Arlington Heights woman struck, killed with hatchet in Wisconsin; Husband charged with murder
					

A suburban woman on the run from her estranged husband was attacked and murdered by him last night in Wisconsin, according to police. 38-year-old Christian Loga-Negru has been charged with murder a…




					wgntv.com
				




*A woman was stabbed to death inside her Santa Clarita home early Thursday, and authorities have taken her estranged husband into custody, officials with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said.*









						Husband stabs estranged wife to death in Santa Clarita home, authorities say
					

Before the woman died, she identified her assailant, sheriff's officials said. Authorities say James Dorsey drove from Washington to kill her.




					www.latimes.com
				




*British man is accused of murdering his wife by strangling her and stabbing her 11 times after they had sex in their Spanish home.*









						Brit 'had sex with wife before strangling her and stabbing her to death'
					

Prosecutors claim he had sex with his alleged victim with the 'obvious intention of ending her life after'.




					metro.co.uk
				




*An Iranian man has admitted murdering his wife after she had refused to support his application to remain in the UK.*
*
Dana Abdullah used a kitchen knife to stab mother-of-four Avan Najmadeen at her home in Stoke-on-Trent in October.
*
*


			https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u
		

*k/crime/fenton-stabbing-stoke-husband-wife-immigration-court-case-trial-stafford-a8776636.html


----------



## Hollie (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> No, it's just proof how much the gun industry can manipulate the 3% of the population who are gun fetishists.
> 
> The reality- most Americans want tighter gun laws... and that number would probably be higher if most Americans realized how lax our gun laws are.
> 
> ...


Leftist extremists being easily manipulated is something you need to resolve. The anti-gun fetishists have this need to ignore those parts of the Constitution they object to. These are the same anti-gun fetishists who flail their Pom Poms for bail reform and allowance for violent criminals to roam the streets. 









						Gun sales boomed in 2020, with background checks hitting record highs as millions of people bought guns for the first time
					

The FBI said it processed a record 39.7 million firearm background checks in 2020, beating previous highs by more than 10 million.




					www.businessinsider.com
				





Leftist extremists and anti-gun fetishists are a real boost for firearms sales as people find the need to protect themselves from the policies of Leftist extremists and the anti-gun fetishists.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 6, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Me owning guns has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. Those things happen because people who AREN'T law abiding citizens are breaking the law. You have no right to trample on my rights because of what they do. Go after them and leave the rest of us alone.


The rest of you are the problem... that's the thing.  

If you had met Joker Holmes or Adam Lanza's mom before their shooting incidents, you'd have probably gotten along with them pretty well.  




Abatis said:


> If the Constitution can be said to do one thing it is to frustrate and render impotent the ignorant, emotional whims of authoritarian leftists, whipped into a frenzy by statist demagogues, trying to act against our original, fully retained, fundamental rights.
> 
> Our rights are not subject to polling . . .



The Constitution is not a suicide pact.  



Hollie said:


> Leftist extremists being easily manipulated is something you need to resolve. The anti-gun fetishists have this need to ignore those parts of the Constitution they object to. These are the same anti-gun fetishists who flail their Pom Poms for bail reform and allowance for violent criminals to roam the streets.



Again, I have no problem with the Second Amendment. I'm totally good with well-regulated militias.  I was a member of one for years.   

Weird interpretations of the Constitution, like Joker Holmes can have a Machine gun, that's a bit different.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.



You are the one arguing that the government has no fixed set of rules, that its powers respond to transitory, emotional demands of the majority, without any regard for the Constitution's express delineation of government power.  That is the definition of a suicide pact.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The rest of you are the problem... that's the thing.
> 
> If you had met Joker Holmes or Adam Lanza's mom before their shooting incidents, you'd have probably gotten along with them pretty well.
> 
> ...


No, the criminals are the problem, not law abiding citizens.  Pro tip: go after people who are breaking the law, not the people who aren't.

It's illegal to do 120 mph on the interstate, but it isn't illegal sell cars that are capable of doing 120 mph.  Hence, any regulation, or prohibition of automatic weapons is stupid.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 7, 2021)

Abatis said:


> You are the one arguing that the government has no fixed set of rules, that its powers respond to transitory, emotional demands of the majority, without any regard for the Constitution's express delineation of government power. That is the definition of a suicide pact.



Naw,man, that's the definition of democracy.  

The problem with you gun fetishists is you think that an amendment about militias (largely obsolete now because militias have been replaced by professional armies and police forces) applies to letting every crazy person have a gun.  And we all scratch our heads and wring our hands when someone goes into a school and shoots up four people like happened yesterday, but the fetishists start screaming about their "rights" and nothing gets done. 



Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> No, the criminals are the problem, not law abiding citizens. Pro tip: go after people who are breaking the law, not the people who aren't.
> 
> It's illegal to do 120 mph on the interstate, but it isn't illegal sell cars that are capable of doing 120 mph. Hence, any regulation, or prohibition of automatic weapons is stupid.



Most gun deaths are domestic violence  - either suicides or people murdering their friends or family.  It's gun proliferation that's the problem, not "criminals". 

If you really want to make a comparison to cars, that's fine.   Cars are regulated, insured, policed, and licensed.  
If we let the NRA run cars, your morning commute would look like a cross between _The Road Warrior_ and a _Fast and Furious_ film.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The rest of you are the problem... that's the thing.
> 
> If you had met Joker Holmes or Adam Lanza's mom before their shooting incidents, you'd have probably gotten along with them pretty well.
> 
> ...




They didn't have machine guns.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 7, 2021)

2aguy said:


> They didn't have machine guns.



He had an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine.... 

Because that's what a well-regulated militia looks like... a guy who thinks he's the Joker with a Machine Gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw,man, that's the definition of democracy.
> 
> The problem with you gun fetishists is you think that an amendment about militias (largely obsolete now because militias have been replaced by professional armies and police forces) applies to letting every crazy person have a gun.  And we all scratch our heads and wring our hands when someone goes into a school and shoots up four people like happened yesterday, but the fetishists start screaming about their "rights" and nothing gets done.
> 
> ...




No....most domestic violence deaths are criminals, who should be in jail, murdering family members after they abuse drugs and alcohol...guys you want released from jail......

Cars are not a Right, guns are........

As more Americans owned and carried guns for 27 years, up to 2015.....the year the democrat party decided that attacking the police and releasing violent criminals were good ideas........gun murder went down 49%, gun crime went down 75%....this shows that guns do not cause gun crime...lots of guns do not cause gun crime.....

2015 forward showed that democrat party policies cause gun crime....attacking the police, and releasing the most violent criminals...or, in the case of the most recent gang shooting in Chicago...refusing to charge known gun criminals....causes gun crime.

Why do you vote for the party that keeps releasing violent gun criminals?   You know, the political party created by the slave rapists you keep complaining about...but you vote for the very political party they created....?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> He had an AR-15 with a 100 round drum magazine....
> 
> Because that's what a well-regulated militia looks like... a guy who thinks he's the Joker with a Machine Gun.




That jammed...he also had a shotgun and pistol.......and went to the only theater in the area that banned concealed carry.....and surrendered as soon as he was confronted by someone with a gun....

the gun free zone attracted his attack...that's on you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 7, 2021)

2aguy said:


> That jammed...he also had a shotgun and pistol.......and went to the only theater in the area that banned concealed carry.....and surrendered as soon as he was confronted by someone with a gun....
> 
> the gun free zone attracted his attack...that's on you.



Uh, yeah, that situation would have been made SOOOO much better if dozens of people were randomly firing in a darkened theater.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, that situation would have been made SOOOO much better if dozens of people were randomly firing in a darkened theater.



Yeah, in actual mass public shootings where the victims have guns that hasnt happened….so you dont know what you are talking about, and leave it to you to want people helpless facing-a killer rather than being able to stop him


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw,man, that's the definition of democracy.
> 
> The problem with you gun fetishists is you think that an amendment about militias (largely obsolete now because militias have been replaced by professional armies and police forces) applies to letting every crazy person have a gun.  And we all scratch our heads and wring our hands when someone goes into a school and shoots up four people like happened yesterday, but the fetishists start screaming about their "rights" and nothing gets done.
> 
> ...


Guns don't kill people, people do.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't establish a militia...lol.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Oct 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Gunny you list all these things, and never mention the Genocide of Native Americans in the United States or slavery.
> 
> Okay, news flash.  Human being treat eachother pretty shabbily, and when governments pander to the worst in us, there's not much you can do about it.
> 
> ...


Gee that is a lot of stupid that you have posted.  Any time an area becomes DIVERSIFIED---the new immigrants especially illegal ones try to overthrow the current population.  We see this now with the illegals flooding over....

Slavery was bad but only lasted here for a couple of hundred years, unlike AFRICA where it has never completely ended and has lasted thousands.   With European Whites and Americans fighting to try to end it there.  Even here since its inception, there were many americans fighting against slavery.

The nazis outlawed guns for jews right before shipping them off to the gas chambers---I'll keep my guns thank you very much...especially since the communist government is encouraging illegals who commit crimes and the usual woke communists to commit more and more crimes.  People are going to have to defend themselves with the attacks on cops.....If you bother to read history, there were reasons why our founders insisted on citizens being armed-----it does slow down corrupt governments.

The US locked up Japanese, GERMANS, and Italians fool during WW2 to prevent terror attacks as the axis evil planned and committed here on US soil.   The reason why no one tried to stop this was that they were all doing their best to keep the country safe.  Having those who were loyal to a country that we were at war with run loose to continue terror attacks would have been beyond stupid-------like allowing muslims screaming for deaths to come in here stupid.  People were smarter then.

And btw, Americans certainly put their neck on the line for others during WW2......the more diversified, the more druggy and welfare inclined people now don't have the moral fortitude to do what is right nor desire.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yeah, in actual mass public shootings where the victims have guns that hasnt happened….so you dont know what you are talking about, and leave it to you to want people helpless facing-a killer rather than being able to stop him



Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds. 

For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.  



Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Guns don't kill people, people do.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment doesn't establish a militia...lol.



"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state..." um, yeah, it's about militias. 

It wasn't about gun ownership, because very few colonial Americans owned guns or could afford them or even had much use for them. (The weren't accurate for anything other than using in volleys, didn't have a high rate of fire.) 

At 1789 Mass shooting would have been over after the first shot because they'd have mobbed the guy while he was reloading his powder.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Gee that is a lot of stupid that you have posted. Any time an area becomes DIVERSIFIED---the new immigrants especially illegal ones try to overthrow the current population. We see this now with the illegals flooding over....



Um, yeah, the bigots said the same thing about the Irish 150 years ago, the Germans 100 years ago and the Polish 50 years ago.   What actually happens... immigrants assimilate. 



Turtlesoup said:


> Slavery was bad but only lasted here for a couple of hundred years, unlike AFRICA where it has never completely ended and has lasted thousands. With European Whites and Americans fighting to try to end it there. Even here since its inception, there were many americans fighting against slavery.



It never should have happened here at all, period, full stop.  We are still paying for the legacy of slavery. 









Turtlesoup said:


> The nazis outlawed guns for jews right before shipping them off to the gas chambers---I'll keep my guns thank you very much...especially since the communist government is encouraging illegals who commit crimes and the usual woke communists to commit more and more crimes. People are going to have to defend themselves with the attacks on cops.....If you bother to read history, there were reasons why our founders insisted on citizens being armed-----it does slow down corrupt governments.



Actually, the Nazis loosened gun laws imposed by the Weimar Republic, and rather than use them to overthrow Hitler, Germans went out and sent mobs of little boys and old men to fight last ditch efforts in the Volksgrenadiers.  

The reason the founding slave rapists insisted on an armed citizenry was that they wanted to make sure people of privilege had the ability to put down the rabble.  Gun ownership was an elite insitution when the founders started the country.  You think Thomas Jefferson wanted Sally Hemmings to have a gun to protect herself from rape?  He was the one doing the raping. 

The reality- guns are more likely to kill people in the household than protect them. 




Turtlesoup said:


> The US locked up Japanese, GERMANS, and Italians fool during WW2 to prevent terror attacks as the axis evil planned and committed here on US soil. The reason why no one tried to stop this was that they were all doing their best to keep the country safe. Having those who were loyal to a country that we were at war with run loose to continue terror attacks would have been beyond stupid-------like allowing muslims screaming for deaths to come in here stupid. People were smarter then.



Again, you are a little confused.  We locked up 110,000 Japanese-Americans, all the ones living on the West cost. Of the 10,000 Germans and 5,000 Italians who were locked up, these were only the ones who were hard core pro-Fascist like Ernst Kuhn (An American Nazi who was deported to Germany after the war despite being a citizen). 



Turtlesoup said:


> And btw, Americans certainly put their neck on the line for others during WW2......the more diversified, the more druggy and welfare inclined people now don't have the moral fortitude to do what is right nor desire.



We only got involved in WWII after we were attacked.  We get no points for that.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.
> 
> For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.
> 
> ...



*Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.*

Do you realize this is a lie? 

Of course you do...but you simply want to troll...

There have been two shootings at Krogers...the one with the Asian attacker wasn't stopped, the other one had concealed carry gun owners there, and was stopped....

Plus...

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

*Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.*
*
Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.*

BREAKING: Man Opens Fire At Oklahoma Walmart, Confronted By Armed Citizen, Report Says

Two people were killed at a Walmart in Oklahoma by a man who opened fire in the parking lot on Monday *before turning the weapon on himself after an armed citizen confronted him.
------

The assailant, who has not yet been identified, shot and killed a man and a woman in the parking lot and when he was “confronted by an armed citizen, he then turned the gun on himself,” The Daily Mail reported.*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.
> 
> For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.
> 
> ...




The Gabby Giffords shooting...you moron.....nice lie...

Two concealed carry gun owners......by the time they were there, an old man had hit the attacker with a chair...after being shot, but only grazed, in the head...neither concealed carry gun owner fired a round, held their fire because they didn't need to shoot, and neither was shot by police...

The Tucson Atrocity: Joe Zamudio’s StoryAmerican Handgunner | American Handgunner


from the article...


*Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.

----Aftermath/Afterthoughts
Joe was prepared to stop the killer with gunfire if he had to. He says today, “I was just truly blessed I didn’t have to pull my firearm. I didn’t have to go to that place*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.
> 
> For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.
> 
> ...




Almost every colonist owned a gun, you idiot...it was the frontier and they had to fight off indians.....


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, the bigots said the same thing about the Irish 150 years ago, the Germans 100 years ago and the Polish 50 years ago.   What actually happens... immigrants assimilate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*the founding slave rapists*

Hey....shithead...you vote for the political party created by slave rapists...the democrat party....

The nazis loosened gun laws for nazi party members and took guns away from Jews and other political enemies, who they then sent to camps to be murdered, you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, the bigots said the same thing about the Irish 150 years ago, the Germans 100 years ago and the Polish 50 years ago.   What actually happens... immigrants assimilate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Of course, you left out the fact that Africans sold the slaves, and Europeans brought the slaves to the new world....we ended slavery by shooting a lot of democrats...the democrat party, founded by slave owning rapists, started the Civil War to keep blacks as slaves...the party you now proudly vote for.....and the Republican party shot a bunch of democrats to end the war and free the slaves.....

Again......you vote for the slave rapist party...the democrat party...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 8, 2021)

2aguy said:


> *Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.*
> 
> Do you realize this is a lie?
> 
> ...



Except people still died in these incidents, so, um, no, they weren't successful at stopping them.  




2aguy said:


> Almost every colonist owned a gun, you idiot...it was the frontier and they had to fight off indians.....



Few Colonists owned guns.  We had to import guns from France, which nearly bankrupted itself supplying them. 



2aguy said:


> The nazis loosened gun laws for nazi party members and took guns away from Jews and other political enemies, who they then sent to camps to be murdered, you idiot.



Actually, they were loosened for most Germans... Only 1% of the population of Germany was Jewish when the Nazis took power, it's why they made such a good target.  

Ironically, most of the Jews of Austria and Germany survived the war, as they were able to leave before the war started.   Most of the Jews who got to explore exciting new careers as lampshades and bars of soap were from Poland, Russia and other countries the German Conquered or German allies like Hungary trying to placate Hitler. 

The thing is, the 99% of Germans who could own guns.... none of them opposed HItler. They fought for him to the last old man and little boy.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw,man, that's the definition of democracy.



But we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.  That you refuse to address _that_, which was my argument in the post you replied to with the ridiculous "suicide pact" comment, proves you have no real argument that is grounded in the reality of what the US Constitution is and what it does.  



JoeB131 said:


> The problem with you gun fetishists is you think that an amendment about militias (largely obsolete now because militias have been replaced by professional armies and police forces) applies to letting every crazy person have a gun.



And here you prove you rather argue wishful thinking, grounded in denial, argued from emotion and a belief that the Constitution is what you want it to be at any given moment in time.  You need to reinforce the ridiculous assertion that gun rights rights people argue that gun rights secured in the Constitution "applies to every crazy person" . . .  

Why do you feel this need to engage in such hyperbolic, completely detached from reality denial and negation of truth? Why this need to engage in such blatant, naked logical fallacy to make your points?

Do you realize how ridiculous, unhinged and unserious you sound saying crap like that?



JoeB131 said:


> And we all scratch our heads and wring our hands when someone goes into a school and shoots up four people like happened yesterday, but the fetishists start screaming about their "rights" and nothing gets done.



You know he's out on bail right?  Leftist "prosecutors" and soft judges make hardened criminals by returning evil to society to wreak the havoc you then blame on the law-abiding.  What a reprehensible, morally bankrupt program of societal destruction to impose on the USA.

It is very clear you don't support gun control because of this deep concern you feel for reducing crime, because your employment of crime incidents and citing of statistics is always an insult to people's intelligence and so obviously disingenuous.  

Sometimes I think you are actually an agent provocateur, working to undermine and embarrass the gun control side.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state..." um, yeah, it's about militias.



What exactly does the 2nd Amendment "do" that is "about" militias?

Has the 2nd ever been claimed as protection by a state to repel federal powers being exercised over the state's militia interests?

Why are all the Supreme Court's "2nd Amendment cases", instances of private citizens being granted standing to argue a rights injury?

Why aren't the Supreme Court cases that decided militia powers conflicts between the feds and the states known and recognized as our "2nd Amendment cases"?

The thing is, the 2nd Amendment has never been examined or held to offer any instruction or effect on militia issues . . .   The 2nd was only mentioned once, in a dissent in an 1820 militia powers case, only to say the 2ndA offered nothing on the issue of deciding issues of militia order, training, organization and control --  (_Houston v. Moore_, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820) which held for federal preemption of claims of state militia powers).

You argue a myth --_that in federal law_-- was inserted in the federal courts in two lower court decisions handed down in 1942*. That was the genesis of the "collective right" theories in the federal system and for the "militia right", was nothing but a resurrection of a theory that justified racist gun control policies of the Southern states during the Civil War period.

* _Cases v. U.S_., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" interpretation, _U.S. v. Tot_, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right" interpretation and then the dozens of lower federal court and state court decisions citing _Tot_ and _Cases_ into the 1980's . . .  Which of course were invalidated in 2008 by _Heller_.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 8, 2021)

Abatis said:


> But we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.  That you refuse to address _that_, which was my argument in the post you replied to with the ridiculous "suicide pact" comment, proves you have no real argument that is grounded in the reality of what the US Constitution is and what it does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you.  Please keep posting.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 8, 2021)

Abatis said:


> What exactly does the 2nd Amendment "do" that is "about" militias?
> 
> Has the 2nd ever been claimed as protection by a state to repel federal powers being exercised over the state's militia interests?
> 
> ...



Wow.  Thank you.  Much needed commentary, thank you.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.
> 
> For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.
> 
> ...


Every mass shooting has been ended by good guys with guns.  Either cops, or civilians.

The 2A specifically states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2021)

Abatis said:


> But we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. That you refuse to address _that_, which was my argument in the post you replied to with the ridiculous "suicide pact" comment, proves you have no real argument that is grounded in the reality of what the US Constitution is and what it does.



Again, go up to a Sandy Hook or Stoneman Parent and make the argument that Lanza or Cruz had a right to own a gun because the constitution said so...  It would be amusing. 

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.  You have to apply a little common sense. Some people just plain old shouldn't have guns just because a Slave Rapist 200 years ago couldn't define a militia clearly. 



Abatis said:


> And here you prove you rather argue wishful thinking, grounded in denial, argued from emotion and a belief that the Constitution is what you want it to be at any given moment in time. You need to reinforce the ridiculous assertion that gun rights rights people argue that gun rights secured in the Constitution "applies to every crazy person" . . .



No, I just point out that the assertation that every crazy person should be able to get a Gun because it's his God Given Right is kind of absurd.  the one thing we find out after every mass shooting is EVERYONE KNEW this person was nuts, but he had no problem getting a gun anyway. 



Abatis said:


> Why do you feel this need to engage in such hyperbolic, completely detached from reality denial and negation of truth? Why this need to engage in such blatant, naked logical fallacy to make your points?



I just point out the obvious.  There is really no good reason for an average citizen to have a gun, much less an assault rifle.  The Army made sure I had weeks of training before the issued me a gun, and even then, it was under very controlled circumstance - hence- WELL REGULATED.  

The idea you can give James Holmes that same gun and he can shoot up a theater because he thinks he's The Joker from the comic books is just... nuts.  



Abatis said:


> You know he's out on bail right? Leftist "prosecutors" and soft judges make hardened criminals by returning evil to society to wreak the havoc you then blame on the law-abiding. What a reprehensible, morally bankrupt program of societal destruction to impose on the USA.



Um, guy, I've been over this, but I'll go over this again. 

The United States locks up 2 million of it's citizens.  We have another 7 million on probation or parole.  By comparison, China (A communist dictatorship with a billion people) only locks up 1.3 Million people and Russia locks up about a million.   Most of the other G-7 countries (our economic/social peers) lock up less than 100K people.  

They have no where near our crime rates.  Why?  Because they treat addiction as a medical issue, they have programs for poverty and mental illness and, oh, yeah, they don't let every crazy person who wants to get a gun have one. 

If we are a crime-ridden society, it's because conservatives have gotten their way with gun proliferation, the War on Drugs and slashing poverty programs to give tax cuts to rich people.  Not to mention a Prison-Industrial Complex that breeds career criminals.  



Abatis said:


> It is very clear you don't support gun control because of this deep concern you feel for reducing crime, because your employment of crime incidents and citing of statistics is always an insult to people's intelligence and so obviously disingenuous.



I support gun control because I really don't think most people should own guns...  Gun proliferation causes 43,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries, 400,000 crimes, and 213 BILLION in economic losses.  We have to build our whole society around a very small slice of the population who have a gun fetish and a bizarre interpretation of the Militia Amendment.  




Abatis said:


> Sometimes I think you are actually an agent provocateur, working to undermine and embarrass the gun control side.



Actually, you guys embarrass yourselves by going out there and saying, "Why of course, Adam Lanza should have been able to have a gun!!!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Every mass shooting has been ended by good guys with guns. Either cops, or civilians.



Not true.  Most mass shooters either give up because the run out of ammo or they shoot themselves.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Not true.  Most mass shooters either give up because the run out of ammo or they shoot themselves.



And you, the moron, lying again…..

The mass public shooters stop shooting unarmed people when someone with a gun shows up….they then commit suicide, surrender or run away…the only exception is the Muslim Christmas party shooters……they actually shot at the police since it was a terrorist attack rather than a mass public shooting.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2021)

Abatis said:


> What exactly does the 2nd Amendment "do" that is "about" militias?
> 
> Has the 2nd ever been claimed as protection by a state to repel federal powers being exercised over the state's militia interests?
> 
> Why are all the Supreme Court's "2nd Amendment cases", instances of private citizens being granted standing to argue a rights injury?



Well, let's look at that.  Miller v. US clearly stated that the Second Amendment didn't give a right to own a gun and that the government had an ability to regulate them.  





__





						United States v. Miller - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Of course, at the time, Mobsters were mowing people down in the street with Tommy Guns. The per-capita murder rate was twice what is is now.  

The Ironic thing is up until the 1970's, the NRA supported gun control laws.  When the Black Panthers started walking around with guns, the NRA supported laws against open carry and Ronald Reagan signed off on them. 






The a couple of things happened. 

First, murdering small animals for "sport" stopped being considered a recreational activity and started being seen as animal cruelty. 




Yes, Warner Brothers, I blame you. 

The gun industry had a problem. Gun sales were down.  The end of the Vietnam War meant the government didn't need as many of them, either.   That's when the crazies took over the NRA and started making cheap, easy to buy guns for the crooks so everyone else would want them, too.


----------



## JusticeHammer (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Works for me.


You're a thug.


----------



## JusticeHammer (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, gun nuts aren't normal.  The best argument for gun control is listening to you gun nuts rant about all the people you want to shoot.
> 
> The reality- Rest of the world limits gun ownership, and they don't have nearly the levels of murder, crime or other problems we have.


Libtards like you are not normal.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And you, the moron, lying again…..
> 
> The mass public shooters stop shooting unarmed people when someone with a gun shows up….they then commit suicide, surrender or run away…the only exception is the Muslim Christmas party shooters……they actually shot at the police since it was a terrorist attack rather than a mass public shooting.



By your own admission, then, they stop themselves.  

Let's review, shall we. 

Adam Lanza- Killed himself. 
Harris and Kliebold - Killed themselves.
Joker Holmes - Sat down on a sidewalk and gave up. 
Nikolas Cruz - gave up
Jaren Loughner - Subdued by unarmed civilians as he reloaded
Steven Paddock - killed himself.


----------



## JusticeHammer (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, let's look at that.  Miller v. US clearly stated that the Second Amendment didn't give a right to own a gun and that the government had an ability to regulate them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The second gives the right to own a gun, the court was wrong.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2021)

JusticeHammer said:


> The second gives the right to own a gun, the court was wrong.



The constitution isn't a suicide pact.  

I don't believe crazy people should be allowed to mow down preschoolers because 200 years ago, a bunch of slave-rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The constitution isn't a suicide pact.
> 
> I don't believe crazy people should be allowed to mow down preschoolers because 200 years ago, a bunch of slave-rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.


The Constitution isn't a Microsoft Word document that lefty extremists can edit. Truly comical that someone from the party of slavery; democrat party, feels a need to lecture anyone on slavery.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> By your own admission, then, they stop themselves.
> 
> Let's review, shall we.
> 
> ...



Moron…they only stopped because people with guns were on the way……….

lanza stopped shooting when he heard the police sirens

Harris and kleebold were surrounded by cops and would have committed suicide sooner had the cops known to enter the building instead of waiting outside

holmes was attempting to flee when he was stopped by a cop

loughner was hit from behind by a guy he shot in the head and thought he had killed…and two concealed carry civilians were right there about to shoot him

paddock shot himself when the police began to approach his room

you are an idiot, in each case the shooters ended the murder of unarmed people because people with guns showed up…..you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The constitution isn't a suicide pact.
> 
> I don't believe crazy people should be allowed to mow down preschoolers because 200 years ago, a bunch of slave-rapists couldn't define a militia clearly.



Slave rapists?  You vote for the political party created by those very slave rapists…….the democrat party was created by slave owners you idiot and you vote for them……you moron.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, let's look at that.  Miller v. US clearly stated that the Second Amendment didn't give a right to own a gun and that the government had an ability to regulate them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Moron…Miller is the last case you want to cite since it protects military weapons above the others you fool.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, most gun murders are domestic arguments that got out of hand, not theft.
> 
> Sorry you don't get that.
> 
> If all the police had to deal with is theft, we'd have a pretty easy life.


Not true.
Most of them may not be theft but most are not escelating domestic arguments either/.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Not true.  Most mass shooters either give up because the run out of ammo or they shoot themselves.


They do so because they know they're outgunned.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Works for me.



Just keep in mind that those law abiding citizens will defend themselves with violence, resulting in dead BLM scumbags.

_That _works for _me_...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 9, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Slave rapists? You vote for the political party created by those very slave rapists…….the democrat party was created by slave owners you idiot and you vote for them……you moron.



Naw, man, the Democrats threw those people out in 1964...  and Republicans welcomed them with open arms.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, the Democrats threw those people out in 1964...  and Republicans welcomed them with open arms.




No...it didn't happen, just another democrat party lie...

What happened to all those racist Dixiecrats that, according to the progressive narrative, all picked up their tents and moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party? Actually, they exist only in the progressive imagination.

*This is the world not as it is but as progressives wish it to be. Of all the Dixiecrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948, of all the bigots and segregationists who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I count just two—one in the Senate and one in the House—who switched from Democrat to Republican.*

In the Senate, that solitary figure was Strom Thurmond. In the House, Albert Watson. The constellation of racist Dixiecrats includes Senators William Murray, Thomas P. Gore, Spessard Holland, Sam Ervin, Russell Long, Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, Olin Johnston, Lister Hill, John C. Stennis, John Sparkman, John McClellan, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Herbert Walters, Harry F. Byrd, George Smathers, Everett Jordan, Allen Ellender, A. Willis Robertson, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, Herbert Walters, W. Kerr Scott, and Marion Price Daniels.

The list of Dixiecrat governors includes William H. Murray, Frank Dixon, Fielding Wright, and Benjamin Laney. I don’t have space to include the list of Dixiecrat congressmen and other officials. Suffice to say it is a long list. And from this entire list we count only two defections.

Thus the progressive conventional wisdom that the racist Dixiecrats became Republicans is exposed as a big lie.

*The Dixiecrats remained in the Democratic Party for years, in some cases decades. Not once did the Democrats repudiate them or attempt to push them out.*


Segregationists like Richard Russell and William Fulbright were lionized in their party throughout their lifetimes, as of course was Robert Byrd, who died in 2010 and was eulogized by leading Democrats and the progressive media.
The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP › American Greatness
===========


----------



## Abatis (Oct 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, go up to a Sandy Hook or Stoneman Parent and make the argument that Lanza or Cruz had a right to own a gun because the constitution said so...  It would be amusing.



The individual citizen's right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.



JoeB131 said:


> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.  You have to apply a little common sense. Some people just plain old shouldn't have guns just because a Slave Rapist 200 years ago couldn't define a militia clearly.



The individual citizen's right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.



JoeB131 said:


> No, I just point out that the assertation that every crazy person should be able to get a Gun because it's his God Given Right is kind of absurd.



Ummm, OK?  Good thing then that nobody on the gun rights side asserts that crazy people should be able to get a gun.



JoeB131 said:


> the one thing we find out after every mass shooting is EVERYONE KNEW this person was nuts, but he had no problem getting a gun anyway.



The legal mechanism to disable a person's right to possess and use a gun is well established and is based on the principle of due process.  See 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4), a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution is forbidden to receive or possess firearms or ammunition.

Just because "EVERYONE KNEW" that THAT GUY was crazy, is not the criteria to remove a fundamental right; a Doctor must commit the person, or a Judge must adjudicate the person mentally unfit.  



JoeB131 said:


> The idea you can give James Holmes that same gun and he can shoot up a theater because he thinks he's The Joker from the comic books is just... nuts.



Ummm, OK? Good thing then that nobody on the gun rights side asserts that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is for someone to shoot up a theater because he thinks he's The Joker from the comic books.



JoeB131 said:


> Actually, you guys embarrass yourselves by going out there and saying, "Why of course, Adam Lanza should have been able to have a gun!!!"



The only person who is embarrassing themself is you with these ridiculous characterizations of the beliefs of gun rights supporters.  

What is it with rabid anti-gunners, you come across as an emotional basket case . . .   Do you really think you sound logical and rational?  Do you really feel you are making compelling, convincing arguments when you sound so unhinged, demonizing and dehumanizing people?  

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 9, 2021)

.


JoeB131 said:


> Well, let's look at that.  Miller v. US clearly stated that the Second Amendment didn't give a right to own a gun and that the government had an ability to regulate them.



Ahhhh, Wikipedia scholarship!

Both of your assertions are problematic.  No SCOTUS opinion has *ever* said the 2nd Amendment gave, granted, created or established any rights for anyone and _Miller_ did not endorse regulating arms.

All _Miller_ can be argued to say is the Court didn't have enough information to decide that the 2nd Amendment protected the civilian's possession and use of that one type of arm. Looking at _Miller_ as a legal determination, the NFA-34 wasn't "upheld" by direct decision, it only received a stay of execution.

See, SCOTUS is not a fact finding body; it only considers the arguments presented to it by the parties.  In _Miller_, the Court only heard the government's arguments, there was no appearance for Miller and Layton. The case ended with SCOTUS remanding the case for further proceedings, sending the case back down to have the lower court establish the relevant facts that were missing and perhaps SCOTUS could revisit the case if it was appealed again.

Having those facts -- _is a sawed-off shotgun a type of arm that is any part of the ordinary military equipment or could it be used effectively in the common defense_ -- would allow the Supreme Court to actually decide the case.  Of course Miller was dead and Layton took a plea deal so the case just evaporated, leaving a half-drawn picture, ripe for anti-gun liars to misrepresent the case.

Which they did to effect a couple years later in the lower federal court decisions I spoke of; _Cases v. U.S_., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" interpretation and _U.S. v. Tot_, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right" interpretation.

SCOTUS has never endorsed any other interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but that it is an individual right possessed by the private citizen, protecting his personal arms, without any militia association conditioning.

The "militia right" / "state's right" / "collective right" interpretations are inventions of the lower federal courts that began in 1942.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No...it didn't happen, just another democrat party lie...
> 
> What happened to all those racist Dixiecrats that, according to the progressive narrative, all picked up their tents and moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party? Actually, they exist only in the progressive imagination.
> 
> *This is the world not as it is but as progressives wish it to be. Of all the Dixiecrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948, of all the bigots and segregationists who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I count just two—one in the Senate and one in the House—who switched from Democrat to Republican.*



Okay, it wasn't the politicians... it was the voters.  

Yeah, a politician would have no credibility saying, "I'm a Republican now that my party decided to let Negroes ride in the front of the bus".  But the white racist voters who kept returning them to office just found new racist assholes to support.   As Lee Atwater put it. 

_You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.”









						Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
					

The 42 minute recording, acquired by James Carter IV, confirms Atwater’s incendiary remarks and places them in context.




					www.thenation.com
				



_


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 10, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The individual citizen's right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.



I can always tell when I've won when the nutters start repeating slogans. 

Gun ownership is not a right.. most of the world doesn't let average citizens own guns, because that would be stupid.  Actually, there are no "rights" at all, there are only privileges society agrees you should have.  Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".  



Abatis said:


> Ummm, OK? Good thing then that nobody on the gun rights side asserts that crazy people should be able to get a gun.



Really... but then you say this...


Abatis said:


> Just because "EVERYONE KNEW" that THAT GUY was crazy, is not the criteria to remove a fundamental right; a Doctor must commit the person, or a Judge must adjudicate the person mentally unfit.


Well, which is it, buddy?  Should crazy people be allowed to have guns or not?  Because, frankly, when you start of with the premise that gun ownership is a right, it's kind of hard to deny a crazy person a gun. 




Abatis said:


> The only person who is embarrassing themself is you with these ridiculous characterizations of the beliefs of gun rights supporters.
> 
> What is it with rabid anti-gunners, you come across as an emotional basket case . . . Do you really think you sound logical and rational? Do you really feel you are making compelling, convincing arguments when you sound so unhinged, demonizing and dehumanizing people?



Uh, yes, guy, I see small children being wheeled out of their pre-school in body bags, I have an emotional response to that...  but also a logical one.

Adam Lanza never should have had access to a military grade-assault rifle designed for use on a battlefield.

(And don't go saying, "Well, an AR-15 can't fire full automatic" or whatever mental self-pleasuring your fetishists go through.  It was designed for the army to fight in Vietnam.)



Abatis said:


> Both of your assertions are problematic. No SCOTUS opinion has *ever* said the 2nd Amendment gave, granted, created or established any rights for anyone and _Miller_ did not endorse regulating arms.



It never really had to until recently.  Up until the 1970's, no one held the crazy opinion that gun ownership was a right.   The issue in Miller was the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act limiting what kinds of guns could be sold.   This was passed because as a result of prohibition, people were machine gunning each other in the streets. 

As stated (I noticed you avoided the discussion) was that common sense gun laws were supported by the NRA up until the 1970's.   

This only became an issue after nuts took over the NRA like Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> I can always tell when I've won when the nutters start repeating slogans.
> 
> Gun ownership is not a right.. most of the world doesn't let average citizens own guns, because that would be stupid.  Actually, there are no "rights" at all, there are only privileges society agrees you should have.  Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".
> 
> ...




Most of the world governments have committed mass murder and genocide against their own citizens.....and keep them disarmed so that they are easily controlled.....

So....sell that crap to biden voters...


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Most of the world governments have committed mass murder and genocide against their own citizens.



So have we. 

So let's review American genocide and mass murder.
Um. Slavery. 
Genocide of Native Americans
My personal favorite, the Philippine war, where we killed 200,000 Filipinos for merely wanting their own country. 
We killed 3 million Vietnamese and a million Iraqis.  I guess they don't count because they aren't "Citizens", but we sure as hell murdered the shit out of them.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> So have we.
> 
> So let's review American genocide and mass murder.
> Um. Slavery.
> ...




Slavery......slaves captured by Africans, transported on European ships....

Slavery ended by the U.S. after Republicans defeated the democrat party slave owners in the Civil War.....a war over slavery started by the political party you vote for....

Native Americans were torturing and murdering each other long before the Europeans showed up, and died because they didn't have immunities to European viruses....

Vietnam, brought to you by the political philosophy, communism...that you support....


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Slavery......slaves



Slavery was the policy of the US government, and the ONLY reason why it ended was because the South had a bowl of dumbass and tried to secede.  Left to his own devices, Lincoln never would have ended slavery, merely limited it's expansion. 

It was a genocidal policy carried out for centuries...  from1619 onwards. 



2aguy said:


> Native Americans were torturing and murdering each other long before the Europeans showed up, and died because they didn't have immunities to European viruses....



Our genocidal policies sere a lot more thorough than that.   We sent in the Army to slaughter the Buffalo to deprive them of their main food source.  

We forced them on to Reservations, which were so efficient that they were the model for Hitler's concentration camps. 

Guns do not keep government from acting shitty.  

Okay, so you skipped over the Philippine War, you know, that genocidal war we fought against probably the nicest people in Asia because they merely wanted their own country.  Probably a good call on your part.  Fortunately for you, most Americans don't even know we ever fought a war in the Philippines, much less how bad it was. 



2aguy said:


> Vietnam, brought to you by the political philosophy, communism...that you support....



Uh, no, guy, what brought us the Vietnam War was our attempt to impose a form of government on them THEY DIDN'T WANT.   

Our own government admitted if Ho Chi Mihn was on the ballot, he'd have won an election in South Vietnam. 

The point that goes over your head is... 

Guns do not make governments act better.   Ever.   That we should tolerate 43,000 deaths every year because hey, it make government scared, that's just a stupid reason.


----------



## justinacolmena (Oct 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> This is just one reason not to give in to the insane demand to register guns...
> 
> *California Governor Gavin Newsom, having survived his recall election, has taken the next step in his agenda on gun control. He signed California Assembly Bill 173 into law, amending the California Penal Code Section 11106 to include this new authorization to release personally identifiable information about every California gun owner to researchers.*


That's what they did to me in Washington State after I legally purchased some firearms after obtaining a Concealed Pistol License.

Cops picked me up, threw me in the psychiatric ward revoked my rights and now I'm an armed & dangerous felon the rest of my life, and the cops shoot at me whenever they feel like it even if they haven't actually _convicted_ me of a felony for possessing legally purchased firearms in my own name.


----------



## miketx (Oct 10, 2021)




----------



## Abatis (Oct 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> I can always tell when I've won when the nutters start repeating slogans.



That sentence isn't a slogan, it is a quote from the Supreme Court.

I repeated it *twice* because you twice made the same dumb point that the right comes from the Constitution, that the right to arms exists "_because the constitution said so_" and because the framers "_couldn't define a militia clearly_". 

In truth, the Court has been boringly consistent reaffirming the "_not granted_ [thus] _not in any manner dependent_" principle for going on 145 years.  


*Supreme Court, 1876:* "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."​​*Supreme Court, 1886: *"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "​​*Supreme Court, 2008:* "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

I can always tell I've won when imbecilic anti-gunners don't recognize the quote and can't comprehend what the quote means and are completely ignorant how that quote destroys their ridiculous arguments.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Oct 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, there are no "rights" at all, there are only privileges society agrees you should have.  Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".


And that is all that really needs to be said.  I have no idea why any of you even bother, it is like trying to explain why the sky is blue to someone that thinks it is fundamentally orange.  He just does not have a clue what the concept of rights even means let alone show any capacity to apply the concept.  Trying to establish that you have one protected by the second amendment is pointless, my dog has a better chance of learning calculus.

It is not as though this is a new statement.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 11, 2021)

FA_Q2 said:


> And that is all that really needs to be said. I have no idea why any of you even bother, it is like trying to explain why the sky is blue to someone that thinks it is fundamentally orange. He just does not have a clue what the concept of rights even means let alone show any capacity to apply the concept. Trying to establish that you have one protected by the second amendment is pointless, my dog has a better chance of learning calculus.



There are no rights. Never were any rights. 

There's only the privileges the rest of society lets you have because, 'Yeah, that seems reasonable". 

The First Amendment doesn't mean you can practice human sacrifice because your imaginary friend in the sky demands it. 

The Second Amendment shouldn't meant that Joker Holmes should be able to buy a gun because he wants one.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 11, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I repeated it *twice* because you twice made the same dumb point that the right comes from the Constitution, that the right to arms exists "_because the constitution said so_" and because the framers "_couldn't define a militia clearly_".



Really, I thought it was because you were a high-functioning retard.  

There are no rights. 
The Second Amendment is about militias
There is no right for crazy people to own guns.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 11, 2021)

FA_Q2 said:


> And that is all that really needs to be said.  I have no idea why any of you even bother, it is like trying to explain why the sky is blue to someone that thinks it is fundamentally orange.  He just does not have a clue what the concept of rights even means let alone show any capacity to apply the concept.  Trying to establish that you have one protected by the second amendment is pointless, my dog has a better chance of learning calculus.



Speaking for myself, I have no illusions I could ever sway someone like Joe.  I don't post to him, I post to the many lurkers.  I find it interesting that gun threads always have a high page count, a lot of people read 2nd Amendment threads and there needs to be effective rebuttal to the anti-gun idiocy . . .   Plus it's fun!


----------



## FA_Q2 (Oct 11, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Speaking for myself, I have no illusions I could ever sway someone like Joe.  I don't post to him, I post to the many lurkers.  I find it interesting that gun threads always have a high page count, a lot of people read 2nd Amendment threads and there needs to be effective rebuttal to the anti-gun idiocy . . .   Plus it's fun!


lol, point taken.  I feel the same way many times as well.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 11, 2021)

A simple acceptance of the fact that AR type weapons shouldn't be permitted on account of the attraction to mentally deficient characters who dress up in pseudo military costumes, would go a long way on settling the gun debate.

Rational people could easily accept hunters and gun enthusiastics being permitted to have semi-auto weapons such as the M1 Garand, Wild Bill's Garland rifle, or even semi-auto shotguns.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 11, 2021)

Donald H said:


> A simple acceptance of the fact that AR type weapons shouldn't be permitted on account of the attraction to bad guys, would go a long way on settling the gun debate.
> 
> Rational people could easily accept hunters and gun enthusiastics being permitted to have semi-auto weapons such as the M1 Garand, Wild Bill's Garland rifle, or even semi-auto shotguns.




There is no difference between those weapons.......you anti-gun extremists are just insane.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2021)

Donald H said:


> A simple acceptance of the fact that AR type weapons shouldn't be permitted...


You cannot present a sound argument to this effect.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 11, 2021)

2aguy said:


> There is no difference between those weapons.......you anti-gun extremists are just insane.


In fact the biggest difference and the most harmful difference is that most of the AR type weapons are black.
At casual first glance the distinction wouldn't seem to make much difference, but it does.

It's in the questionable mindset of the person who chooses a black AR type weapon instead of some other much better choice for his preferred shooting sport.

One only needs observe a person with an AR type weapon blazing away at a human silouetter target to set off alarm bells. 

On whom does he intend on turning his weapon?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2021)

Donald H said:


> In fact the biggest difference and the most harmful difference is that most of the AR type weapons are black.


You cannot present a sound argument to this effect.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 11, 2021)

Donald H said:


> In fact the biggest difference and the most harmful difference is that most of the AR type weapons are black.
> At casual first glance the distinction wouldn't seem to make much difference, but it does.
> 
> It's in the questionable mindset of the person who chooses a black AR type weapon instead of some other much better choice for his preferred shooting sport.
> ...




Again...we know you are insane, you don't have to keep posting in order to show us you are insane.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 11, 2021)

Donald H said:


> A simple acceptance of the fact that AR type weapons shouldn't be permitted on account of the attraction to mentally deficient characters who dress up in pseudo military costumes, would go a long way on settling the gun debate.
> 
> Rational people could easily accept hunters and gun enthusiastics being permitted to have semi-auto weapons such as the M1 Garand, Wild Bill's Garland rifle, or even semi-auto shotguns.


Apparently you don't understand that semi-automatic "AR-type" weapons (whatever that means), are semi-automtic just as the Garand and semi-automatic shotguns are. Lots of rational people accept Armalite rifles as perfectly "rational" to own. 

BTW, many states (my own included), don't allow hunting with the .223 caliber cartridge.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2021)

Hollie said:


> BTW, many states (my own included), don't allow hunting with the .223 caliber cartridge.


Deer, maaybe.   I bet they allow it for coyote and hogs.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 11, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Deer, maaybe.   I bet they allow it for coyote and hogs.


Yes. I wasn't specific. Deer and larger game animals are not allowed to be hunted in many states with the. 223. My mistake.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 11, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Apparently you don't understand that semi-automatic "AR-type" weapons (whatever that means), are semi-automtic just as the Garand and semi-automatic shotguns are. Lots of rational people accept Armalite rifles as perfectly "rational" to own.


No, Armalite type rifles aren't a Garand, Wild Bill's Garland, or semi-automatic shotguns.


Hollie said:


> BTW, many states (my own included), don't allow hunting with the .223 caliber cartridge.


Of course that's a sensible law.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Of course that's a sensible law.


Why is it "sensible" to not allow hunting with 5.56x45?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, go up to a Sandy Hook or Stoneman Parent and make the argument that Lanza or Cruz had a right to own a gun because the constitution said so...  It would be amusing.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.  You have to apply a little common sense. Some people just plain old shouldn't have guns just because a Slave Rapist 200 years ago couldn't define a militia clearly.
> 
> ...


Russia and China also don't coddle their prisoners.  Their jails and prisons are hellholes and due process in China is often a bullet to the back of the head which the executed's family is them billed for.  If we treated criminals that way our crime rates would be far lower.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 11, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why is it "sensible" to not allow hunting with 5.56x45?


Much worse idea than even hunting with the .223!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 11, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Much worse idea than even hunting with the .223!


You avoided the question.  
I'll ask again::
Why is it "sensible" to not allow hunting with 5.56x45?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Oct 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> I can always tell when I've won when the nutters start repeating slogans.
> 
> Gun ownership is not a right.. most of the world doesn't let average citizens own guns, because that would be stupid.  Actually, there are no "rights" at all, there are only privileges society agrees you should have.  Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".
> 
> ...


It's fucked up all the things you loons think are rights and are not even in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment specifically mentions the right of the people.


----------



## Polishprince (Oct 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, gun nuts aren't normal.  The best argument for gun control is listening to you gun nuts rant about all the people you want to shoot.
> 
> The reality- Rest of the world limits gun ownership, and they don't have nearly the levels of murder, crime or other problems we have.




Actually, you have it half ass backwards, joe.

Mexico has Draconian gun laws, and also tremendously higher levels of murder and other crimes.

Ditto with El Salvador, Honduras, Congo and other nations.

And remember, these are the countries where America gets its immigrants from


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Oct 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Slavery was the policy of the US government, and the ONLY reason why it ended was because the South had a bowl of dumbass and tried to secede.  Left to his own devices, Lincoln never would have ended slavery, merely limited it's expansion.
> 
> It was a genocidal policy carried out for centuries...  from1619 onwards.
> 
> ...


Genocidal policies like abortion ?


----------



## Turtlesoup (Oct 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.
> 
> For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.
> 
> ...




Oh brother to easy--GABBY was a inept Dem, her shooter was another inept crazy dem, and the guy with a gun was another inept DEM.

Maybe dems shouldn't own guns since they make up both most of the criminals and most of the crazies along with most of the ineptness of life.

And why I am at it.....maybe they shouldn't vote for the same reasons.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> This is just one reason not to give in to the insane demand to register guns...
> 
> *California Governor Gavin Newsom, having survived his recall election, has taken the next step in his agenda on gun control.  He signed California Assembly Bill 173 into law, amending the California Penal Code Section 11106 to include this new authorization to release personally identifiable information about every California gun owner to researchers.*
> 
> ...


Guns are used to commit criminal homicide and suicide much more often then justifiable homicide.

Homicide perpetrators will suffer decades in prison.  They will live in misery and regret and truly repent, but they will suffer prison mostly for life.

Suicides will suffer much longer (millennia but not eternity) and worse then being in prison.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 12, 2021)

Those who support guns are enablers of over 10,000 murders and over 20,000 suicides per year.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 12, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Russia and China also don't coddle their prisoners.  Their jails and prisons are hellholes and due process in China is often a bullet to the back of the head which the executed's family is them billed for.  If we treated criminals that way our crime rates would be far lower.


Conditions in Russian prisons are better then in American prisons.  Contraband is freely available, but bribes must be paid.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> In fact the biggest difference and the most harmful difference is that most of the AR type weapons are black.
> At casual first glance the distinction wouldn't seem to make much difference, but it does.
> 
> It's in the questionable mindset of the person who chooses a black AR type weapon instead of some other much better choice for his preferred shooting sport.
> ...


Wow.  The 'its because I'm black' meme you see on the internet is just that, a meme.  You are not actually supposed to take it seriously.  I have never actually heard anyone try and justify banning a weapon because it is black....


----------



## FA_Q2 (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Conditions in Russian prisons are better then in American prisons.  Contraband is freely available, but bribes must be paid.


That is an interesting assertion you have there.

And it is not worth anything until it is more than just an assertion.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> This is just one reason not to give in to the insane demand to register guns...
> 
> *California Governor Gavin Newsom, having survived his recall election, has taken the next step in his agenda on gun control.  He signed California Assembly Bill 173 into law, amending the California Penal Code Section 11106 to include this new authorization to release personally identifiable information about every California gun owner to researchers.*
> 
> ...



Well get out your guns to protect yourselves. Isn't that what they are for? 
Get some courage of  your convictions instead of blaming the government. 
Home of the brave? I don't think so.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 12, 2021)

FA_Q2 said:


> That is an interesting assertion you have there.
> 
> And it is not worth anything until it is more than just an assertion.


This is based on many movies I have seen.  The main differences are wide availability of contraband and prisoner rule.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Russia and China also don't coddle their prisoners. Their jails and prisons are hellholes and due process in China is often a bullet to the back of the head which the executed's family is them billed for. If we treated criminals that way our crime rates would be far lower.



You think our prisons are nice places to go? 

Yes, China is one of the few countries that still practices Capital Punishment, but not really as often as you make out.  They maybe execute 1000 people a year.  

If Capital Punishment were a deterrent, why does the US have a higher crime rate than all the countries that have abolished it?  Why do the DP states have a higher murder rate than the non-DP states?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> t's fucked up all the things you loons think are rights and are not even in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment specifically mentions the right of the people.



It also mentions well-regulated militias...  



Polishprince said:


> Actually, you have it half ass backwards, joe.
> 
> Mexico has Draconian gun laws, and also tremendously higher levels of murder and other crimes.



Mexico copied our Second Amendment verbatim... they just don't have the bizarre interpretations of it we do. 



ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Genocidal policies like abortion ?



Fetuses aren't people.  Women have been getting abortions since Jesus time. 

When you guys advocate imprisoning women for murder for having abortions, then you can get back to me about how serious you are.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns are used to commit criminal homicide and suicide much more often then justifiable homicide.
> 
> Homicide perpetrators will suffer decades in prison.  They will live in misery and regret and truly repent, but they will suffer prison mostly for life.
> 
> Suicides will suffer much longer (millennia but not eternity) and worse then being in prison.




What is it with you idiots......... killing criminals isn't the way to measure defensive gun use....crimes stopped by victims with guns is the way you count that.

Normal people do not want to shoot anyone, even criminals...so when the criminal runs away or surrenders because the victim draws a gun on them means the gun saved them from that criminal...

What is so hard for you to understand?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> You think our prisons are nice places to go?
> 
> Yes, China is one of the few countries that still practices Capital Punishment, but not really as often as you make out.  They maybe execute 1000 people a year.
> 
> ...




We have higher crime rates for 2 reasons....

1) 70% out of wedlock birthrate in black families.....which leads to the 7% of young black males committing murder and crime at over 50% of the total murder and crime rates..

2) the democrat party...judges, prosectors and politicians who keep releasing the most violent criminals over and over again...no matter how many times they catch them with illegal guns...even shooting people with those guns....


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Good guys with guns never stop mass shootings because mass shootings are usually over in minutes if not seconds.
> 
> For instance, in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Gifford was maimed, a "good guy with a gun" rushed out... and almost shot one of the people who had subdued the shooter.
> 
> ...




The good guy with a gun, didn't shoot anyone....even the other good guy with a gun...you idiot......


The guy came out of a store, saw what was happening and drew his gun....he saw another guy with a gun, didn't know who he was...did he shoot him?   No, he ordered him to put the gun on the ground.......because the actual shooter had already been dealt with..

So Tucson shows the exact opposite of what you say....the good guys with a gun held their fire, because they didn't have to shoot....and the cops didn't shoot them when they arrived...

You idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, go up to a Sandy Hook or Stoneman Parent and make the argument that Lanza or Cruz had a right to own a gun because the constitution said so...  It would be amusing.
> 
> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.  You have to apply a little common sense. Some people just plain old shouldn't have guns just because a Slave Rapist 200 years ago couldn't define a militia clearly.
> 
> ...




Guns save lives.....they even save money........

600 million guns in private hands......over 19.4 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........



American use those legal guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies, and murders, as well as also stopping mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their legal guns with them...



Gun deaths...the truth....



2019...



Gun murder...10,235



Gun accidents...486



Of the gun murder deaths....over 70-80% of the victims are not regular Americans....they are criminals...murdered by other criminals in primarily democrat party controlled cities....where the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians have released them over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for felony, illegal gun possession and violent crimes with guns...that's on you and your political party...not normal gun owners.





Gun suicides... 23,491...





Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop brutal rapes, robberies, beatings, knifings, murders......according to the Centers for Disease Control, and 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice.



Lives saved....based on research?  By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





* that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—*



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 _trillion_ per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

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

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Those who support guns are enablers of over 10,000 murders and over 20,000 suicides per year.




Guns are used 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, beatings, stabbings, and murders...

That is what we support...

shitheads like you vote for the democrat party...the political party releasing violent criminals from jail and prison over and over again, no matter how violent they are, no matter how often they carry and use illegal guns...

That's on you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> What is it with you idiots......... killing criminals isn't the way to measure defensive gun use....crimes stopped by victims with guns is the way you count that.



Except there is no way to count that, just like there is no way to tell how many time domestic abusers terrorize their families with guns.  

When it comes to Good Guys with a gun shooting the bad guys, it happens very, very rarely. 



2aguy said:


> Normal people do not want to shoot anyone, even criminals...so when the criminal runs away or surrenders because the victim draws a gun on them means the gun saved them from that criminal...



You couldn't tell it from what you gun fetishists post.  YOu all fanaticize every day about shooting people. 




2aguy said:


> What is so hard for you to understand?



Probably the whole "Lack of credibility" thing.  The numbers are laughable.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except there is no way to count that, just like there is no way to tell how many time domestic abusers terrorize their families with guns.
> 
> When it comes to Good Guys with a gun shooting the bad guys, it happens very, very rarely.
> 
> ...




You guys pull your information out of your ass.......we use actual research, facts, truth and reality.........


The Centers for Disease Control puts the number of defensive gun uses at 1.2 million a year....

The Department of Justice puts that number at 1.5 million times a year....

The 2020 Firearm survey puts the number at 1.67 million times a year........


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Guns save lives.....they even save money........



Dude, don't spooge over the thread... 

Guns cost us 280 BILLION in economic damages every year. 









						The Economic Cost of Gun Violence
					

In an average year, gun violence in America kills 40,000 people, wounds nearly twice as many, and costs our nation $557 billion.




					everytownresearch.org
				




In an average year, gun violence in America kills nearly 40,000 people, injures more than twice as many, and costs our nation $280 billion. This staggering figure is higher than the entire US Department of Veterans Affairs’ annual budget. Without a doubt, the human cost of gun violence—the people who are taken from us and the survivors whose lives are forever altered—is the most devastating. But examining the serious economic consequences of gun violence is paramount to understanding just how extensive and expensive this crisis is. And during these times of unprecedented economic uncertainty and stretched-thin health care resources from the coronavirus pandemic, these vast funds could be directed elsewhere if many of these shooting tragedies were prevented from occurring in the first place. 

This $280 billion problem represents the lifetime costs associated with gun violence, including three types of costs: immediate costs starting at the time of an incident; subsequent costs such as treatment, long-term physical and mental health care, forgone earnings, criminal justice costs; and cost estimates of quality-of-life lost over a victim’s lifespan.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You guys pull your information out of your ass.......we use actual research, facts, truth and reality.........
> 
> 
> The Centers for Disease Control puts the number of defensive gun uses at 1.2 million a year....



Again, guy, only 200 DGU's by civilians where a homicide was ruled justified.  

Period. Full stop.  Anything else is just dick-wagging.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Dude, don't spooge over the thread...
> 
> Guns cost us 280 BILLION in economic damages every year.
> 
> ...



I gave you the lives and money saved….not to forget the rapes, robberies, beatings, stabbings and murders stopped bu armed citizens


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Dude, don't spooge over the thread...
> 
> Guns cost us 280 BILLION in economic damages every year.
> 
> ...



176,000 lives saved and about 1 trillion dolars saved by armed citzens you moron


----------



## Polishprince (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, guy, only 200 DGU's by civilians where a homicide was ruled justified.
> 
> Period. Full stop.  Anything else is just dick-wagging.




Sunday was the anniversary of the battle of Tours , France in 732.  Very violent event, many people killed right in the middle of the tremendous nation of France.

But what's really fascinating is that it all occurred BEFORE firearms were even invented.

Guns are merely a tool, for good or bad.   Do you really think that its preferable to be flung off of tall buildings, garroted or crucified instead of getting plugged?

A lot of countries with restrictive gun laws of the most draconian type, also have sky high homicide rates. The murder rate in the Union of South Africa is 8 times as high as America's in spite of or because of their Draconian gun control.


----------



## Polishprince (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except there is no way to count that, just like there is no way to tell how many time domestic abusers terrorize their families with guns.
> 
> When it comes to Good Guys with a gun shooting the bad guys, it happens very, very rarely.
> 
> ...




Just because a case isn't proven doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If I was Jussie Smollett and was attacked in the middle of the night by black guys in Chicago,  I would have whacked them without question.

But I sure wouldn't have been quick to tell the police about it and wait for adjudication.

Walking away from dead black guys lying in the street is the smart move if possible, in a city whose motto is "Black Lives Matter".  A white guys defending himself on the streets of a major Liberal Heck Hole against black youths would be literally crucified and we all know that.

But it wouldn't change the fact that the shooting would be clean.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Really, I thought it was because you were a high-functioning retard.



Sez the poster who only emotes, who constantly sends out spastic grunts as argument, never demonstrating any knowledge of the subject or competency in discussing it.

Case in point:



JoeB131 said:


> There are no rights.



The Classical Liberal / Enlightenment concept of "rights" is well developed, well explained and well represented in the philosophical, historical and legal foundation and execution of the USA's founding and Constitution.

To say "there are no rights" only demonstrates a child-like denial of things that you don't understand or simply don't like.  

That you then develop positions on public policy from such infantile understanding is amusing; that you defend your authoritarian and discriminatory public policy positions so ardently should stand as a warning and a undeniable proof, of why the right to keep and bear arms is so vital to people who cherish liberty.



JoeB131 said:


> The Second Amendment is about militias



No, you are wrong on every level.  You throw out these bald assertions of hard, legal truth and then refuse to show the hard, legal support for that position.  Why should anyone think you know what you are talking about when you refuse to demonstrate any knowledge of the law you are making claims about?

Why should anyone respect your positions when you are either incapable, or just outright refuse to defend your position?

It is clear then that you have emoted yourself into your position rather than reasoned yourself there.  Emotions and feelings can't be debated; I can't argue against *what *you feel but I can challenge why you feel it.  You, in typical leftist / anti-gunner fashion, can not operate in logic and reason and facts; you are only capable of, _gunz R bad, nobuddy shud have dem_ . . . .

You and the drek you post is just an example of a child trying to alter reality to protect their uneducated and unreasoned beliefs.  While rubbing your nose in your mess is fun, I much rather engage in reasoned, supported debate so, while I will continue destroying your goofy utterances, I will no longer consider you a "debate" candidate, you just can not muster the intellectual back and forth.  



JoeB131 said:


> There is no right for crazy people to own guns.



That you continue to throw out absurdities like this, that you need to so disingenuously frame an opponent's position, screams to the board that you have no ability to consider the issue from an adult's understanding.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> This is just one reason not to give in to the insane demand to register guns...
> 
> *California Governor Gavin Newsom, having survived his recall election, has taken the next step in his agenda on gun control.  He signed California Assembly Bill 173 into law, amending the California Penal Code Section 11106 to include this new authorization to release personally identifiable information about every California gun owner to researchers.*
> 
> ...


We have a Second Amendment and State equivalents and should have no security problems in our free States.   Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!


----------



## Abatis (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Those who support guns are enablers of over 10,000 murders and over 20,000 suicides per year.



I have enjoyed the gun debate for nearly 30 years; started on USENET in 1992 in talk.politics.guns. 

In all that time I don't think I have *ever* seen such a perfect, succinct example of a poster's words so magnificently manifesting / embodying their username.  

Congratulations!


----------



## Abatis (Oct 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> We have higher crime rates for 2 reasons....
> 
> 1) 70% out of wedlock birthrate in black families.....which leads to the 7% of young black males committing murder and crime at over 50% of the total murder and crime rates..
> 
> 2) the democrat party...judges, prosectors and politicians who keep releasing the most violent criminals over and over again...no matter how many times they catch them with illegal guns...even shooting people with those guns....



QFT!


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 12, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Sez the poster who only emotes, who constantly sends out spastic grunts as argument, never demonstrating any knowledge of the subject or competency in discussing it.
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> ...




Thank you.......


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns are used to commit criminal homicide and suicide much more often then justifiable homicide.


A fact with no meaning.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Those who support guns are enablers of over 10,000 murders and over 20,000 suicides per year.


^^^
This is a lie


----------



## Polishprince (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns are used to commit criminal homicide and suicide much more often then justifiable homicide.




So?


The idea of owning and carrying a firearm isn't to shoot anyone.

In fact, ideally, you hope never to have to.

Is America's nuclear arsenal a waste, even though its been unused since 1945?   Of course not- the threat of a thermonuclear attack helps to keep the miscreant nations at bay.  

Similar to carrying a gun.  If a criminal is looking for someone to rob, rape or murder, he's going to avoid those he thinks are armed.   He's looking for easy pickings, not a gun fight.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 12, 2021)

FA_Q2 said:


> Wow.  The 'its because I'm black' meme you see on the internet is just that, a meme.  You are not actually supposed to take it seriously.  I have never actually heard anyone try and justify banning a weapon because it is black....


I'm trying to move the debate forward with new ideas. The point I'm making is that the 'black' weapons appeal the worst of the pro-gun group. These are the same culprits who will use them to shoot at human silouette targets.

Their mindset causes them to fantasize about war and killing people in foreign lands and that has sometimes translated into killing at home in America. 

There are far, far too many mass shootings in America and so maybe it's time to stop sending thoughts and prayers and instead look at the possible reasons.

A closer look at a few of the extreme gun personalities posting on this board might provide some clues as to what drives their attitudes.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> The point I'm making is that the 'black' weapons appeal the worst of the pro-gun group


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Polishprince (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> I'm trying to move the debate forward with new ideas. The point I'm making is that the 'black' weapons appeal the worst of the pro-gun group. These are the same culprits who will use them to shoot at human silouette targets.
> 
> Their mindset causes them to fantasize about war and killing people in foreign lands and that has sometimes translated into killing at home in America.
> 
> ...



That's a load of shit, you know.

There is virtually no one who fantasizes about such things, and the few that there are there is no way to identify or stop them anyhow.

Do you really think that murder victims would be a lot happier if they had to worry about getting garroted, stabbed or crucified, instead of being shot?

I don't see it, really


----------



## Donald H (Oct 12, 2021)

Polishprince said:


> That's a load of shit, you know.
> 
> There is virtually no one who fantasizes about such things, and the few that there are there is no way to identify or stop them anyhow.


I suspect some betray their propensity for violence by their avatars alone, and some have openly expressed their fantasies of an attempte burglary on their own home.


Polishprince said:


> Do you really think that murder victims would be a lot happier if they had to worry about getting garroted, stabbed or crucified, instead of being shot?


No, and that has nothing to do with the discussion. 
The guns are more efficient for killing people and the gunners gone bad don't have to get their hands bloody. 

Something to consider: Cowards are more attracted to guns because guns build immediate confidence and gratification for the more cowardly.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> I suspect some betray their propensity for violence by their avatars alone, and some have openly expressed their fantasies of an attempte burglary on their own home.
> No, and that has nothing to do with the discussion.
> The guns are more efficient for killing people and the gunners gone bad don't have to get their hands bloody.
> Something to consider: Cowards are more attracted to guns because guns build immediate confidence and gratification for the more cowardly.


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Slavery was the policy of the US government, and the ONLY reason why it ended was because the South had a bowl of dumbass and tried to secede.  Left to his own devices, Lincoln never would have ended slavery, merely limited it's expansion.
> 
> It was a genocidal policy carried out for centuries...  from1619 onwards.
> 
> ...


Lincoln was killing slavery, by limiting it to the southern slave states.  The south had largely depleted it's soil by over farming trying to get a return on it's expensive slaves.  Slavery would have died out within a couple of decades just like it did in the rest of the western hemisphere.  A slave economy is inefficient by nature and can't compete with free labor; people work much harder when it's to their benefit than they do to avoid the lash.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 12, 2021)

Abatis said:


> That sentence isn't a slogan, it is a quote from the Supreme Court.
> 
> I repeated it *twice* because you twice made the same dumb point that the right comes from the Constitution, that the right to arms exists "_because the constitution said so_" and because the framers "_couldn't define a militia clearly_".
> 
> ...


What drives me nuts is that liberals either refuse, or are unable to comprehend that the Bill of Rights is about things the government is BANNED from doing.  None of the ten say that people have the right to do anything, they all say the government is banned from restricting the people from doing things.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 12, 2021)

Wha


Donald H said:


> A simple acceptance of the fact that AR type weapons shouldn't be permitted on account of the attraction to mentally deficient characters who dress up in pseudo military costumes, would go a long way on settling the gun debate.
> 
> Rational people could easily accept hunters and gun enthusiastics being permitted to have semi-auto weapons such as the M1 Garand, Wild Bill's Garland rifle, or even semi-auto shotguns.


What do you think the difference between a M-1 Garand and a AR-15 is?


----------



## Abatis (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> I'm trying to move the debate forward with new ideas.



No, you are tying to find some validation for your insecurities and hostilities.



Donald H said:


> The point I'm making is that the 'black' weapons appeal the worst of the pro-gun group. These are the same culprits who will use them to shoot at human silouette targets.
> 
> Their mindset causes them to fantasize about war and killing people in foreign lands and that has sometimes translated into killing at home in America.



Projection, projection, projection . . .



Donald H said:


> There are far, far too many mass shootings in America and so maybe it's time to stop sending thoughts and prayers and instead look at the possible reasons.



The vast majority of mass shootings (using the *Gun Violence Archive* criteria, "_4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time_") are just the everyday violence that happens a few times a week where most shootings happen and are the kind of shootings one doesn't really pay much attention to, except that they lead the local news in just about any large city.

They are the drug corner drive-by's, the drug house rip squads, retaliation shootings at candlelight vigils for other shooting victims and just general mayhem of thug life.

In other words, the "_4+ shot in one incident_" is great for the DEMedia to throw out histrionic numbers (557 as of Oct 10, 2021) that you glom on to and love to throw out but a close examination destroys the "Whitey Gun Nut on a rampage" narrative.

The nation's "mass shootings" are what most 'regular' shootings are, inner-city young guys shooting inner-city young guys over stupid crap that nobody but inner-city young guys care about.



Donald H said:


> A closer look at a few of the extreme gun personalities posting on this board might provide some clues as to what drives their attitudes.



Holy shit, I understand why we make you so horny, but you don't need to come on so strong.

.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> It also mentions well-regulated militias...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While they copied the Second Amendment, they then turned around and banned civilians from carrying guns in public, restricting them to inside the  home only.  Civilians are restricted from  owning anything larger than a .22 rifle, a .380 (9mm Kurz) pistol or a shotgun 12 gauge or smaller.  All legal firearms must be purchased from The Directorate of Commercialization of Arms and Munitions which has exactly ONE store that is located in Mexico City.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 12, 2021)

Abatis said:


> ......... are just the everyday violence that happens a few times a week where most shootings happen and are the kind of shootings one doesn't really pay much attention to,


America needs to start paying attention!  Regardless of who is doing the shooting, there's no doubt there's far too much shooting in which innocent people are the victims too.

At least you acknowledge the slaughter of Americans by gun, even though you attach your political spin to it.

America has squandered freedom away for the sake of ginned up notions of guns bringing freedom back.









						Mapped: The world's most and least free countries
					

India was the center of last year's democratic decline.




					www.axios.com
				






> The U.S. (86) ranks 52nd, between Slovakia and Belize.




More handguns and AR-15's can't buy 'safety' that has compromised your freedom.





Abatis said:


> .


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> At least you acknowledge the slaughter of Americans by gun, even though you attach your political spin to it.


The fact you have no rational basis for your statement aside...
A firearm is -far- more likely to be used in self-defense than to commit murder.


Donald H said:


> America has squandered freedom away for the sake of ginned up notions of guns bringing freedom back.


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 12, 2021)

Polishprince said:


> So?
> 
> 
> The idea of owning and carrying a firearm isn't to shoot anyone.
> ...


Hopefully, governments which have nuclear weapons are 100% responsible.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 12, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I have enjoyed the gun debate for nearly 30 years; started on USENET in 1992 in talk.politics.guns.
> 
> In all that time I don't think I have *ever* seen such a perfect, succinct example of a poster's words so magnificently manifesting / embodying their username.
> 
> Congratulations!


WOW!

Ethics is a relative concept.  What is Ethical in one culture/subculture may be unethical in another.

But enabling murder and suicide would seem unethical to me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> But enabling murder and suicide would seem unethical to me.


You;'e right.
We need to tear down those bridges and tall buildings - right now.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 12, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> A firearm is -far- more likely to be used in self-defense than to commit murder.


The deaths by gun is the same result.
And in instances of a person not defending him/herself with a gun, there are fewer deaths as a result.









						Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use
					

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…




					www.hsph.harvard.edu
				




The evidence is overwhelmingly against the use of guns and that's not just in home burglaries.
Just one example: 



> *6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime*
> 
> Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home.  We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.
> 
> *Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David*.  In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home.  _Social Science and Medicine_.  2000; 50:285-91.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> The deaths by gun is the same result.
> *And in instances of a person not defending him/herself with a gun, there are fewer deaths as a result.*
> 
> 
> ...


Definitely.  Guns take lives much more then they save lives.


----------



## hadit (Oct 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, women shooting their husbands more often wouldn't be a good thing.   It's that time of the month, bang, bang.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We know from prior experience with you that you don't like women all that much, but did you have to make it abundantly clear?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> The deaths by gun is the same result.


For each firearm used to commit murder, >10 are used in self-defense.
For each firearm used to commit suicide > 5 are used in self-defense.
Whatever your point, it is negated by the above.


Donald H said:


> The evidence is overwhelmingly against the use of guns and that's not just in home burglaries.


"The evidence"?
423,000,000 guns in the US; 10,500 gun-related murders
For every gun used to commit murder, > 40,000 are not; 99.99752% of guns are not used to commit murder.
Whatever your point, it is negated by the above.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Definitely.  Guns take lives much more then they save lives.


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Definitely.  Guns take lives much more then they save lives.


It's an open and shut case against guns. Saving lives is proven to be a false narrative!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> It's an open and shut case against guns. Saving lives is proven to be a false narrative!


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 12, 2021)

Harvard study 





> *8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime*
> 
> Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
> 
> ...


----------



## Man of Ethics (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> It's an open and shut case against guns. Saving lives is proven to be a false narrative!


Agree 100%.  Those who support guns enable murder and suicide.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Agree 100%.  Those who support guns enable murder and suicide.


^^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 12, 2021)

Donald H said:


> America needs to start paying attention!  Regardless of who is doing the shooting, there's no doubt there's far too much shooting in which innocent people are the victims too.



There are many people paying attention.  Problem is, where gun crime is rampant, the people in leadership are consumed with agendas that are not focused on crime reduction.  



Donald H said:


> At least you acknowledge the slaughter of Americans by gun, even though you attach your political spin to it.



One can't "pay attention" to the problem without noticing the politics that drives the problem.  

You assign "political spin" as much if not more than anyone; you assign blame for run-away gun crime in Democrat-run, criminal coddling hellholes, on non-urban, law-abiding conservatives that support gun rights.  

That is Hadron Collider level political spin.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 12, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> WOW!
> 
> Ethics is a relative concept.  What is Ethical in one culture/subculture may be unethical in another.
> 
> But enabling murder and suicide would seem unethical to me.



You keep pushing that word, "enabling" but it really doesn't work.

If you want to see what "enabling murder" looks like look up the practices of any of the Soros backed District Attorneys in so many crime-riddled cities in the USA.  








*That's* what "enabling" looks like . . .


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 13, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Hopefully, governments which have nuclear weapons are 100% responsible.




Yeah...."responsible" is exactly what you call china and russia.....and North Korea...


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 13, 2021)

Donald H said:


> The deaths by gun is the same result.
> And in instances of a person not defending him/herself with a gun, there are fewer deaths as a result.
> 
> 
> ...




And that is a lie.....

The actual research...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 13, 2021)

Donald H said:


> The deaths by gun is the same result.
> And in instances of a person not defending him/herself with a gun, there are fewer deaths as a result.
> 
> 
> ...




More...

http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/2

*How Often Are Guns Used Defensively?*
*
One of the most powerful narratives gun advocates have on their side is the image of a woman pulling a handgun out of her clutch to prevent a rape, or a man cocking a shotgun at a burglar to defend his family.

Many social scientists who research this issue of "defensive gun use" (DGUs) say such scenarios are vanishingly rare, arguing that owning a gun is more likely to lead to harm for the owner than be his or her savior in a pinch.

There are no even halfway thorough documentations of every such event in America. They are not all going to end up reported in the media or to the police. The FBI and the CDC will have no reason to record or learn about the vast majority of times a crime was prevented by the potential victim being armed. So our best estimates come from surveys.

The survey work most famous for establishing a large number of DGUs—as many as 2.5 million a year—was conducted in 1993 by the Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Kleck says they found 222 bonafide DGUs directly via a randomized anonymous nationwide telephone survey of around 5,000 people. The defender had to "state a specific crime they thought was being committed" and to have actually made use of the weapon, even if just threateningly or by "verbally referring to the gun." Kleck insists the surveyors were scrupulous about eliminating any responses that seemed sketchy or questionable or didn't hold up under scrutiny.

Extrapolating from their results, Kleck and Gertz concluded that 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs happened in the U.S. each year. In a 2001 edition of his book Armed, Kleck wrote that "there are now at least nineteen professional surveys, seventeen of them national in scope, that indicate huge numbers of defensive gun uses in the U.S." The one that most closely matched Kleck's methods, though the sample size was only half and the surveyors were not experienced with crime surveys, was 1994's National Survey of the Private Ownership of Firearms. It was sponsored by the U.S. Justice Department and found even more, when explicitly limiting them to ones that met the same criteria as Kleck's study—4.7 million (though the research write-up contains some details that may make you wonder about the accuracy of the reports, including one woman who reported 52 separate DGUs in a year).

The major outlier in the other direction, nearly always relied on for those downplaying the defensive benefits of guns, is the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), a nationally representative telephone survey, which tends to find less than 70,000 DGUs per year.

In the October 2015 special issue on "gun violence prevention," Preventive Medicine featured the latest and most thorough attempt to treat the NCVS as the gold standard for measuring defensive gun usage. The study, by Harvard's Hemenway and Sara J. Solnick of the University of Vermont, broke down the characteristics of the small number of DGUs recorded by the NCVS from 2007 to 2011. The authors found, among other things, that "Of the 127 incidents in which victims used a gun in self-defense, they were injured after they used a gun in 4.1% of the incidents. Running away and calling the police were associated with a reduced likelihood of injury after taking action; self-defense gun use was not." That sounds not so great, but Hemenway went on to explain that "attacking or threatening the perpetrator with a gun had no significant effect on the likelihood of the victim being injured after taking self-protective action," since slightly more people who tried non-firearm means of defending themselves were injured. Thus, for those who place value on self-defense and resistance over running, the use of a weapon doesn't seem too bad comparatively; Hemenway found that 55.9 percent of victims who took any kind of protective action lost property, but only 38.5 percent of people who used a gun in self-defense did.

Kleck thinks the National Crime Victimization Survey disagrees so much with his own survey because NCVS researchers aren't looking for DGUs, or even asking about them in so many words. The survey merely asks those who said "yes" to having been a crime victim whether they "did or tried to do" something about it. (You might not consider yourself a "victim" of a crime you have successfully prevented.) Kleck surmises that people might be reluctant to admit to possibly criminal action on their own part (especially since the vast majority of crime victimizations occurred outside the home, where the legality of gun possession might be questionable) to a government surveyor after they've given their name and address. And as he argued in a Politico article in February 2015, experienced surveyors in criminology are sure that "survey respondents underreport (1) crime victimization experiences, (2) gun ownership and (3) their own illegal behavior."

The social science quest for the One True DGU Number is interesting but ultimately irrelevant to those living out those specific stories, who would doubtless be perplexed to hear they shouldn't have the capacity to defend themselves with a gun because an insufficiently impressive number of other citizens had done the same. Even if the facts gleaned from gun social science were unfailingly accurate, that wouldn't make such policy decisions purely scientific.*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 13, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Harvard study




Hemenway?

He is a known anti-gun stooge......his research is the shoddiest of all of them....


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> I gave you the lives and money saved….



Yes, you gave me the usual bullshit.. but this funny thing. All the countries that ban guns don't have these problems. 



Abatis said:


> The Classical Liberal / Enlightenment concept of "rights" is well developed, well explained and well represented in the philosophical, historical and legal foundation and execution of the USA's founding and Constitution.
> 
> To say "there are no rights" only demonstrates a child-like denial of things that you don't understand or simply don't like.
> 
> That you then develop positions on public policy from such infantile understanding is amusing; that you defend your authoritarian and discriminatory public policy positions so ardently should stand as a warning and a undeniable proof, of why the right to keep and bear arms is so vital to people who cherish liberty.



You left out the part where I discussed Japanese-Americans in 1942.  110,000 Americans were denied all their rights simply because their parents or grandparents were born in Japan.  Rights meant nothing when the majority felt the meant nothing.  Oh, 40 years of soul searching, we felt bad about it later, driving our Toyotas and listening to our Sony Walkmans and we gave these people $11,000 and said, "No hard feelings, eh?"  

There are no rights. There are only privileges the rest of society begrudgingly thinks you should have.  

The more you guys stomp your little feet after every mass shooting and scream, "But the founding fathers SAID we can have guns!!!!" the worse it's going to be. 



Abatis said:


> No, you are wrong on every level. You throw out these bald assertions of hard, legal truth and then refuse to show the hard, legal support for that position. Why should anyone think you know what you are talking about when you refuse to demonstrate any knowledge of the law you are making claims about?



I alrady pointed out US v. Miller stated that there was a constitutional basis for gun control.  Full stop.  Done. Mike drop.  That Scalia took the crazy NRA position doesn't take away from that.  

Why can't I have a howitzer that shoots anthrax shells?  I mean, right to bear arms, right?  



Abatis said:


> That you continue to throw out absurdities like this, that you need to so disingenuously frame an opponent's position, screams to the board that you have no ability to consider the issue from an adult's understanding.



I agree, letting Joker Holmes buy a gun is absurd, but he was able to do it.  

If you take the position that gun ownership is a "right", then why can't the guy who thinks he's The Joker own a gun?   

If it isn't a right, then we are agreed that some people should be prevented from owning guns.  It's just where we draw the line.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 13, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, you gave me the usual bullshit.. but this funny thing. All the countries that ban guns don't have these problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The countries that banned guns murdered their own people...

Europe...12 million
Russia...25 million
China....70 million
Japan....3 million

Numbers that are more than 82 years of criminals murdering other criminals with guns in the U.S....


----------



## Abatis (Oct 13, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> You left out the part where I discussed Japanese-Americans in 1942.  110,000 Americans were denied all their rights simply because their parents or grandparents were born in Japan.



Having a "right" does not mean that government is incapable of doing something horrible, the acceptance of that truth is the primary principle of the Constitution.  The Constitution is a contract that has as its most important purpose, limiting the powers of government to only what is included in the contract, to only what the people have chosen to grant to it.

Having a "right" means there is a means and mechanism to correct government abuse of power and even punish those in government or government itself for egregious illegiimate acts.

The exercise of powers not granted is illegitimate and could, when those abuses have piled up and the people have reached their limit, force the nullification of the contract by the people and the reclaiming of all the powers originally conferred.  If that reclaiming of power can not be completed without violence, the people retain the right to keep and bear arms and can eliminate the usurpers.



JoeB131 said:


> There are no rights. There are only privileges the rest of society begrudgingly thinks you should have.



Hmmmmmm . . .  What if the conveyance you see as "allowing" the people to do these things (let's call it a "Constitution") is predicated on certain fixed and unalterable principles that demand government treat the people as the origin of all government power _*and*_ that the powers of government are only borrowed from the people *and* the people retain the powers they did not confer as rights *and* government only possesses those powers for as long as government respects those rights and serves the people?

I mean on general philosophy I can't argue against (beyond semantics) your statement that "_the rest of society begrudgingly thinks you should have_" certain exemptions of government exerting power on you.  We just disagree that the societal agreement that recognizes the people can act beyond the direct control of government either comes from the people* or* is a permission given to us from government (a permission that can be licensed, limited or rescinded for any reason "society" deems necessary).

I believe "We the People" are sovereign and the master of government; you believe government is our absolute master and we have no cause or course to question government's actions or demands.

So when one tears away the facade, *YOU* are the one that believes the Constitution is a suicide pact . . .  We are stuck with government no matter how far it wanders for the contract that established it, or if it alters on a whim what we are "allowed" to do, we must meekly comply or we will be eliminated.

.


----------



## Polishprince (Oct 13, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, you gave me the usual bullshit.. but this funny thing. All the countries that ban guns don't have these problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Firearms are the great equalizer, Joe.

I'm 65 years old and not getting any younger.  I guess I'm ok for someone of my age, but I get more decrepit every day as time marches on.

When I leave my domicile, I would be a sitting duck and an easy mark for the criminal element, except for the fact that I am armed to the teeth.

Some thug comes up to me with a gun, I stand a chance with my little friend. Might I still get killed?  Sure- but I definitely stand a chance against some crack head punk.

Banning firearms would confine old people to their homes if they can't afford a body guard.


Sure, when I was young I could rumble a lot better.  But even then, facing down a man with a gun when all you have is your dick in your hand doesn't give you much of an advantage.



If a young thug


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 13, 2021)

Polishprince said:


> Firearms are the great equalizer, Joe.
> 
> I'm 65 years old and not getting any younger.  I guess I'm ok for someone of my age, but I get more decrepit every day as time marches on.
> 
> ...




Joe would love to see you attacked, beaten, and worse.....you are a conservative/libertarian leaning human being and to him, you deserve to be destroyed........

Taking guns away is targeted for people like you....his god "The government" will have guns....those favored by his god, "The government," will have guns...but you won't....

Do you know how hard it is to fill mass graves with people you don't like if they have guns and start shooting back?


----------



## Donald H (Oct 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hemenway?
> 
> He is a known anti-gun stooge......his research is the shoddiest of all of them....


Also maybe the most thorough and honest too?
Did he lie about something?


----------



## Donald H (Oct 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> ----
> The survey further finds that approximately *a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves* or their property, often on more than one occasion,


*A third?? *

So much for that survey!


----------



## Donald H (Oct 13, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yeah...."responsible" is exactly what you call china and russia.....and North Korea...


Yes, even N.K. is responsible on keeping their nuclear weapons as a deterrent threat by the US. And have actually cited Iran's experience of what could happen to a small country without nuclear arms.

However, I'm of the opinion that N.K. doesn't really possess those weapons and have been guaranteed by China that they are covered by China's nuclear deterrent. Likewise with the Zionist regime.

I have no interest in continuing that conversation with you. If I have anything to say to you it will be on guns and your exaggerated claims.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 13, 2021)

Abatis said:


> There are many people paying attention.  Problem is, where gun crime is rampant, the people in leadership are consumed with agendas that are not focused on crime reduction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I spin??
2a just spun a whopper with cheese. *A third of gun owners have defended themselves with their guns?? * And many more than once!!

And presumably not against lions and tigers and bears, oh my!


----------



## Abatis (Oct 13, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> I alrady pointed out US v. Miller stated that there was a constitutional basis for gun control.  Full stop.  Done. Mike drop.  That Scalia took the crazy NRA position doesn't take away from that.



I know you said _that_ but you just saying _that_ without any support for the statement means there is no "full stop" and definitely no "mike drop". That you never bother to actually rebut what I write shows you are stating what you *FEEL* the law is and maintaining your positions without any regard for that the real legal situation is.

Scalia didn't take the NRA's position, the SCOTUS has _*never *_endorsed any interpretation but:

The 2ndA recognizes a pre-existing right and secures an individual right without any reference or dependency on the Constitution and is possessed, exercised and protected without any conditioning based on the citizen's militia association / membership (or lack thereof).​
_Miller_ makes no hard determination on the constitutionality of gun control; _Miller_ has been interpreted that government possess powers to restrict the possession and use by private citizens, the types of arms that are "dangerous and unusual".

So I'll ask, what exactly did _Miller_ say about the possession and use by a private citizen of a shotgun with a barrel length *OVER* 18 inches long?  I will not be holding my breath for your explanation . . .

Just for shits and giggles, I will repost *what I wrote to you earlier about Miller* that you chose to not acknowledge and certainly not reply to:

BEGIN--------------------

All _Miller_ can be argued to say is the Court didn't have enough information to decide that the 2nd Amendment protected the civilian's possession and use of that one type of arm. Looking at _Miller_ as a legal determination, the NFA-34 wasn't "upheld" by direct decision, it only received a stay of execution.

See, SCOTUS is not a fact finding body; it only considers the arguments presented to it by the parties.  In _Miller_, the Court only heard the government's arguments, there was no appearance for Miller and Layton. The case ended with SCOTUS remanding the case for further proceedings, sending the case back down to have the lower court establish the relevant facts that were missing and perhaps SCOTUS could revisit the case if it was appealed again.

Having those facts -- _is a sawed-off shotgun a type of arm that is any part of the ordinary military equipment or could it be used effectively in the common defense_ -- would allow the Supreme Court to actually decide the case.  Of course Miller was dead and Layton took a plea deal so the case just evaporated, leaving a half-drawn picture, ripe for anti-gun liars to misrepresent the case.

Which they did to effect a couple years later in the *lower federal court decisions I spoke of*; _Cases v. U.S_., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" interpretation and _U.S. v. Tot_, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right" interpretation.

SCOTUS has never endorsed any other interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but that it is an individual right possessed by the private citizen, protecting his personal arms, without any militia association conditioning.

---------------------END

If you have any *legal *argument that refutes those legal facts, I would love to hear it.  I am not interested in you emoting and telling me how icky guns are and how terrible gun rights supporters are for demanding government not exercise powers it was never granted.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 13, 2021)

Donald H said:


> I spin??
> 2a just spun a whopper with cheese. *A third of gun owners have defended themselves with their guns?? * And many more than once!!
> 
> And presumably not against lions and tigers and bears, oh my!



Yes, you spin.

This little diversion proves spin is your go-to, to avoid real discourse and debate.


----------



## hadit (Oct 13, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> No, it's a clarification....  that for every bad guy shot in a home, 39.7 people killed themselves, .6 died in stupid accidents and 2.7 was a family member killing another family member.
> 
> NONE of those deaths would have happened if there was no gun in the home.  Period.


Total BS. Those suicides would have happened regardless.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 13, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> No, it's a clarification....  that for every bad guy shot in a home, 39.7 people killed themselves, .6 died in stupid accidents and 2.7 was a family member killing another family member.
> 
> NONE of those deaths would have happened if there was no gun in the home.  Period.




No...2.7 wasn't a family member killing another family member.......try a gain.


----------



## hadit (Oct 13, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, that situation would have been made SOOOO much better if dozens of people were randomly firing in a darkened theater.


That's what you FANTASIZE would happen.


----------



## hadit (Oct 13, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Not true.  Most mass shooters either give up because the run out of ammo or they shoot themselves.


And someone else shooting them speeds up that process. Let's see, which prevents more death, a guy shooting until he runs out of ammo or a bullet that stops him before he gets off half his shots?


----------



## hadit (Oct 13, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, the Democrats threw those people out in 1964...  and Republicans welcomed them with open arms.


Then it should be easy to produce the names of dozens or hundreds of politicians that switched parties en masse at that time.


----------



## hadit (Oct 13, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, it wasn't the politicians... it was the voters.
> 
> Yeah, a politician would have no credibility saying, "I'm a Republican now that my party decided to let Negroes ride in the front of the bus".  But the white racist voters who kept returning them to office just found new racist assholes to support.   As Lee Atwater put it.
> 
> ...


Like to move those goalposts, don't you?


----------



## Donald H (Oct 13, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Yes, you spin.
> 
> This little diversion proves spin is your go-to, to avoid real discourse and debate.


The only way I could see some possible truth in the 1/3 thing is if 2A is including gun owners being threatened with a punch in the face and they drew their gun to protect themselves.

And then the 1/3 would still seem like a stretch. Maybe 1 in 10?

It's likely that the Harvard study wouldn't have taken that into consideration and so it's reasonable to ask the question of why not?
Also, does 2A include needing a gun to protect oneself from an animal attack? That could be estimated at perhaps 1 in 200 or 300 or 1000. But hardly the purpose of the survey.

It's only fair to try to make some sense of his wild 1/3 claim.


----------



## JohnDB (Oct 13, 2021)

And people (on the left) wonder why ghost gun sales and private party manufactured gun resales are going through the roof...

The government IS out to get you.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 13, 2021)

Donald H said:


> The only way I could see some possible truth in the 1/3 thing is if 2A is including gun owners being threatened with a punch in the face and they drew their gun to protect themselves.
> 
> And then the 1/3 would still seem like a stretch. Maybe 1 in 10?
> 
> ...



WTF makes you think I am interested in your take of a point 2Aguy made?

Spin, distract, spin, dissemble, spin, misdirect . . .

.


----------



## Polishprince (Oct 13, 2021)

What Gun Control-Freaks fail to consider is the fact that criminals aren't interested in a fair fight.  They want to rob, rape and kill without being challenged.   If they think someone might be armed, they will back away.  

The existence of legal firearms is a huge problem in their profession.

No one has to "be shot" , whether they are good or bad, in order for firearms to save lives.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 13, 2021)

Abatis said:


> WTF makes you think I am interested in your take of a point 2Aguy made?
> 
> Spin, distract, spin, dissemble, spin, misdirect . . .
> 
> .


Ignore me if you aren't interested. What the fk makes you think I care about any of you crackpots?


----------



## Abatis (Oct 14, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Ignore me if you aren't interested. What the fk makes you think I care about any of you crackpots?



I'd be interested if you could demonstrate some self-respect and intellectual integrity and actually debate.

What I'm *not* interested in is your hand-waving freakout red herrings trying to divert attention away from you discarding your earlier arguments.

You erect grand scenarios just to demonize people, talking about 'black guns' and 'silhouette targets' and how that manifests fantasies of killing people and how that is just the training program for the gun nut crazies who are doing the mass shootings in America.  

This chimera of gun-crazed maniacs you have invented is not the product of a rational mind and your writing exposes your personality flaws and hate for other people, especially those who are conservative.  Your characterizations, accusations and assignments of detestable intent are just not what reasoned, civilized people do and it's never a substitute for discussion and debate.  

As I said, these wild fantasies that you assign to gun owners is all projection, a futile attempt to mask your own insecurities and hostilities and the transfer those feelings you feel to others.

When we read the statements that you make that are supposedly grounded in facts or events, we see they aren't just wrong, they are complete misrepresentations, products of your political bias, _*your spin*_. 

You claim to want to discover what "the possible reasons are" for the "far, far too many mass shootings in America" and suggest we need to take, "a closer look at a few of the extreme gun personalities posting on this board might provide some clues as to what drives their attitudes".

Wow . . .

I reply with statements on mass shootings, driven by irrefutable crime stats that I _hoped_ you would challenge me on, but I guess it was easier to abandon your (now worthless to you) statements, and divert and try to red herring the discussion into 2ndaguy's comments, as if I'm expected to discuss / defend them.

I said, I'm not interested in your diversions for discarding of your arguments and your complete lack of intellectual integrity.  I understand you can't allow yourself to be engaged in an actual debate where facts are shared, you can only operate in an insulated bubble of your prejudiced, anti-social fantasies about gun rights supporters and gun owners.

How sad.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 14, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I'd be interested if you could demonstrate some self-respect and intellectual integrity and actually debate.
> 
> What I'm *not* interested in is your hand-waving freakout red herrings trying to divert attention away from you discarding your earlier arguments.
> 
> ...


Feel better now? That's good.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Feel better now? That's good.



No, actually I pine for 1990's anti-gunners; back then reasoned debate could be had . . .  Of course hen the anti's had the lower federal court's interpretation of the 2ndAmendment on their side.  Back then, when definitive statements were made about law or crime they would be discussed in the context of the information and attacks were confined to challenges of the claim or the information's veracity. 

Now when anti-gunners make a statement that is entirely a product of misinformation or clouded by political bias, a challenge or refutation by a gun rights supporter is met with anger and hostility.  This is because anti-gunners hold their policy positions as emotional constructs, not legal or logical constructs and they perceive any challenge as an attack on their feelings. 

When their anger subsides and *if *the anti is still in the thread, we see what we see above, abandonment of the previous points and positions and various logical fallacies thrown out to divert attention from the lack of defense of the original point.

It's OK, after 30 years of enjoying the gun rights vs. gun control debate, I'm no longer surprised by how bereft of actual argument the the anti-gun side is. 

I accept that someone can not be reasoned out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into but that does not negate the necessity of destroying the anti-gunners ridiculous statements / claims . . . Lest anyone believe they know what they are talking about.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The countries that banned guns murdered their own people...
> 
> Europe...12 million



Dick tiny thinks Europe is a country (snicker).


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 14, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Having a "right" does not mean that government is incapable of doing something horrible, the acceptance of that truth is the primary principle of the Constitution. The Constitution is a contract that has as its most important purpose, limiting the powers of government to only what is included in the contract, to only what the people have chosen to grant to it.


You kind of miss the point about Japanese-Americans. It wasn't the government that did it, it was the AMERICAN PEOPLE who did it. 

Funny thing, not one person rushed out and said, "You can't take Ito, he's my friend!!!" Quite the contrary, the interment of Japanese Americans was INCREDIBLY popular at the time.  Japanese Americans sued against the policy, and were rejected by SCOTUS in three different cases. (Koramatsu v. US being the key one.)

And it didn't stop there.  There were frequent hate crimes against ALL Asians, not just the Japanese-Americans. My personal favorite was that in the _Green Hornet_ radio plays, Kato was Japanese until Pearl Harbor, when he miraculously became a Filipino.  

Not that we've learned anything in 80 years, given the response to Trump Plague was to go beat up some Asian people. 




Abatis said:


> Having a "right" means there is a means and mechanism to correct government abuse of power and even punish those in government or government itself for egregious illegiimate acts.



And when was the last time someone in government was actually punished?  I mean besides the occasional city cop who loses his job for shooting a black kid in the back?  Clinton and Trump proved we really can't hold people in government accountable, that's the thing.



Abatis said:


> The exercise of powers not granted is illegitimate and could, when those abuses have piled up and the people have reached their limit, force the nullification of the contract by the people and the reclaiming of all the powers originally conferred. If that reclaiming of power can not be completed without violence, the people retain the right to keep and bear arms and can eliminate the usurpers.



Uh, huh.  And who gets to decide that?  Frankly, what you are recommending is anarchy, not a process. 

Let's take the 1/6 Riot.  There was an election, they lost, so they stormed the capitol. What if they decided to show up with guns instead?  YOu really think this is a good thing.  Sadly, a lot of people on your side do, and that's the problem.




Abatis said:


> Hmmmmmm . . . What if the conveyance you see as "allowing" the people to do these things (let's call it a "Constitution") is predicated on certain fixed and unalterable principles that demand government treat the people as the origin of all government power _*and*_ that the powers of government are only borrowed from the people *and* the people retain the powers they did not confer as rights *and* government only possesses those powers for as long as government respects those rights and serves the people?
> 
> I mean on general philosophy I can't argue against (beyond semantics) your statement that "_the rest of society begrudgingly thinks you should have_" certain exemptions of government exerting power on you. We just disagree that the societal agreement that recognizes the people can act beyond the direct control of government either comes from the people* or* is a permission given to us from government (a permission that can be licensed, limited or rescinded for any reason "society" deems necessary).



Again, point is going right over your head.   "Free Speech" is a nice principle, but I can point out a dozen cases where government has stepped in to limit it.  The Hayes Commission was set up to censor movies, the Comic Book Code Authority was set up to censor comic books, right now, you have a bunch of people who want to censor what goes out on Social Media... 

Freedom of Religion?  Okay, so if I want to cut out the heart of my enemy as a tribute to Quetzalcoatl, should I be able to do that because my religion says so?  Should David Koresh been allowed to molest children? 

And these are clear cut freedoms, not a kneejerk reaction like the Militia Amendment that has been distorted by the gun industry. 




Abatis said:


> So when one tears away the facade, *YOU* are the one that believes the Constitution is a suicide pact . . . We are stuck with government no matter how far it wanders for the contract that established it, or if it alters on a whim what we are "allowed" to do, we must meekly comply or we will be eliminated.



Or you just apply a little fucking common sense.

The Founding Fathers had militias in mind with the second Amendment, because in those days, muskets were only effect when fired in volleys - hence the term -'Well regulated". 

They certainly didn't think that a guy like Joker Holmes should be allowed to run about with a semi-automatic rifle, because that would be crazy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 14, 2021)

Abatis said:


> If you have any *legal *argument that refutes those legal facts, I would love to hear it. I am not interested in you emoting and telling me how icky guns are and how terrible gun rights supporters are for demanding government not exercise powers it was never granted.



Again, I gave you one... Miller v. US. 

Second Amendment is about militias and the government can regulate gun ownership.  

That Scalia took the Crazy NRA position in Heller is the problem.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 14, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Dick tiny thinks Europe is a country (snicker).




Moron.......they disarmed their people...and when the socialists took over their countries they handed over their Jews and other targets of the socialists for murder...to the tune of 12 million innocent men, women and children........

More innocent people murdered in 6 years, across Europe, than 82 years of criminals in the U.S. murdering other criminals with guns.....


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 14, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, I gave you one... Miller v. US.
> 
> Second Amendment is about militias and the government can regulate gun ownership.
> 
> That Scalia took the Crazy NRA position in Heller is the problem.




Nope....he explained it for you...he explained it so well even a child could understand it......since you don't seem to understand it, you are not as smart as a small child....


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron.......they disarmed their people...and when the socialists took over their countries they handed over their Jews and other targets of the socialists for murder...to the tune of 12 million innocent men, women and children........
> 
> More innocent people murdered in 6 years, across Europe, than 82 years of criminals in the U.S. murdering other criminals with guns.....



The Nazis loosened gun laws... and the German people never rose up against Hitler, they fought for him to the last old man and little boy. 

Germans still thought the July 20 Plotters were traitors well into the 1950's, until later governments reformed their reputations.  

Those people had plenty of guns, they happily turned over their Jews because 2000 years of Christian propaganda made them hate Jews.  Jews killed their magic God-man.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Nope....he explained it for you...he explained it so well even a child could understand it......since you don't seem to understand it, you are not as smart as a small child....



Yeah, he repeated a lot of the NRA spooge you guys repeat... but Heller ignored hundreds of years or precedent to give the NRA what it wanted.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 14, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The Nazis loosened gun laws... and the German people never rose up against Hitler, they fought for him to the last old man and little boy.
> 
> Germans still thought the July 20 Plotters were traitors well into the 1950's, until later governments reformed their reputations.
> 
> Those people had plenty of guns, they happily turned over their Jews because 2000 years of Christian propaganda made them hate Jews.  Jews killed their magic God-man.



Moron, they let nazi party members hqve guns and took them from Jews and the parties enemies…..and the disarmed population was already cowed into submission after they lost their guns in the 20s you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 14, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, he repeated a lot of the NRA spooge you guys repeat... but Heller ignored hundreds of years or precedent to give the NRA what it wanted.



Abatis already showed you the truth and Scalia explained the entire history going back to England you moron


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 14, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron, they let nazi party members hqve guns and took them from Jews and the parties enemies…..and the disarmed population was already cowed into submission after they lost their guns in the 20s you idiot.



Actually, no.  The problem with the Weimar Gun Laws (a sensible response to Nazis and Communists having pitched gun battles in the streets) is that they were poorly enforced.  Thanks to the disintegration of the German military following World War I, you had Lugers and rifles in almost every house in Germany.  

The reason why most Germans didn't oppose the Nazis is because most of them were perfectly fine with what Hitler was doing.  If Hitler had died in 1939 before the War started, he'd probably be remembered as Germany's Greatest Chancellor. 

The German people had plenty of guns.  Rather than get rid of a government they hated, they used those guns to fight to the last man, at least on the Russian front.  

The guy who brought gun control to Germany was Dwight Eisenhower, who got a little tired of Nazi Dead-enders taking pot shots at Allied troops and ordered house to house confiscation.  




2aguy said:


> Abatis already showed you the truth and Scalia explained the entire history going back to England you moron



Yet England didn't have widespread gun ownership, and neither did the United States until recent decades.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 14, 2021)

Abatis said:


> This chimera of gun-crazed maniacs you have invented


To what are you referring? We'll debate all the issues I feel need to be debated if you can control the insults and behave normally. 
I'll propose the question of guns not being used for self defense to debate first. I've found volumes of evidence that says it's very rarely.


----------



## Donald H (Oct 14, 2021)

Abatis said:


> WTF makes you think I am interested in your take of a point 2Aguy made?
> 
> Spin, distract, spin, dissemble, spin, misdirect . . .
> 
> .


That's fine with me if you have no interest. Maybe somebody else can back him up?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 14, 2021)

Donald H said:


> To what are you referring? We'll debate all the issues I feel need to be debated if you can control the insults and behave normally.


Unlikely.
See, "debate" implies the exchange of rational, reasoned positions, backed with facts.
The anti-gun side has none.


Donald H said:


> I'll propose the question of guns not being used for self defense to debate first. I've found volumes of evidence that says it's very rarely.


Firearms are used for self-defense at least 10x more often than for murder
Firearms are used for self-defense at least 5x more often than for suicide.
If firearms are "very rarely"  used for self-defense, how would you charatcterize the incidenc of firarm use for murder and suicide?


----------



## Donald H (Oct 14, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> If firearms are "very rarely"  used for self-defense, how would you charatcterize the incidenc of firarm use for murder and suicide?


It's an odd question that  doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Maybe you mean to somehow connect the very high incidence of murder and suicide in America with self-defence.
If so, I can't accept that without some sort of explanation.

warning: You will not get away with rudeness, personal insults, or spamming with me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 14, 2021)

Donald H said:


> It's an odd question that  doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.


It does when you include the part where firearms are used -far- more often for self-defense than murder and suicide.
If the former is "very rare" -as you said -  what then is the latter?
Well?


----------



## Donald H (Oct 14, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> It does when you include the part where firearms are used -far- more often for self-defense than murder and suicide.
> If the former is "very rare" -as you said -  what then is the latter?
> Well?


Very prevalent in America compared to other countries. There are a few third world exceptions.

All the sites I've found that are interested in an honest analysis of the situation are showing that self-defense with guns is very seldom.

The incidents of Americans with guns feeling threatened with a fist fight in a tavern for instance  can't be included as self defense. If you're trying to include that then you may be able to build some case by including such altercations.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 14, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Very prevalent in America compared to other countries. There are a few third world exceptions.


And yet, compared to the number of times a firearm is used in self-defense, murder and suicide with a firearm is very rare.
Indeed, compared to the number of guns in the US, the number of guns used for murder and suicide approach statistical zero.
Given this...
What's your point?
Where are you rational, reasoned positions, backed with facts?


----------



## Donald H (Oct 14, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet, compared to the number of times a firearm is used in self-defense, murder and suicide with a firearm is very rare.
> Indeed, compared to the number of guns in the US, the number of guns used for murder and suicide approach statistical zero.
> Given this...
> What's your point?
> Where are you rational, reasoned positions, backed with facts?





			https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/murder-suicide/
		




> Murder-suicides are a shockingly common form of gun violence in the United States — an estimated 11 such incidents each week. VPC research has found that more than 1,200 Americans die in murder-suicides each year. Nine out of 10 murder-suicides involve a gun. In nearly two-thirds of all murder-suicides, an intimate partner of the shooter is among the victims.



We're not getting anywhere if you're not willing to acknowledge the facts. 

However, if you're trying to make a point that the stats aren't significant then we've reached an impasse.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 14, 2021)

Donald H said:


> https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/murder-suicide/


And yet, compared to the number of times a firearm is used in self-defense, murder and suicide with a firearm is very rare.
So...?


----------



## Donald H (Oct 14, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet, compared to the number of times a firearm is used in self-defense, murder and suicide with a firearm is very rare.
> So...?


Disagree of course.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 14, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Disagree of course.


You disagree with _facts_?
So much for your willingness to debate.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 14, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> You kind of miss the point about Japanese-Americans. It wasn't the government that did it, it was the AMERICAN PEOPLE who did it.



By that description / definition, you are not discussing any right, thus this red herring is dismissed.



JoeB131 said:


> Not that we've learned anything in 80 years, given the response to Trump Plague was to go beat up some Asian people.



The vast majority of violence / assaults against Asians and Asian businesses were perpetrated by Blacks.  Blacks have _always_ had a grudge against Asians for their business models in Black neighborhoods and their success. COVID was just a convenient excuse for the perpetuation of the already existing hate and violence, and for its escalation.  

I'm not sure if it was your point, (I can't assume it _wasn't_, given the stupid crap you throw out), but there certainly wasn't any motivation needed or marching orders received  by Blacks _from Trump_, prodding them to assault Asians on the street.




JoeB131 said:


> And when was the last time someone in government was actually punished?  I mean besides the occasional city cop who loses his job for shooting a black kid in the back?  Clinton and Trump proved we really can't hold people in government accountable, that's the thing.



True Dat . . .  But that does not alter the foundational principle.



JoeB131 said:


> Uh, huh.  And who gets to decide that?  Frankly, what you are recommending is anarchy, not a process.



The people demanding government to respect and obey the Constitution is not anarchy.

If the full rescinding of our consent to be governed is undertaken and successful, then establishing a new framework of government will again be in the people's hands . . .  And that is a process, _the_ process, as SCOTUS recognized in _Marbury v. Madison_, *5 U.S. 137* (1803):


"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​​This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​​The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? . . . "​


Does the significance and weight of that, register with you?


>>>reply to be continued . . .


----------



## Abatis (Oct 14, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Let's take the 1/6 Riot.  There was an election, they lost, so they stormed the capitol. What if they decided to show up with guns instead?  YOu really think this is a good thing.  Sadly, a lot of people on your side do, and that's the problem.



I'm all for the prosecution and punishment of anyone who rioted.  I do not support persecutions for "What if's" . . . 



JoeB131 said:


> Again, point is going right over your head.   "Free Speech" is a nice principle, but I can point out a dozen cases where government has stepped in to limit it.  The Hayes Commission was set up to censor movies, the Comic Book Code Authority was set up to censor comic books, right now, you have a bunch of people who want to censor what goes out on Social Media...



Seems to me your "self policing" examples are more comparable to the woke / cancel movement today in the private sector.  The woke movement _is doing_ exactly the same thing as the Hayes / Motion Picture Production Code _was doing_.

Whatever governmental action that's being proposed 'against' social media, is for government to remove special privileges and protections government had given to social media platforms for as long as they acted as impartial content platforms . . .   Now that social media companies are using their platforms to advance policial agendas and are actively censoring content and people for political positions, I agree the protections should be removed.  That isn't censorship.

>>>reply to be continued . . . 

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 14, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Freedom of Religion?  Okay, so if I want to cut out the heart of my enemy as a tribute to Quetzalcoatl, should I be able to do that because my religion says so?  Should David Koresh been allowed to molest children?
> 
> And these are clear cut freedoms, not a kneejerk reaction like the Militia Amendment that has been distorted by the gun industry.



Bullshit argument, at least in the context of gun rights vs gun control.  Are you arguing that the rights of consistence are defined by human sacrifice rituals in the same way you define the RKBA by murder?


----------



## Abatis (Oct 14, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> > Abatis said:
> >
> > So when one tears away the facade, *YOU* are the one that believes the Constitution is a suicide pact . . . We are stuck with government no matter how far it wanders for the contract that established it, or if it alters on a whim what we are "allowed" to do, we must meekly comply or we will be eliminated.
> 
> ...



It's fine that you describe your personal opinion as "common sense" but it's obvious you do that to avoid defending your goofy "suicide pact" statement.  You are the one arguing a model that leaves the people without any relief from a bad government that no longer respects and obeys the principles of its establishment or the rules of its operation.

You demand only unquestioning obedience from the people without any recognition of their sovereignty and their right to _consent to be governed_. 

Is "consent to be governed" just voting? What happen when elections are corrupt or cancelled by government?

What the hell is the, "consent to be governed" to you, if *you* reject any notion (let alone action) of the people _rescinding_ their consent to be governed?

Instead of the Constitution being a contract to limit government and protect the people from government, you are arguing it is a delayed death warrant, able to be imposed at the discretion of the government at a time they shall determine. 

*THAT's* why I call you people, *leftist, statist authoritarians* . . .


I'm combining your last comment in this post on militias, with my reply in your next post about _Miller

._


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 15, 2021)

Abatis said:


> By that description / definition, you are not discussing any right, thus this red herring is dismissed.



Except we aren't talking about "rights", we are talking about societal privileges.  50 years ago, the idea that some crazy person could stockpile an arsenal would have been considered crazy.   Someone would have done something about it.  

When the Black Panthers walked around carrying guns after some of their members were murdered by police in their own beds, Republicans signed off on laws against open carry, and the NRA supported it.  




Abatis said:


> The vast majority of violence / assaults against Asians and Asian businesses were perpetrated by Blacks. Blacks have _always_ had a grudge against Asians for their business models in Black neighborhoods and their success. COVID was just a convenient excuse for the perpetuation of the already existing hate and violence, and for its escalation.



Which Trump encouraged.. that's the point.  But nice to see you try to blame black people... how racist of you. 



Abatis said:


> I'm not sure if it was your point, (I can't assume it _wasn't_, given the stupid crap you throw out), but there certainly wasn't any motivation needed or marching orders received by Blacks _from Trump_, prodding them to assault Asians on the street.



Except why weren't Blacks beating up Asians or whites shooting up Happy Ending Massage Parlors before Trump started screaming "China Virus" and "Kung Flu"?  



Abatis said:


> True Dat . . . But that does not alter the foundational principle.



Principles and an empty sack are worth the Empty sack.  



Abatis said:


> The people demanding government to respect and obey the Constitution is not anarchy.





Abatis said:


> Does the significance and weight of that, register with you?



Not really.  Again, what you are advocating is anarchy.  Any bunch of asshole with guns can take down the government until the next bunch of assholes with guns comes along.    That's not America, that's Afghanistan. 



Abatis said:


> Seems to me your "self policing" examples are more comparable to the woke / cancel movement today in the private sector. The woke movement _is doing_ exactly the same thing as the Hayes / Motion Picture Production Code _was doing_.



I think you miss the point.  The Hayes Code was imposed because government was threatening to regulate the Motion Picture Industry, and not only because of what was going on screen, but what was happening behind the cameras. (For instance, the media-created Fatty Arbuckle Scandal, which got people very upset about Hollywood debauchery that wasn't happening.)  Hayes got there because they were trying to beat the government to the punch.  

Which goes back to my argument about holding gun sellers responsible. The government did the exact opposite.  Some victims of gun violence actually did sue gun makers and sellers, namely the victims of the DC Snipers.  Even though one was a felon and the other a minor, the gun sellers were sued for letting them have guns, and they were held accountable.  

And Congress' response was to immunize gun sellers from lawsuits.  




Abatis said:


> Whatever governmental action that's being proposed 'against' social media, is for government to remove special privileges and protections government had given to social media platforms for as long as they acted as impartial content platforms . . . Now that social media companies are using their platforms to advance policial agendas and are actively censoring content and people for political positions, I agree the protections should be removed. That isn't censorship.



The problem I see with Facebook isn't the problem you see with Facebook.  The problem you see is that people flooded it with memes about Trump pointing out the absurdity of his presidency.   The problem I see with it misinformation on it abounds, and not just about politics.   The problem with Facebook is that they don't want to spend the money monitoring content for misinformation.  




Abatis said:


> Bullshit argument, at least in the context of gun rights vs gun control. Are you arguing that the rights of consistence are defined by human sacrifice rituals in the same way you define the RKBA by murder?



Naw, I think both are pretty simple applications of common sense.   There is no sane reason in the world where it made sense to sell a mentally ill person like Joker Holmes an automatic rifle and a 100 round clip, just like there is no sane reason to let Neo-Aztec cultists cut the hearts out of people.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 15, 2021)

Abatis said:


> It's fine that you describe your personal opinion as "common sense" but it's obvious you do that to avoid defending your goofy "suicide pact" statement. You are the one arguing a model that leaves the people without any relief from a bad government that no longer respects and obeys the principles of its establishment or the rules of its operation.
> 
> You demand only unquestioning obedience from the people without any recognition of their sovereignty and their right to _consent to be governed_.
> 
> Is "consent to be governed" just voting? What happen when elections are corrupt or cancelled by government?



Only people I see corrupting elections is your side...   but when you still lose, you want to storm the capital and stockpile guns. 

You people are a lot more fucking scary than any government.  




Abatis said:


> What the hell is the, "consent to be governed" to you, if *you* reject any notion (let alone action) of the people _rescinding_ their consent to be governed?



We have elections for that.   When Republicans let us have elections.  




Abatis said:


> Instead of the Constitution being a contract to limit government and protect the people from government, you are arguing it is a delayed death warrant, able to be imposed at the discretion of the government at a time they shall determine.



Again, the government isn't going to burst into a school or a theater or a shopping mall and start mowing people down... that would be one of your fellow Second Amendment Enthusiasts.  

We have 400 mass shootings every year, and you really, really think that's an acceptable price to pay for the ability to overthrow government.   This is an absurd argument. 

If government goes off the rails, they have professional armies to back them up. They have tanks, bombers, drones...   You really aren't going to do much about that with your personal arsenal.  

So it's really not a good reason why I should have to be worried a disguntled coworker might shoot up the office the day he gets fired because you want to reserve a right to hold a failed revolt against the government.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 15, 2021)

Donald H said:


> Disagree of course.


You disagree with _facts_?
So much for your willingness to debate.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 15, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> The Founding Fathers had militias in mind with the second Amendment, because in those days, muskets were only effect when fired in volleys - hence the term -'Well regulated".



You continually throw out words and terms that have very specific meaning and definitions in constitutional philosophy, history and law but you apply your own meanings and definitions that have no reference to, or association with, the Constitution's foundational principles, its action and enforcement in law. 

Your use of these specific terms and words has only one purpose, to advance an anti-gun and anti-rights agenda that is anti-historical and anti-constitutional and is hostile to the long and unwavering consideration and treatment of the possession and use of guns by private citizens under the Constitution. 

You have created an alternate universe that is not based in legal reality, but you speak of it as if it is real and avoid at all cost, discussion that proves you are living a delusion.



JoeB131 said:


> Again, I gave you one... Miller v. US.
> 
> Second Amendment is about militias and the government can regulate gun ownership.
> 
> That Scalia took the Crazy NRA position in Heller is the problem.



On multiple times now I have answered your _Miller_ references and proven you are wrong and that what you present as the legal situation regarding the right to arms is not just wrong, but a complete perversion of the legal record.

You have ignored those posts, you have never quoted the pertinent parts or addressed any part of my arguments and yet you keep coming back with citations to the _Miller_ case. 

Wassupwiddat?

So I guess I could re-re-post my _Miller_ series of posts for what it's worth, which you have proven is nothing to you.  

You and I know you will run away from these facts *again*, _but_, as long as you keep coming back with "_Miller v. US clearly stated_" and "_I gave you one... Miller v. US_", I guess I could keep posting and re-posting and re-re-reposting _again_, a reference to and link to *POST #221*, which itself includes a copy of *POST **#118*---- that both addressed _Miller_ and went unanswered by you.  

That you never bother to actually rebut what I write proves you are just spouting what you *FEEL* the law is or want the law to be and would rather not acknowledge anything that disrupts your fantasies. 

You would rather maintain your falsehoods and illogisms without any regard for what is true, what the real legal situation is . . . And that situation is, SCOTUS has *never* endorsed any other interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but that secures an individual right possessed by the private citizen, protecting his personal arms, without any militia association conditioning -- and it has done so in boringly consistent fashion, for going on 145 years.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 15, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, he repeated a lot of the NRA spooge you guys repeat... but Heller ignored hundreds of years or precedent to give the NRA what it wanted.



I don't repeat NRA splooge, my arguments are based in and can be supported by or include original sources, either the words of the framers, the words of the Constitution or the words of the courts, including SCOTUS.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 15, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yet England didn't have widespread gun ownership, and neither did the United States until recent decades.



Of course England didn't have "widespread gun ownership".  Arms in the hands of commoners were deemed a danger to the King and were restricted only for the landed gentry earning income from their land and the titled aristocracy.  As Blackstone noted, English game laws were more intended to keep arms out of the hands of commoners, than protect any Grouse or Rabbits. . .

Madison in 1788 stated that, in a nation of just over 3 million souls, 500,000 citizens had "arms in their hands" and that the largest standing army the national government could assemble and maintain (1% of the population / 25K-30K soldiers) would be opposed by those armed citizens by a ratio of 17 armed citizens to each soldier.  

Today, Madison's ratio still holds true -- with a bit of widening given the rights expansion for Blacks and Women!   

Now we have 80,000,000 gun owners owning >400,000,000 guns standing "opposed" to a 'standing army' of *2,245,500 million active duty and reserve armed forces* = 36 armed citizens vs 1 "soldier" . . .


----------



## Abatis (Oct 15, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except we aren't talking about "rights", we are talking about societal privileges.



Well, that's the cute little box you have put the gun law issue in (well, really, the entire Constitution).  Whatever "discussion" you think you are having with "we", it is actually only occurring in your head.

You have constructed this fantasy as a coping mechanism so you don't need to engage in the actual discussions and operate in the legal realities of the gun law issue.



JoeB131 said:


> When the Black Panthers walked around carrying guns after some of their members were murdered by police in their own beds, Republicans signed off on laws against open carry, and the NRA supported it.



Aren't we are discussing the 2nd Amendment?



JoeB131 said:


> But nice to see you try to blame black people... how racist of you.



Since when are facts racist?

I did not make those statements out of malice.



JoeB131 said:


> Except why weren't Blacks beating up Asians or whites shooting up Happy Ending Massage Parlors before Trump started screaming "China Virus" and "Kung Flu"?



Is every reference you make completely disingenuous and manufactured emotion?  The motive for the massage parlor murders was the perp's sexual hang-ups, there was no racial animus (COVID fluffed or otherwise) involved.



JoeB131 said:


> Principles and an empty sack are worth the Empty sack.



I would expect nothing else from someone who argues rights don't exist.



JoeB131 said:


> I think you miss the point.



Sez the guy who does nothing but ignore / bury / obfuscate / distract / dismiss the point.



JoeB131 said:


> Which goes back to my argument about holding gun sellers responsible. The government did the exact opposite.  Some victims of gun violence actually did sue gun makers and sellers, namely the victims of the DC Snipers.  Even though one was a felon and the other a minor, the gun sellers were sued for letting them have guns, and they were held accountable.
> 
> And Congress' response was to immunize gun sellers from lawsuits.



Another god-damned, utterly detestable mischaracterization of events and duplicitous misrepresentation of facts.  IOW, typical . . .




JoeB131 said:


> Naw, I think both are pretty simple applications of common sense.   There is no sane reason in the world where it made sense to sell a mentally ill person like Joker Holmes an automatic rifle and a 100 round clip, just like there is no sane reason to let Neo-Aztec cultists cut the hearts out of people.



Well, you have proven you either don't understand the legal processes here or simply reject them, so it is useless to try to explain them.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 15, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> We have 400 mass shootings every year,



According to *the compiler that is the most accepted and cited in media and politics to track "mass shootings"*, the number of "mass shootings" for 2021, as of October 13, 2021 was 561.

The total number for 2020 was 611, for 2019 it was 417, for 2018 it was 336 . . .



JoeB131 said:


> and you really, really think that's an acceptable price to pay for the ability to overthrow government.   This is an absurd argument.



You sound like a lunatic when you speak for other people, assigning them a position that they have never said . . .  And then you have the gall to call that argument absurd.  Well, I wholeheartedly agree, your characterization of what other people believe is absurd!

That argument you assign to me, that you say that "*I really, really think*", is entirely a product of your own mind, a position that your crazed imagination tells you that crazy gun rights supports must support . . .

You state as a fact what your deranged mind tells *you* gun right supporters _must _think, they just _have_ to! Really, if they hold such "absurd" beliefs, you don't need to treat them as having any legitimacy or competency in the gun debate, you can claim total moral superiority and hold yourself immune to any opposing viewpoints . . . How wonderful that must be!

Calling your foolishness a straw-man is generous, really it is a sad tale of narcissism with a bit of psychopathy thrown in.

I understand you, I "get" you and know why you say what you say and do what you do.  It's why you gravitate to leftism, it doesn't require thinking or knowing, only feeling and imposing your ego on others.  That's why I'm so effective against you, I know what your weaknesses are:

​Have you ever paid close attention to how a narcissist speaks? They use excessive, long-winded language charged with grandiose emotion. They skew reality to meet their worldview, and they believe their truth is always the truth.​​Additionally, through the use of cognitive empathy, they’ve spent their entire lives observing the emotional language of other people and using it to their advantage. So, when you speak in facts instead of using emotion, they intuitively understand they have less of an upper hand.​​Therefore, they hate when someone challenges them with facts instead of emotion. They will usually retaliate with more arguing or hysteria. This childish response simply shows that they feel out-of-control. They attempt to elevate the conversation’s intensity by throwing an emotional temper tantrum.​​If anything, this dynamic only highlights the narcissist’s immaturity. Their inability to absorb facts demonstrates their incompetence in approaching most adult interactions. They are not skilled in the language of facts because they are always lying and hiding things, so speaking factually throws them completely off-balance.​​
You should, if you wan to be a more effective debate opponent, understand yourself and your faults but especially how you are perceived by others, especially those you denigrate, demean, demonize and disingenuously misrepresent.

You aren't as smart as you feel you are  . . . LOL









						How to Make a Narcissist Miserable: 12 Things They Hate
					

Wondering how to make a narcissist miserable? These 12 things they hate will do the trick. Learn what they are in the article.




					kimsaeed.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 16, 2021)

Abatis said:


> You continually throw out words and terms that have very specific meaning and definitions in constitutional philosophy, history and law but you apply your own meanings and definitions that have no reference to, or association with, the Constitution's foundational principles, its action and enforcement in law.
> 
> Your use of these specific terms and words has only one purpose, to advance an anti-gun and anti-rights agenda that is anti-historical and anti-constitutional and is hostile to the long and unwavering consideration and treatment of the possession and use of guns by private citizens under the Constitution.
> 
> You have created an alternate universe that is not based in legal reality, but you speak of it as if it is real and avoid at all cost, discussion that proves you are living a delusion.



Naw, man, I'm living in a world where we have active shooter drills, militarized police, and 43,000 gun deaths a year because of your bizarre fetish that the Founding Slave Rapists totally said you can have guns, so that makes it okay.  




Abatis said:


> You and I know you will run away from these facts *again*, _but_, as long as you keep coming back with "_Miller v. US clearly stated_" and "_I gave you one... Miller v. US_", I guess I could keep posting and re-posting and re-re-reposting _again_, a reference to and link to *POST #221*, which itself includes a copy of *POST **#118*---- that both addressed _Miller_ and went unanswered by you.



I did answer it, just not an answer you wanted to hear.  

What happened in Miller is that the Court realized the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and when you had Al Capone gunning people down in the street with tommy guns, we damned well needed to do something about that.  



Abatis said:


> Of course England didn't have "widespread gun ownership". Arms in the hands of commoners were deemed a danger to the King and were restricted only for the landed gentry earning income from their land and the titled aristocracy. As Blackstone noted, English game laws were more intended to keep arms out of the hands of commoners, than protect any Grouse or Rabbits. . .



Actually, guns weren't terrible useful for hunting in colonial days... they just weren't that accurate... The real reason why commoners didn't have guns in the UK or US in the colonial period is that they were too expensive to afford.   A gun cost more than a months wages for a skilled craftsman.    It's why the militias had to get their guns from local government.  

Lexington and Concorde wasn't the British taking guns from local owners, theywere trying to seize an armory with guns. 




Abatis said:


> Madison in 1788 stated that, in a nation of just over 3 million souls, 500,000 citizens had "arms in their hands" and that the largest standing army the national government could assemble and maintain (1% of the population / 25K-30K soldiers) would be opposed by those armed citizens by a ratio of 17 armed citizens to each soldier.



Probably full of shit.  Gun ownership was rare in colonial times.  



Abatis said:


> Is every reference you make completely disingenuous and manufactured emotion? The motive for the massage parlor murders was the perp's sexual hang-ups, there was no racial animus (COVID fluffed or otherwise) involved.



Um, yeah, that's why he drove past a couple of strip joints full of white naked ladies to go shoot up a massage parlor with Asian Chicks in their 50's, 60,' and 70's   

Because nothing says "Sexual hangup" better than an elderly Asian woman. 





_*"Me so Horny... love you long time!"

*_


Abatis said:


> Another god-damned, utterly detestable mischaracterization of events and duplicitous misrepresentation of facts. IOW, typical . . .



Not at all.  The DC Snipers happened because of the negligence of the gun sellers.  Either selling guns to people who had no business buying them or making it easy for them to steal one.   

YOu see, any other industry would take measures to keep their products from being misused.  When it was found that allergy medicine was being used to make Crystal Meth, the pharmaceutical industry took measures to limit their sale so these guys wouldn't buy them. 





Not the gun industry, though!  Bad guys with guns is good for business.  You let some gangbanger buy a gun, you know that 100 scared nervous white people will want them, too!!!   



Abatis said:


> Well, you have proven you either don't understand the legal processes here or simply reject them, so it is useless to try to explain them.



The legal process is that when you've watered down the rules on buying guns to be meaningless, you are going to have lots of bad guys with guns.  

SO, yes, let's have the ATF regulate gun traffic, and then not fund it, and not put anyone in charge the NRA objects to.  It's like letting the Mafia choose the FBI director.  

So every time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things. 

1) Everyone in that person's life KNEW he was crazy. 
2) Despite that, they had no problem getting their hands on lots of guns and ammo.  

So again, simple enough solution.  Don't rely on the government.  They'll just fuck it up.  

Instead, rely on private industry.   You can sell your guns, but when one of your prime customers shoots up a theater or a pre-school, the people harmed can sue you for selling to him to start with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 16, 2021)

Abatis said:


> You sound like a lunatic when you speak for other people, assigning them a position that they have never said . . . And then you have the gall to call that argument absurd. Well, I wholeheartedly agree, your characterization of what other people believe is absurd!
> 
> That argument you assign to me, that you say that "*I really, really think*", is entirely a product of your own mind, a position that your crazed imagination tells you that crazy gun rights supports must support . . .



Uh, guy, you spent a couple pages here arguing the reason why we need guns is to threaten the government.  Your boyfriend, 2AGuy gets on here every day claiming that every massacre in history was due to a lack of guns.  (even if they were carried out with... guns.)  



Abatis said:


> I understand you, I "get" you and know why you say what you say and do what you do. It's why you gravitate to leftism, it doesn't require thinking or knowing, only feeling and imposing your ego on others. That's why I'm so effective against you, I know what your weaknesses are:



Actually, you aren't effective at all... I mean, as some point, I'll get bored with your NRA Spooge and move on to other topics... but you aren't effective. 

Here's the gag. Up until 2008, I was probably more right wing than you are.  As far as being afraid of guns, I was in the Army for 11 years, and my MOS was 76Y, which means I've probably handled more guns than you and 2AGuy wank off about.  

(For those playing along at home, 76Y was Unit Supply Specialist, or it was until the early 90's when the Army changed all the MOS Classifications.  This included unit armorers who managed the arms vault and weapon maintenance.) 

What changed for me is that instead of the sensible conservativism of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have devolved to using sexual, racial and religious fears to get stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests.  I realized this in 2008, when after having my career derailed by a twit who said, "This is why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union", I found myself with an underwater mortgage, a busted 401K and taking a job with a 25% pay cut because I was glad to just have a job after the 2008 Crash.  

Now, you would think that after Republicans being in charge for 10 of the last 11 recessions, working folks like myself would have the good sense to say, "Man, let's not ever let those guys are the controls again!!!"  

But the GOP is very, very good at playing at the fears I mentioned above... which is why they can't stop talking about God, Guns and Gays.   When Obama talked about people bitterly clinging to their guns and their bibles, they meant people like you. 

Now, how does this apply to our discussion on guns? 

Well, pretty simple.  Up until the 1970's, most people were fine with sensible gun laws and gun control.  When you had a spike of violence, you got more gun laws.  

Then this funny thing happened.  The Gun industry realized that with hunting falling out of fashion as a sport, they needed to sell guns to someone, and who better than a scared little white person terrified some darkie might want to take their stuff... 

So let's flood the streets with cheap guns.  Let's weaken the ATF to the point of irrelevance.  Let's fight every sensible gun law, and go to full battle stations every time an Adam Lanza shoots up a school.  

It's fucking insane.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 16, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, I'm living in a world where we have active shooter drills, militarized police, and 43,000 gun deaths a year because of your bizarre fetish that the Founding Slave Rapists totally said you can have guns, so that makes it okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Moron….the actual shooter stated he didn’t target them because they were Asian…you lying piece  of crap……….

You are insane.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 16, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron….the actual shooter stated he didn’t target them because they were Asian…you lying piece of crap……….
> 
> You are insane.



Wow, so you are taking the word of a criminal at face value? 

Yes, he realized that it didn't play well that he was targeting elderly Asian women, so he tried to claim it was about a sex addiction.   Forget that he drove past a couple of strip joints between the first place he hit and the second and third places he hit.  He shot those women because he was sex obsessed, but frankly, it would take a pretty serious case of "Yellow Fever" to find an 74 year old sexy.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 16, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, so you are taking the word of a criminal at face value?
> 
> Yes, he realized that it didn't play well that he was targeting elderly Asian women, so he tried to claim it was about a sex addiction.   Forget that he drove past a couple of strip joints between the first place he hit and the second and third places he hit.  He shot those women because he was sex obsessed, but frankly, it would take a pretty serious case of "Yellow Fever" to find an 74 year old sexy.



Yeah...moron....he isn't getting anything for saying he targeted them because of his sex addiction so there is no fucking reason for him to lie...he is already going to prison for life....you dumb ass....

Those were the types of places he frequented, and he targeted them......he stated this.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 16, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yeah...moron....he isn't getting anything for saying he targeted them because of his sex addiction so there is no fucking reason for him to lie...he is already going to prison for life....you dumb ass....
> 
> Those were the types of places he frequented, and he targeted them......he stated this.....



There's a very good reason for him to lie.  Going to prison for the rest of his life vs. going to death row.  

Even if he only gets a life sentence, being sent to prison branded as a racist is not a healthy thing, either. 

But, yeah, he shot the 74 year old Asian Grandmother because he was sexually obsessed.. no, really.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 16, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, I'm living in a world where we have active shooter drills, militarized police, and 43,000 gun deaths a year because of your bizarre fetish that the Founding Slave Rapists totally said you can have guns, so that makes it okay.



None of that is the true nature of gun rights vs. gun control and none of the emotional import you feel from those things, alters the legal realities of the protection of right to arms or even the criteria for the right to be disabled for people who have been convicted of crimes or who have been *legally declared *insane.  



JoeB131 said:


> I did answer it, just not an answer you wanted to hear.



You did not answer anything; you spun and dissembled and evaded and lied.  

All I "want" to hear is you discussing _Miller_ within the facts of the case and the actual determinations of the Court.  I know you can't do that so, I guess I'll have to be happy posting that information and facts and showing you to be the leftist liar you are.



JoeB131 said:


> What happened in Miller is that the Court realized the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and when you had Al Capone gunning people down in the street with tommy guns, we damned well needed to do something about that.



And again, you are making statements, *presenting them as legal facts* "_what happened in Miller_" but of course are nowhere in the evidence presented or in the Court's statements in the decision. 

As usual, all your posts are, are peeks into the alternate reality you have invented for the COTUS, SCOTUS and gun law in general, that allows you to hold the stupid positions you hold. 

Nothing you say "_happened in Miller_" actually, really, "_happened in Miller_" . . . It is just your imagination spouting shit.

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 16, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Lexington and Concorde wasn't the British taking guns from local owners, theywere trying to seize an armory with guns.



Armory???????

The *arms that Gage ordered seized on April 18, 1775*, were stored in barns, stables, root cellars and houses in Concord because Gage was finally moving on the forced disarmament of Boston citizens, originally ordered in late 1774.  

The arms of private citizens who supported the cause were being spirited out of Boston by Patriots for months as the earnest confiscation of citizens arms ramped-up.  So while the arms in Concord on the morning of April 19th weren't all owned by "local owners", they sure as hell were privately owned arms and poweder and ball and provisions, amassed for the singular purpose of arming citizens, "for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty" (as Gage described it, in his orders to LtCol Smith, linked above).



JoeB131 said:


> Probably full of shit.



Yeah, *James Madison was full of shit* . . . SMH, your idiocy knows no bounds.



JoeB131 said:


> Gun ownership was rare in colonial times.



When *Gage really cracked down and forbade anyone to leave Boston with guns or ammunition*, an accounting of the confiscated arms for *one day* read:


"On the 27th of April the people delivered to the selectmen 1778 firearms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses; and on the same day it was announced in a town-meeting, that General Gage had given permission to the inhabitants to remove out of town, with their effects, either by land or by water; and applications for passes were to be made to General Robertson."​
Yeah, guns were rare which is why it was so important for the British to ban and confiscate them . . .   You do know *Bellesiles is a fraud*, right?  The lying POS won *Columbia University's Bancroft Award* in 2001, and Columbia rescinded it in 2002, the only time ever . . .

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 16, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, that's why he drove past a couple of strip joints full of white naked ladies to go shoot up a massage parlor with Asian Chicks in their 50's, 60,' and 70's



*The FBI said there was no racial animus*, they investigated Long and found no evidence of racial motivation.

Sorry.



JoeB131 said:


> The legal process is that when you've watered down the rules on buying guns to be meaningless, you are going to have lots of bad guys with guns.



If you think things are "watered down" now, *you better have some therapy lined up for late June*.



JoeB131 said:


> So every time we have a mass shooting, we find out two things.
> 
> 1) Everyone in that person's life KNEW he was crazy.
> 2) Despite that, they had no problem getting their hands on lots of guns and ammo.
> ...



It's easy to find people willing to make the grand diagnosis after the person has done the crazy, that's too late though.

The people in a nutjob's life are the first line of protection (or defense), they are the ones who know the person best and see the changes but often deny the troubles are there and the person is delayed in being helped.

As the person descends into madness, untreated, with the people around them in denial, exactly what process do you envision could be brought to bear to stop them getting a gun, or disarm them if one is already owned?

You really, really, really seem to feel there is now, or should be, such a process or mechanism *beyond* what is in the law now, as set out in U.S.C 18 §922(g)(1-9). That of course says that no legal prohibition on gun ownership or purchase can be imposed without involuntary commitment or a judge adjudicating them as a mental defective.

You got _anything_ along those lines beyond your typical fanciful leftist goofyness?

.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 16, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> There's a very good reason for him to lie.  Going to prison for the rest of his life vs. going to death row.
> 
> Even if he only gets a life sentence, being sent to prison branded as a racist is not a healthy thing, either.
> 
> But, yeah, he shot the 74 year old Asian Grandmother because he was sexually obsessed.. no, really.



Moron, we can’t execute people anymore……….he has no reason to lie.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 16, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Armory???????
> 
> The *arms that Gage ordered seized on April 18, 1775*, were stored in barns, stables, root cellars and houses in Concord because Gage was finally moving on the forced disarmament of Boston citizens, originally ordered in late 1774.
> 
> ...



He knows all about Belleville’s because I schooled the idiot on the fraud…the revoking of his award and the guy getting fired……..he knows all about that….


----------



## Abatis (Oct 17, 2021)

2aguy said:


> He knows all about Belleville’s because I schooled the idiot on the fraud…the revoking of his award and the guy getting fired……..he knows all about that….



I assumed he was familiar with Bellisises' "work"; the way the "fact" of rare gun ownership was recited, it's being recalled as an emotional construct.  It's obvious he's one of those who reads something like Bellisiles that so confirms a bias and fills a space in their narrative, that it is committed to memory in a box that is immune to any review or reconsideration. 

It can't *ever* be proven wrong, even when the hypothesis and conclusion are debunked and disgraced -- feet are stomped, fists are clenched, spit is spitttled; it just _has_ to be true . . . So it is!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 17, 2021)

Abatis said:


> None of that is the true nature of gun rights vs. gun control and none of the emotional import you feel from those things, alters the legal realities of the protection of right to arms or even the criteria for the right to be disabled for people who have been convicted of crimes or who have been *legally declared *insane.



Except crazy people still get guns and still commit mass shootings... that's the thing.  And at my last workplace, I usually had to go through three security doors to get from one place to another.  



Abatis said:


> As usual, all your posts are, are peeks into the alternate reality you have invented for the COTUS, SCOTUS and gun law in general, that allows you to hold the stupid positions you hold.
> 
> Nothing you say "_happened in Miller_" actually, really, "_happened in Miller_" . . . It is just your imagination spouting shit.



What happened in Miller was that the 1934 National Firearms Act was upheld.   The NRA has been trying to water it down ever since. 



Abatis said:


> Yeah, guns were rare which is why it was so important for the British to ban and confiscate them . . . You do know *Bellesiles is a fraud*, right? The lying POS won *Columbia University's Bancroft Award* in 2001, and Columbia rescinded it in 2002, the only time ever . . .



Okay, you guys tell yourself that... 



Abatis said:


> *The FBI said there was no racial animus*, they investigated Long and found no evidence of racial motivation.
> 
> Sorry.



Sure, he just shot those Asian ladies for sexual frustration... 

It's funny you guys don't believe the FBI when they claim Trump colluded with the Russians, but you totally beleive them when they spend five minutes on a case and take some racist punks word for it.  

Here's what Ray says in your article. 

"And while the motive *remains still under investigation* at the moment, it does not appear that the motive was racially motivated. _*But I really would defer to the state and local investigation on that*_ for now," Wray said.

Wow- talk about passing the buck!  

Point is, if he was sexually frustrated, why didn't he shoot up one of the Strip Joints he passed by to get from the first massage parlor to the second and third ones he hit?   



Abatis said:


> It's easy to find people willing to make the grand diagnosis after the person has done the crazy, that's too late though.
> 
> The people in a nutjob's life are the first line of protection (or defense), they are the ones who know the person best and see the changes but often deny the troubles are there and the person is delayed in being helped.



Okay, let's look at that.  

Joker Holmes university was in the process of disenrolling him. 
The VA Tech shooters behavior was so disturbing they wouldn't put him in classes with other students. 
Adam Lanza's Mom was looking to put him in a home. 
Nikolas Cruz was in an out of the legal system for years.  

All these people had NO PROBLEM GETTING GUNS.  

Now, here's the thing.  Right now, I am going through the process of getting a home loan.   I'm close to 60, I have gotten five mortgages/home equity loans in the past and have completed them, have no credit card debt AND have a credit score of 813.  

But this bank is STILL asking me for a lot of documentation to establish my financials.  Why? because back in 2008 (four years after I took out my last loan) a bunch of idiots defaulted on their mortgages for the McMansions they never should have been sold to start with. So now the banks are being extra, extra careful. 

Good on them. 

The Gun industry should be held to the same standard.  When some nutbag they sold a gun to shoots up a place, we really, really need to be extra, extra careful who we sell guns to.  Kind of makes sense.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 17, 2021)

Abatis said:


> I assumed he was familiar with Bellisises' "work"; the way the "fact" of rare gun ownership was recited, it's being recalled as an emotional construct. It's obvious he's one of those who reads something like Bellisiles that so confirms a bias and fills a space in their narrative, that it is committed to memory in a box that is immune to any review or reconsideration.
> 
> It can't *ever* be proven wrong, even when the hypothesis and conclusion are debunked and disgraced -- feet are stomped, fists are clenched, spit is spitttled; it just _has_ to be true . . . So it is!



Or that he  just didn't meet an arbitrary standard of scholarship... 

But his point still stands...  guns in those days were an expensive luxury most people didn't need and couldn't afford, and had little practical use.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 17, 2021)

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 17, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except crazy people still get guns and still commit mass shootings... that's the thing.  And at my last workplace, I usually had to go through three security doors to get from one place to another.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Except crazy people still get guns and still commit mass shootings

Over 330 million people in the U.S.*

*12 people committed mass public shootings in 2019.

2 people in 2020.

10 people in 2018.

Out of over 330,000,000..............

Total killed in 2020.....5

Total killed in 2019....73

Deer kill 200 people every year.

Lawn mowers kill between90-100 people every year.

Ladders kill 300 people every year.

Bathtubs kill 350 people a year.


You are irrational and insane.*


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 17, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Or that he  just didn't meet an arbitrary standard of scholarship...
> 
> But his point still stands...  guns in those days were an expensive luxury most people didn't need and couldn't afford, and had little practical use.




Wrong.....it was a frontier society and gun ownership was a Right, even then.....


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 17, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except crazy people still get guns and still commit mass shootings... that's the thing.  And at my last workplace, I usually had to go through three security doors to get from one place to another.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Moron...they aren't asking you if you are insane.....which you obviously are....they want to know if you are a fucking deadbeat who won't pay them their money...

You idiot.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Oct 17, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron, we can’t execute people anymore……….he has no reason to lie.


Just like Smollett, Garner, Covington, hands up don't shoot (he even brings up Russia and then directly lies about what the FBI stated in the Russia investigation) and the rest of the outrage generating memes, the incident or the facts around it are not important.  It is not important that the shooting was not racially motivated, it makes a better narrative if it was so it is.  Details and facts are meaningless now, only narrative matters.

It is why he does not point to any relevant facts, just complaints that he did not hit the places that Joe thinks he should have hit.  Somehow, because they were filled with white people even though that is an outright lie as well.  Again, narrative.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Oct 17, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.


Oh look M14, he cant complain that you are insulting him so now he is just pretending you never even brought up any points....

What a shocker.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 17, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except crazy people still get guns and still commit mass shootings... that's the thing.



And again, you are using essentially slang as a proxy for a legal circumstance and insisting your word has a meaning and effect in law that it just does not have.  

In the real, legal world, just because the mailman or the lunch-lady or the cashier at the Quickie-Mart says somebody is "crazy" (or they knew he was "crazy" after an incident) doesn't mean shit regarding the real legal ability to take someone's gun away or barring them from buying one.  

Again, for what, _the 5th fucking time,_ explaining this legal concept to you, this time in purple and capitalized:  

*TO HAVE ANY FIREARM PROHIBITION IMPOSED, THE PERSON NEEDS TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION BY A DOCTOR OR ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE BY A JUDGE.*

Only then, after those official determinations and due process, will the legal mechanism to impose a gun dispossession on that person kick in . . .  

For you to keep harping on "crazy people can get guns", well, make sure crazies get the help they need and those government agents who's job it is to record and enforce those restrictions, do their duty.  

Your apparent cure to the problem of crazy people getting guns, (people who were never diagnosed nor committed or adjudicated), is to say restrict guns for people who are sane and not criminals.  

Funny that such a crazy idea is presented as a solution for the issue of crazy people with guns.



JoeB131 said:


> What happened in Miller was that the 1934 National Firearms Act was upheld.   The NRA has been trying to water it down ever since.



Wrong.  Have you ever read the case or do you just get talking points from Vox or ThinkProgress or Salon or some other cabal of anti-gun doofuses?

Why don't *you actually read the case*, then copy the ACTUAL QUOTES that you feel prove your point, paste them in a post and parse them and explain to me the reason why you end up with what you claim, "_happened in Miller_". 



JoeB131 said:


> Sure, he just shot those Asian ladies for sexual frustration...
> 
> It's funny you guys don't believe the FBI when they claim Trump colluded with the Russians, but you totally beleive them when they spend five minutes on a case and take some racist punks word for it.



Because of the immediate outcry from the grievance mob, the FBI went and looked for hate crime evidence.  They didn't find any evidence of a racial component thus no federal hate crime interest, so the FBI's involvement was over.  



JoeB131 said:


> Here's what Ray says in your article.
> 
> "And while the motive *remains still under investigation* at the moment, it does not appear that the motive was racially motivated. _*But I really would defer to the state and local investigation on that*_ for now," Wray said.
> 
> Wow- talk about passing the buck!



Correct, there was much remaining to be investigated by the local and state authorities.  The only interest for the feds was for possible federal hate crime charges, the FBI was not interested or involved in the case once the narrow, limited federal jurisdiction question was decided.




JoeB131 said:


> Okay, let's look at that.
> 
> Joker Holmes university was in the process of disenrolling him.
> The VA Tech shooters behavior was so disturbing they wouldn't put him in classes with other students.
> ...



Correct, because again, none of them ever met the legal criteria to have their right to possess (or purchase) a gun, legally disabled.  (putting aside Lanza doesn't even fit into your argument).

Why don't you get your panties in a twist over Devin Patrick Kelley?  

How was he able to buy a gun and kill 26 people?



			https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/07/2002070069/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2019-030_REDACTED.PDF
		


.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 17, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, you guys tell yourself that...



No, it's you lying to yourself . . .

Back in the late '90's and early 2000's, there was so much anti-gun crap being thrown against the wall (law review articles, 2nd Amendment symposiums) because the individual right model was gaining ground fast in academia and law.   The various "collective right" models were crumbling and anti-gun academia needed to try to keep some foothold of relevance and devise some way of impugning the individual right interpretation.

Worst among those articles were Carl Bogus' infamous "_Hidden History of the Second Amendment_" and Bellesises' "_Arming America_".  There was also Saul Cornell's "_Well Regulated Militia_" which tried to maintain some foothold for the "collective right" theory by conjuring a "conditioned individual right"; OK, OK!!! it's an individual right, _BUT_ . . . !

Bogus and Cornell and others were arguing their legal interpretations; Bellesises claimed he was arguing from historical fact . . .   These "facts" that so fit into a political narrative, many people bought in to his crap.  That's what makes his actions so egregious; he torpedoed a lot of well known, well respected historians because they jumped on board with him.

The one guy spouting the narrative that "_gun ownership was rare in the constitutional period_" was proven to have faked his data, forged his sources and written a fraudulent article (then book) and he was proven to be what the majority of anti-gun "academics" are, political driven charlatans.

His embarrassment and debasement wasn't something done on the demand or at the behest of the gun lobby, it was forced by the integrity of real historians and the reputational preservation instinct of the trustees of Columbia University, rejecting and denouncing Bellesiles and demanding he surrender the Bancroft Prize.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 18, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Wrong.....it was a frontier society and gun ownership was a Right, even then.....



You keep telling yourself that.  Most people didn't live on the frontier, and in fact, the Revolutionary War was in part because the British Government didn't want to instigate more wars with the Native Americans by sending more settlers into the territories just won from the French in the French and Indian War. 



Abatis said:


> No, it's you lying to yourself . . .
> 
> Back in the late '90's and early 2000's, there was so much anti-gun crap being thrown against the wall (law review articles, 2nd Amendment symposiums) because the individual right model was gaining ground fast in academia and law. The various "collective right" models were crumbling and anti-gun academia needed to try to keep some foothold of relevance and devise some way of impugning the individual right interpretation.



Yes, exactly. Prior to the 1990's, people didn't believe there was a god given right for crazy people to have guns..  Then the NRA needed to sell more guns and started pushing "Guns as a right" bullshit.  Something they didn't even believe. 

The ironic thing was the NRA was started by a Civil War General who was horrified that so many Americans never had guns and had no idea how to use them when the civil war broke out.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 18, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, exactly. Prior to the 1990's, people didn't believe there was a god given right for crazy people to have guns.



So it looks like I nailed it, everything you "know" was learned at Vox or ThinkProgress or Salon or HuffPo . . .  Have you ever cracked open a history book or is everything you know about history a derivative of your politics?



JoeB131 said:


> Then the NRA needed to sell more guns and started pushing "Guns as a right" bullshit.  Something they didn't even believe.



Everything you _think_ you know is a goddamned lie.

Actually, the shift in academia was a product of a liberal anti-gunner's epiphany.   In 1989, Yale Law Review published a seminal law review article that challenged the legal intellectual elite to begin a true examination of the 2nd Amendment.

*The Embarrassing Second Amendment* was written by Sanford Levinson, and his arguments were compelling and the (mostly liberal) legal academic community did what he challenged them to do, and the "militia right" and "state's right" and "collective right" interpretations began to wither under their scrutiny--*as the NY Times noted in 2007 writing about the case that preceded DC v Heller*, "A Liberal Case for the Individual Right to Own Guns Helps Sway the Federal Judiciary ".

It is important to understand why Levinson titled his article the way he did;  to liberals like him, especially those formally trained in the law _and even worse_, constitutional law in the mid 20th Century, finding out what they were taught, what they believe about the 2nd Amendment was *totally*_ wrong_ . . . was, well, _embarrassing_ (this sense of surprise is spoken of in the NY Times article).

Sanford Levinson upset that paradigm and the deluge of anti-gun propaganda that followed his article, written by anti-individual right "intellectuals" like Saul Cornell, Carl Bogus, Jack Rakove, Michael Dorf, Adam Winkler, Erwin Chemerinsky and yes, Michael Bellesises, erected castles in the sky in the 90's and early 2000's, to try to disprove the individual right interpretation.

Understand that those "militia / state's / collective right" theories were *never* legitimate, *never* recognized or endorsed by SCOTUS. Those theories were, as I've mentioned before, inserted in the federal courts in two lower federal court decisions in 1942, and were embraced and endorsed by the leftists in academia -- BECAUSE OF AND IN SERVICE TO, THE STATIST, COLLECTIVIST, AUTHORITARIAN LEFTIST POLITICS THEY ALIGNED WITH.

In the federal legal system, the individual right interpretation was the _only_ interpretation until 1942; that was when *your* theory began, which means *your* theory is the newcomer. The question is, for what purpose was the anti-individual right interpretation crafted and promoted and why do you embrace and support it?

The answer is the same . . .

You have adopted your anti-Constitution / anti-rights and especially anti-gun rights positions not derived from knowledge of the Constitution and rights theory and the 2nd Amendment and what it is, what it does and its enforcement . . .   Your positions on and about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment comes from a place of hate for those who vote for your political opposition.  Your hostility for gun rights and especially gun rights supporters is first grounded in in their opposition to your politics , not by any grand altruistic sentiment or concern for public safety.

You don't know what you don't know and what you think you know is propaganda, which is why you have no factual or legal argument in support of your posisitions, it is _*all *_politics . . .


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 18, 2021)

There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.   

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2021)

Abatis said:


> So it looks like I nailed it, everything you "know" was learned at Vox or ThinkProgress or Salon or HuffPo . . . Have you ever cracked open a history book or is everything you know about history a derivative of your politics?



Actually, I hold degrees in History and Political Science. 

But never mind, those actually came from a State University, not one of those colleges that teach about Talking Snakes in Science Class. 



Abatis said:


> Everything you _think_ you know is a goddamned lie.
> 
> Actually, the shift in academia was a product of a liberal anti-gunner's epiphany. In 1989, Yale Law Review published a seminal law review article that challenged the legal intellectual elite to begin a true examination of the 2nd Amendment.



Blah, blah, blah,... not interested. 

Reality- before the crazies took over the NRA, government had no problem passing common sense gun control laws, and even the NRA supported them. 

Black Panthers walking the streets with guns?  Let's pass a law to stop that!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2021)

Abatis said:


> You have adopted your anti-Constitution / anti-rights and especially anti-gun rights positions not derived from knowledge of the Constitution and rights theory and the 2nd Amendment and what it is, what it does and its enforcement . . . Your positions on and about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment comes from a place of hate for those who vote for your political opposition. Your hostility for gun rights and especially gun rights supporters is first grounded in in their opposition to your politics , not by any grand altruistic sentiment or concern for public safety.



Oh, I agree, that you Gun Nutters leak your poison into other parts of our politics, but um yeah, 43,000 gun deaths, 70,000 gun injuries, 400,000 gun crimes.  

You guys claim to love liberty, but have created a police state around your fetish.  We have trigger-happy police armed like soldiers because they never can tell who is going to dispute a moving violation with bullets. You want a society based on fear, because the gun industry is making a fortune off of it with NO accountability.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 19, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, I agree, that you Gun Nutters leak your poison into other parts of our politics, but um yeah, 43,000 gun deaths, 70,000 gun injuries, 400,000 gun crimes.
> 
> You guys claim to love liberty, but have created a police state around your fetish.  We have trigger-happy police armed like soldiers because they never can tell who is going to dispute a moving violation with bullets. You want a society based on fear, because the gun industry is making a fortune off of it with NO accountability.




And the other side...

600 million guns in private hands......over 19.4 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........



American use those legal guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies, and murders, as well as also stopping mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their legal guns with them...



Gun deaths...the truth....



2019...



Gun murder...10,235



Gun accidents...486



Of the gun murder deaths....over 70-80% of the victims are not regular Americans....they are criminals...murdered by other criminals in primarily democrat party controlled cities....where the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians have released them over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for felony, illegal gun possession and violent crimes with guns...that's on you and your political party...not normal gun owners.





Gun suicides... 23,491...





Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop brutal rapes, robberies, beatings, knifings, murders......according to the Centers for Disease Control, and 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice.



Lives saved....based on research?  By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





* that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—*



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





*So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
*
*Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

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

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.*


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And the other side...
> 
> 600 million guns in private hands......over 19.4 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........



That's like saying we had a million flights in 2001, but only three of them crashed into buildings... 

That was still three too many.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 19, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> That's like saying we had a million flights in 2001, but only three of them crashed into buildings...
> 
> That was still three too many.




No...dipshit...that would be like saying we had one plane crash so now we have to end flying forever.......you idiot.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 19, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, I hold degrees in History and Political Science.
> 
> But never mind, those actually came from a State University, not one of those colleges that teach about Talking Snakes in Science Class.



So you paid good money for a bad education . . .  My condolences.

The "university" that gave you your degrees teaches a religion more brain-rotting and faith-based than any Bunghole Baptist U.



JoeB131 said:


> Blah, blah, blah,... not interested.



I understand it can be disorienting when you learn the force that destroyed your beliefs came from inside _your_ house, instead of that evil house up on Gun Lobby Hill. 



JoeB131 said:


> Reality- before the crazies took over the NRA, government had no problem passing common sense gun control laws, and even the NRA supported them.



Reality is not something you are familiar with.  Before 1967, federal gun law was virtually non-existent and the laws that did exist were very narrow and targeted on actual criminals.  There wasn't any reason for Republicans or even the NRA to be rigid and unbending "gun control" opponents because the leadership then was under the delusion that there wasn't a growing movement inside federal Democrats to ban all guns. 

An awakening did occur in the 1970's



JoeB131 said:


> Black Panthers walking the streets with guns?  Let's pass a law to stop that!



You keep harping on the Mulford Act but your ignorance doesn't allow you to see the futility of that line of argument as it relates to the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment was not enforceable on the states and since California has no RKBA provision in its state constitution, the state legislature considered itself unrestrained in writing restrictive laws on guns.

If you want to see what racially motivated gun control looks like, examine Washington DC . . .
The political elites watched the demographics flip in the late 60's and by 1970 blacks outnumbered whites 537,512 to 209,272.

With the city in economic ruin and devastated from the '68 riots and a rocketing crime wave it's really no surprise the nervous DC elites in power enacted a handgun ban in the mid-'70's (of course it didn't do shit).

Same can be said for your city and state.  Illinois added a so-called RKBA provision in the state constitution in 1970 but with an important caveat, "*Subject only to the police power, *_the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._" (Art. I, § 22)

It's not surprising Chicago and other Illinois cities passed handgun bans in short order.  And none of those laws implicated the 2nd Amendment until 2010 when SCOTUS incorporated the 2ndA under the 14thA in _McDonald v Chicago_.

Parading around state gun laws passed before 2010 as having anything to say about what the 2nd Amendment is or does, is just stupid.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No...dipshit...that would be like saying we had one plane crash so now we have to end flying forever.......you idiot.



Actually, we can't get buy without flying.... we can do just fine without guns. Most countries do. 



Abatis said:


> So you paid good money for a bad education . . . My condolences.
> 
> The "university" that gave you your degrees teaches a religion more brain-rotting and faith-based than any Bunghole Baptist U.



Actually, I was pretty conservative in College, but that was before the gun fetishists, religious zealots and libertarian whackos took over the GOP....  You know, when they were actually still sane.  




Abatis said:


> I understand it can be disorienting when you learn the force that destroyed your beliefs came from inside _your_ house, instead of that evil house up on Gun Lobby Hill.


Um...no, sorry, buddy, we live in an insanity perpetrated by the National Rifle Association against the wishes of the American people... and if people knew how lax our gun laws actually are.... they'd be really upset. 




Abatis said:


> Before 1967, federal gun law was virtually non-existent and the laws that did exist were very narrow and targeted on actual criminals. There wasn't any reason for Republicans or even the NRA to be rigid and unbending "gun control" opponents because the leadership then was under the delusion that there wasn't a growing movement inside federal Democrats to ban all guns.



Before 1967, you didn't have Saturday night specials and AR-15's on the civilian market, either.  

Heck, there's a reason why the Gunfight at the OK Corral is remembered... because guns were contolled and limited in the 19th century, and a gun fight where law enforcement had to shoot three men was an oddity. 




Abatis said:


> An awakening did occur in the 1970's



Uh, that's my point. That's when the Gun Industry realized that people weren't hunting anymore, and they had to find a new way to get guns on the market.  That's when they started marketing guns like the Saturday Night Special that NO ONE but a criminal would need.  




Abatis said:


> It's not surprising Chicago and other Illinois cities passed handgun bans in short order. And none of those laws implicated the 2nd Amendment until 2010 when SCOTUS incorporated the 2ndA under the 14thA in _McDonald v Chicago_.
> 
> Parading around state gun laws passed before 2010 as having anything to say about what the 2nd Amendment is or does, is just stupid.



Naw, man, what happened after 2010 was the stupid part... and gun murders have spiked.. I think we hit a new record last year.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, we can't get buy without flying.... we can do just fine without guns. Most countries do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Moron.......the O.K. Corall is an example of gun control failing, you idiot.........the Cowboys ignored the gun control laws o Tombstone as did Doc Holiday...you idiot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron.......the O.K. Corall is an example of gun control failing, you idiot.........the Cowboys ignored the gun control laws o Tombstone as did Doc Holiday...you idiot.



Holliday was deputized by the Earps, who were the town marshalls. 

GUn control worked just fine.  Some people came into a place with illegal guns, refused to comply with the law, and were shot.  

I mean, I know you are fine when this happens to people of color... but these guys were white.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, I was pretty conservative in College, but that was before the gun fetishists, religious zealots and libertarian whackos took over the GOP....  You know, when they were actually still sane.



There are wackos and fringe elements on both sides.  

It's interesting that you rejected the party that has some elements that believe; 

the Constitution should be respected and obeyed, 
that people should be left alone to live their private lives according to their conscience, even if they believe that a force greater than themselves exists,  
and that believe the government that governs least, governs best . . .   

Instead of accepting that people with different beliefs and priorities can exist together, you embraced leftist, statist authoritarianism that enforces strict uniformity of thought and behavior that seeks to dictate every facet of life from cradle to grave, for our own good of course.



JoeB131 said:


> and if people knew how lax our gun laws actually are.... they'd be really upset.



If people knew how ineffective government is enforcing gun laws..... they'd be really upset and ask why leftists demand more gun laws.



JoeB131 said:


> Before 1967, you didn't have Saturday night specials and AR-15's on the civilian market, either.



The term "Saturday Night Special" goes back to 1917 and prior to 1967 one could buy AR-15's . . .  Colt bought the AR-10 and AR-15 patents from ArmaLite in 1959 and began selling the AR-15 on the civilian market in 1964.



JoeB131 said:


> Heck, there's a reason why the Gunfight at the OK Corral is remembered... because guns were contolled and limited in the 19th century, and a gun fight where law enforcement had to shoot three men was an oddity.



Stop, just stop . . .   Now you are talking about an event that occurred in a territory, 31 years before Arizona became a state.   Again, you are making asinine statements about what a legal situation is or how that situation speaks to the larger issue of gun rights and the 2nd Amendment, when none of the facts are applicable.  

Are you trying to be an insufferable lying jackass or are you just stupid? 



JoeB131 said:


> Uh, that's my point. That's when the Gun Industry realized that people weren't hunting anymore, and they had to find a new way to get guns on the market.  That's when they started marketing guns like the Saturday Night Special that NO ONE but a criminal would need.



The NRA "started marketing guns . . . "?

JHFC



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, what happened after 2010 was the stupid part... and gun murders have spiked.. I think we hit a new record last year.



Enforcing the Constitution and invalidating unconstitutional and discriminatory laws, is never stupid.

Why can't government control criminals with the laws that are on the books now?

.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Um...no, sorry, buddy, we live in an insanity perpetrated by the National Rifle Association against the wishes of the American people...



Is there any possibility you will EVER maintain continuity of thought and argument from one post to the next? 

We were talking about the adoption of the individual right interpretation as the correct one, in the law and history departments in academia and how the anti-gun activist "intellectuals" responded to this decline of the "collective right" interpretation.  You were blaming that progression on the NRA and this acceptance of the gun-rights argument was the fault of the NRA / gun rights supporters.  That was wrong, either from just not knowing or being purposefully misinformed.  Again, the movement was begun and pushed along by academics who were anti-gun liberals but through honest examination of history and the 2nd Amendment, became gun rights liberals.

I hope you realize, the reason I spend the time rebutting you is not that I'm trying to change your mind. I do his just to show the utter vapidness of your positions, your arguments -- just in case anyone thought you spoke from any knowledge or competency in any aspect of this issue.

The person who says shit like, "_Prior to the 1990's, people didn't believe there was a god given right for crazy people to have guns..  Then the NRA needed to sell more guns and started pushing "Guns as a right" bullshit.  Something they didn't even believe._" is never going to even accept that an oppositional argument exists, let alone employ it to challenge , to test their own position.

That's the difference between you and me. I'm always challenging my position, I read troves of anti-gun material . . .  All those anti-gun writers I mentioned???  I've read their articles, I've read their books; I read much more anti-gun position papers than pro-gun.  I don't need the NRA's viewpoint, I've developed my positions reading the original sources, the philosophical treatises the founders embraced, the founding documents and the constitutional process and the law and the Supreme Court decisions.

I enjoy this because for each of your statements that I destroy, you never resign and acknowledge it or even challenge me on the actual point.  You double-down and go ever further off the deep end which demonstrates you have no interest in this topic as an intellectual endeavor, discovering / discussing it as a legal issue. 

It's all about the politics and you can not, will not ever move off the NRA IS EVIL mantra.  You parrot the 1992 talking point _now,_ even though in the scheme of gun rights, the NRA is a paper tiger, that is if you were examining the organizations that file suits and get gun control laws invalidated.  That you still cry and point and pee yourself because of the NRA boogeyman under your bed, shows just how uninformed / brainwashed you are. 

Absolutely hilarious!

.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Holliday was deputized by the Earps, who were the town marshalls.
> 
> GUn control worked just fine.  Some people came into a place with illegal guns, refused to comply with the law, and were shot.
> 
> I mean, I know you are fine when this happens to people of color... but these guys were white.



Wrong, dipshit, he ignored the gun laws on a daily basis,you dipshit, as did the cowboys


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 20, 2021)

Why do people treat JoeB like he's anything other than a hyperparisan, hyperbigoted troll?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 20, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why do people treat JoeB like he's anything other than a hyperparisan, hyperbigoted troll?



I use him as a punching bag……just like boxer….the punching back is still full of sand…..just like joe’s head….but i get to work out my information…..people who are just drive by viewers likely only get anti- gun B.S.  but with my threads they see the truth.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 21, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why do people treat JoeB like he's anything other than a hyperparisan, hyperbigoted troll?



As *I said a while back*, "I have no illusions I could ever sway someone like Joe.  I don't post to him, I post to the many lurkers.  I find it interesting that gun threads always have a high page count, a lot of people read 2nd Amendment threads and there needs to be effective rebuttal to the anti-gun idiocy . . . "

So for me, it isn't treating Joe and his hyperpartisan, hyperbigotied BS with respect, my full answers with legally correct and true information, is treating people who might have anti-gun leanings -- BUT ARE OPEN TO TRUE INFORMATION -- with respect.

It's not a coincidence that he's the only one left making the anti-gun / anti-rights case.  That's the other purpose, we can't allow Joe's idiocy to be what emboldens others to join the fight.  If every stupid point, if every ill-formed theory gets slammed down and destroyed, it dissuades and demoralizes others on the hard-core anti-gun side to join Joe's chorus.

Where are the other usual suspects in this thread?

The other purpose is to show gun rights people that there are effective arguments, there are ways to expose the anti-gunners for the fakers and charlatans they are.  And like 2aguy says, it keeps me sharp and refines my arguments.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 21, 2021)

Abatis said:


> It's interesting that you rejected the party that has some elements that believe;
> 
> the Constitution should be respected and obeyed,
> that people should be left alone to live their private lives according to their conscience, even if they believe that a force greater than themselves exists,
> and that believe the government that governs least, governs best . . .


Yawn, the Libertarian Brain Disease that Civilization happens by Magic Fairy Dust. 




Abatis said:


> Instead of accepting that people with different beliefs and priorities can exist together, you embraced leftist, statist authoritarianism that enforces strict uniformity of thought and behavior that seeks to dictate every facet of life from cradle to grave, for our own good of course.


Yawn... yes, I am being mean making you act like a decent human being. 




Abatis said:


> If people knew how ineffective government is enforcing gun laws..... they'd be really upset and ask why leftists demand more gun laws.



Well, then someone would have to explain to them that the ATF is woefully underfunded, the NRA waters down gun laws and background checks long before they are implemented. 




Abatis said:


> The term "Saturday Night Special" goes back to 1917 and prior to 1967 one could buy AR-15's . . . Colt bought the AR-10 and AR-15 patents from ArmaLite in 1959 and began selling the AR-15 on the civilian market in 1964.


Wrong again. 

The earliest known use of the term "Saturday night special" in print is in the September 29, 1917 issue of _The Coffeyville Daily Journal_, referring to a "cheap revolver".[4] In its August 17, 1968 issue, _The New York Times_ printed a front-page article titled "Handgun Imports Held Up by U.S.", author Fred Graham wrote, "... cheap, small-caliber 'Saturday night specials' that are a favorite of holdup men..."[5]








						Saturday night special - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The widespread marketing of AR-15's didn't happen until much later.  




Abatis said:


> Stop, just stop . . . Now you are talking about an event that occurred in a territory, 31 years before Arizona became a state. Again, you are making asinine statements about what a legal situation is or how that situation speaks to the larger issue of gun rights and the 2nd Amendment, when none of the facts are applicable.



You miss the point entirely...  The OK Corral would have barely counted as a mass shooting under the criteria that you and Dick Tiny like to taut that at least four people have to die.   Yet it's widely remembered years later because incidents like that WERE rare in the "old West".    




Abatis said:


> The NRA "started marketing guns . . . "?



Go back and read what I said.. I specifically said the Gun Industry, not the NRA. 



Abatis said:


> Enforcing the Constitution and invalidating unconstitutional and discriminatory laws, is never stupid.
> 
> Why can't government control criminals with the laws that are on the books now?



Kind of hard when the Gun Industry is flooding the streets with guns, isn't it?  Not that there's enough space here to discuss how we do everything possibly wrong with criminal justice in this country.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 21, 2021)

Abatis said:


> We were talking about the adoption of the individual right interpretation as the correct one, in the law and history departments in academia and how the anti-gun activist "intellectuals" responded to this decline of the "collective right" interpretation. You were blaming that progression on the NRA and this acceptance of the gun-rights argument was the fault of the NRA / gun rights supporters. That was wrong, either from just not knowing or being purposefully misinformed. Again, the movement was begun and pushed along by academics who were anti-gun liberals but through honest examination of history and the 2nd Amendment, became gun rights liberals.



It's entirely the fault of Wayne LaPierre and the nuts that took over the NRA in the 1970's...  

Before then, the NRA supported sensible gun laws.  



Abatis said:


> I hope you realize, the reason I spend the time rebutting you is not that I'm trying to change your mind. I do his just to show the utter vapidness of your positions, your arguments -- just in case anyone thought you spoke from any knowledge or competency in any aspect of this issue.



Yes, those kids being rolled into the meat wagons, it's totally "vapid" to be upset about that. 



Abatis said:


> I enjoy this because for each of your statements that I destroy, you never resign and acknowledge it or even challenge me on the actual point. You double-down and go ever further off the deep end which demonstrates you have no interest in this topic as an intellectual endeavor, discovering / discussing it as a legal issue.



I'm a pragmatist.  When you have 43,000 deaths a year over a fetish, that's a real concern.  When you traumitize kids with active shooter drills, that's a real concern.  



Abatis said:


> It's all about the politics and you can not, will not ever move off the NRA IS EVIL mantra. You parrot the 1992 talking point _now,_ even though in the scheme of gun rights, the NRA is a paper tiger, that is if you were examining the organizations that file suits and get gun control laws invalidated. That you still cry and point and pee yourself because of the NRA boogeyman under your bed, shows just how uninformed / brainwashed you are.



The NRA is evil.   Yes, there are crazier gun rights groups out there... the kinds that though Jan. 6 was a good thing.  

I do cry for the children murdered every year by gun violence...  it's called being a decent human being, but I don't think you understand that concept.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 21, 2021)

Abatis said:


> As *I said a while back*, "I have no illusions I could ever sway someone like Joe.  I don't post to him, I post to the many lurkers.  I find it interesting that gun threads always have a high page count, a lot of people read 2nd Amendment threads and there needs to be effective rebuttal to the anti-gun idiocy . . . "
> 
> So for me, it isn't treating Joe and his hyperpartisan, hyperbigotied BS with respect, my full answers with legally correct and true information, is treating people who might have anti-gun leanings -- BUT ARE OPEN TO TRUE INFORMATION -- with respect.
> 
> ...




Yep....exactly why I keep posting.......and...another thing.....as you post things over and over again....they pop up on searches for the topic too.......


----------

