The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[2aguy]

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting issues.

According to Obama's 10 million dollar study on gun defense uses, more people defend themselves with a gun than are killed by one. The thing is, a lot of these cases go unreported because people won't report that they actually drew their gun on a person. I can link you to the study if you would like.

I can link to a lot more studies than just his.....dare me......

 

[2aguy]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

Orwell called that “doublethink”—to hold two contradictory and mutually-exclusive ideas in one's head, to be fully aware that the two ideas cannot rationally coexist, and yet to fully believe them both.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

If an individual has violated other citizens' rights by committing violent crimes with a gun against the community, then that person should probably lose his or her right or be jailed. Actually, if they cannot be trusted with the right, then they should probably be locked up. The problem is, it costs a lot of money to lock people up for life. There are never any "easy" answers to these kinds of problems. Never.

It costs way more for them to be loose on the street. You always only hear about how much it costs to keep a violent criminal locked up.....the actual expense of having them loose is even greater, but it isn't a specific number....consider hospital bills, missed work, insurance payments, counseling, court time, police time....the costs go on for each crime...and criminals are committing crime almost daily, creating victims daily.....

It is far cheaper for society to lock them up....

All of those things have to be considered in prison too. Inmates get sick and need medical attention, food, clothing, toiletries, counseling, etc., etc.

There are studies that show that a criminal out committing crime is more expensive than if they are in jail.....the anti jail lefties don't point that side of the equation out.......

 

[RKMBrown]

You have to read the bill of rights - amendments in context..

I did. The 2nd is carefully set separately from the rest of the amendments. It stands alone, and is complete within itself, unaffected by anything any other amendments in the BOR say.

These amendments included restrictive clauses on the feds and statements. The 2nd amendment is a restrictive clause on the feds.

Yes, it is. And it's also restrictive on state and local governments, as I explained in a previous post.

No you are still reading it out of context.
Here:

The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights


THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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


These restrictive clauses were not to the states at the time of the bill of rights. It was not until the 14th amendment that some dumb asses from the North drunk from their murderous victories over the south decided to screw up our constitution and apply some of these restrictive clauses to the states.

EXACTLY



"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"



THE PURPOSE WAS TO PREVENT FEDGOV FROM EVEN THINKING ABOUT INFRINGING ON THOSE RIGHTS.


SO SCALIA'S COMMENTS ARE PURE BULLSHIT.


.

thx.. I missed it what did Scalia say now?

 

[2aguy]

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting problem.

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

Wrong...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...something you are not familiar with.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

[. There was a Sheriff's deputy present at Columbine HS when the shooting started. That is a fact!

THERE WAS A BLIND DEPUTY PRESENT AT COLUMBINE HS>


The Jefferson County sheriff's deputy who traded gunshots with Eric Harris in the opening moments of the Columbine massacre was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, according to records unsealed this week.

That Neil Gardner was instead wearing non-prescription sunglasses while firing at a target 60 or 70 yards away could become an issue in negligence lawsuits filed by victims' families against the sheriff's department.

Might Gardner have had a better chance of hitting Harris if he'd been wearing his glasses? When the two traded shots, 11 of the 13 people killed by Harris and Dylan Klebold were still alive.

"If his vision is 20/30, no big deal," said James Rouse, an attorney who represents six families. "If it's 20/300, what's he doing shooting a gun?"

Thank you for verifying my point that a deputy was at Columbine when the shooting occurred. If there was misconduct on the part of the deputy, that is another issue altogether.

Logic boy Logic! Try it some time!

 

[2aguy]

[. There was a Sheriff's deputy present at Columbine HS when the shooting started. That is a fact!

THERE WAS A BLIND DEPUTY PRESENT AT COLUMBINE HS>


The Jefferson County sheriff's deputy who traded gunshots with Eric Harris in the opening moments of the Columbine massacre was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, according to records unsealed this week.

That Neil Gardner was instead wearing non-prescription sunglasses while firing at a target 60 or 70 yards away could become an issue in negligence lawsuits filed by victims' families against the sheriff's department.

Might Gardner have had a better chance of hitting Harris if he'd been wearing his glasses? When the two traded shots, 11 of the 13 people killed by Harris and Dylan Klebold were still alive.

"If his vision is 20/30, no big deal," said James Rouse, an attorney who represents six families. "If it's 20/300, what's he doing shooting a gun?"

Thank you for verifying my point that a deputy was at Columbine when the shooting occurred. If there was misconduct on the part of the deputy, that is another issue altogether.

Logic boy Logic! Try it some time!

And had there been armed staff the killers would have actually been stopped. Just like they have been in other places with armed citizens....

 

[ChrisL]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

Orwell called that “doublethink”—to hold two contradictory and mutually-exclusive ideas in one's head, to be fully aware that the two ideas cannot rationally coexist, and yet to fully believe them both.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

If an individual has violated other citizens' rights by committing violent crimes with a gun against the community, then that person should probably lose his or her right or be jailed. Actually, if they cannot be trusted with the right, then they should probably be locked up. The problem is, it costs a lot of money to lock people up for life. There are never any "easy" answers to these kinds of problems. Never.

It costs way more for them to be loose on the street. You always only hear about how much it costs to keep a violent criminal locked up.....the actual expense of having them loose is even greater, but it isn't a specific number....consider hospital bills, missed work, insurance payments, counseling, court time, police time....the costs go on for each crime...and criminals are committing crime almost daily, creating victims daily.....

It is far cheaper for society to lock them up....

All of those things have to be considered in prison too. Inmates get sick and need medical attention, food, clothing, toiletries, counseling, etc., etc.

There are studies that show that a criminal out committing crime is more expensive than if they are in jail.....the anti jail lefties don't point that side of the equation out.......

Okay, but people ALSO have rights against cruel and unusual punishment. ALL of these rights are to protect US from the government. You cannot usually just throw a person in jail indefinitely because we have rights.

 

[Contumacious]

You have to read the bill of rights - amendments in context..

I did. The 2nd is carefully set separately from the rest of the amendments. It stands alone, and is complete within itself, unaffected by anything any other amendments in the BOR say.

These amendments included restrictive clauses on the feds and statements. The 2nd amendment is a restrictive clause on the feds.

Yes, it is. And it's also restrictive on state and local governments, as I explained in a previous post.

No you are still reading it out of context.
Here:

The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights


THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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


These restrictive clauses were not to the states at the time of the bill of rights. It was not until the 14th amendment that some dumb asses from the North drunk from their murderous victories over the south decided to screw up our constitution and apply some of these restrictive clauses to the states.

EXACTLY



"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"



THE PURPOSE WAS TO PREVENT FEDGOV FROM EVEN THINKING ABOUT INFRINGING ON THOSE RIGHTS.


SO SCALIA'S COMMENTS ARE PURE BULLSHIT.


.

thx.. I missed it what did Scalia say now?

Justice Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller, posted below regarding Amendment II;

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

 

[2aguy]

Orwell called that “doublethink”—to hold two contradictory and mutually-exclusive ideas in one's head, to be fully aware that the two ideas cannot rationally coexist, and yet to fully believe them both.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

If an individual has violated other citizens' rights by committing violent crimes with a gun against the community, then that person should probably lose his or her right or be jailed. Actually, if they cannot be trusted with the right, then they should probably be locked up. The problem is, it costs a lot of money to lock people up for life. There are never any "easy" answers to these kinds of problems. Never.

It costs way more for them to be loose on the street. You always only hear about how much it costs to keep a violent criminal locked up.....the actual expense of having them loose is even greater, but it isn't a specific number....consider hospital bills, missed work, insurance payments, counseling, court time, police time....the costs go on for each crime...and criminals are committing crime almost daily, creating victims daily.....

It is far cheaper for society to lock them up....

All of those things have to be considered in prison too. Inmates get sick and need medical attention, food, clothing, toiletries, counseling, etc., etc.

There are studies that show that a criminal out committing crime is more expensive than if they are in jail.....the anti jail lefties don't point that side of the equation out.......

Okay, but people ALSO have rights against cruel and unusual punishment. ALL of these rights are to protect US from the government. You cannot usually just throw a person in jail indefinitely because we have rights.

I think you have me wrong....I didn't say anything about throwing people in jail by just grabbing them. I am just stating that the argument used by anti prison lefties, that jail costs more, is wrong. I believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence......I am for locking up people when they commit a crime, get arrested, are tried and found guilty......that's all....

 

[Contumacious]

[. There was a Sheriff's deputy present at Columbine HS when the shooting started. That is a fact!

THERE WAS A BLIND DEPUTY PRESENT AT COLUMBINE HS>


The Jefferson County sheriff's deputy who traded gunshots with Eric Harris in the opening moments of the Columbine massacre was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, according to records unsealed this week.

That Neil Gardner was instead wearing non-prescription sunglasses while firing at a target 60 or 70 yards away could become an issue in negligence lawsuits filed by victims' families against the sheriff's department.

Might Gardner have had a better chance of hitting Harris if he'd been wearing his glasses? When the two traded shots, 11 of the 13 people killed by Harris and Dylan Klebold were still alive.

"If his vision is 20/30, no big deal," said James Rouse, an attorney who represents six families. "If it's 20/300, what's he doing shooting a gun?"

Thank you for verifying my point that a deputy was at Columbine when the shooting occurred. If there was misconduct on the part of the deputy, that is another issue altogether.

HUH? WTF?


IF THE DEPUTY WAS BLIND THEN THERE WAS NO DEPUTY.

Logic boy Logic! Try it some time!

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting problem.

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

Wrong...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...something you are not familiar with.

Your Richard is your problem and your fixation with all this "guns make the weak strong" crap!

You'll have to produce non biased non NRA bullshit from the FBI crime stats to convince me of that pile of dung! But you can't and won't back up your assertion that:

...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...

I'll wait here for your post deflecting from your assertion.

 

[2aguy]

[. There was a Sheriff's deputy present at Columbine HS when the shooting started. That is a fact!

THERE WAS A BLIND DEPUTY PRESENT AT COLUMBINE HS>


The Jefferson County sheriff's deputy who traded gunshots with Eric Harris in the opening moments of the Columbine massacre was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, according to records unsealed this week.

That Neil Gardner was instead wearing non-prescription sunglasses while firing at a target 60 or 70 yards away could become an issue in negligence lawsuits filed by victims' families against the sheriff's department.

Might Gardner have had a better chance of hitting Harris if he'd been wearing his glasses? When the two traded shots, 11 of the 13 people killed by Harris and Dylan Klebold were still alive.

"If his vision is 20/30, no big deal," said James Rouse, an attorney who represents six families. "If it's 20/300, what's he doing shooting a gun?"

Thank you for verifying my point that a deputy was at Columbine when the shooting occurred. If there was misconduct on the part of the deputy, that is another issue altogether.

HUH? WTF?


IF THE DEPUTY WAS BLIND THEN THERE WAS NO DEPUTY.

Logic boy Logic! Try it some time!

.

Really....? You think that a member of the left even knows what logic is......when you say Logic to a lefty, it is like you are trying teach math to a dog....keeping in mind that eventually a dog can bark the numbers...while a leftist will never understand logic.....or truth.....or reality.....or the difference between right and wrong, and good and evil.......or how to be polite, and civil.......wow...that list just goes on and on....

 

[ChrisL]

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting problem.

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

Wrong...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...something you are not familiar with.

Your Richard is your problem and your fixation with all this "guns make the weak strong" crap!

You'll have to produce non biased non NRA bullshit from the FBI crime stats to convince me of that pile of dung! But you can't and won't back up your assertion that:

...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...

I'll wait here for your post deflecting from your assertion.

That is according to Obama's 10 million dollar study and NOT from the NRA.

 

[2aguy]

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting problem.

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

Wrong...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...something you are not familiar with.

Your Richard is your problem and your fixation with all this "guns make the weak strong" crap!

You'll have to produce non biased non NRA bullshit from the FBI crime stats to convince me of that pile of dung! But you can't and won't back up your assertion that:

...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...

I'll wait here for your post deflecting from your assertion.

Okay asswipe...I was civil...and like all the other lefties you are a rude asshole.

I don't cite the NRA....I use the FBI crime tables and the CDC and other studies.....a lot of them from anti gunners...like the gun self defense study from the Clinton Justice Department, created and run by two rabid anti gunners....what did they find...? That Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent crime and save lives......they were then sent to the antarctic to study gun crime there........

1.5 million....vs 8,454 gun murders in 2013.

1.5 million....vs. 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013.

So yes...guns save far more lives than they take.....asswipe.

 

[2aguy]

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting problem.

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

Wrong...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...something you are not familiar with.

Your Richard is your problem and your fixation with all this "guns make the weak strong" crap!

You'll have to produce non biased non NRA bullshit from the FBI crime stats to convince me of that pile of dung! But you can't and won't back up your assertion that:

...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...

I'll wait here for your post deflecting from your assertion.

That is according to Obama's 10 million dollar study and NOT from the NRA.

I just love that study.......it leaves the lefty, anti gun extremists with steam coming out of their ears......

 

[ChrisL]

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting problem.

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

Wrong...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...something you are not familiar with.

Your Richard is your problem and your fixation with all this "guns make the weak strong" crap!

You'll have to produce non biased non NRA bullshit from the FBI crime stats to convince me of that pile of dung! But you can't and won't back up your assertion that:

...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...

I'll wait here for your post deflecting from your assertion.

CDC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative

In addition, defensive use of guns “is a common occurrence,” according to the study:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

 

[2aguy]

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting problem.

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

Wrong...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...something you are not familiar with.

Your Richard is your problem and your fixation with all this "guns make the weak strong" crap!

You'll have to produce non biased non NRA bullshit from the FBI crime stats to convince me of that pile of dung! But you can't and won't back up your assertion that:

...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...

I'll wait here for your post deflecting from your assertion.

Okay asswipe....here are some actual studies.....many by anti gun researchers....

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
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, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

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, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....
And here we have studies that show that guns are the most effective way to stop a rape.....
Guns Effective Defense Against Rape

 

[Contumacious]

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting problem.

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

Wrong...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...something you are not familiar with.

Your Richard is your problem and your fixation with all this "guns make the weak strong" crap!

You'll have to produce non biased non NRA bullshit from the FBI crime stats to convince me of that pile of dung! But you can't and won't back up your assertion that:

...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...

I'll wait here for your post deflecting from your assertion.

SO, WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO USE OUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DEFEND OUR LIVES AND TO CARRY FIREARMS FOR A LAWFUL PURPOSE ONLY IF WE CAN CONVINCE LOW LIFE FASCIST SCUMBAGS LIKE YOURSELF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

[. There was a Sheriff's deputy present at Columbine HS when the shooting started. That is a fact!

THERE WAS A BLIND DEPUTY PRESENT AT COLUMBINE HS>


The Jefferson County sheriff's deputy who traded gunshots with Eric Harris in the opening moments of the Columbine massacre was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, according to records unsealed this week.

That Neil Gardner was instead wearing non-prescription sunglasses while firing at a target 60 or 70 yards away could become an issue in negligence lawsuits filed by victims' families against the sheriff's department.

Might Gardner have had a better chance of hitting Harris if he'd been wearing his glasses? When the two traded shots, 11 of the 13 people killed by Harris and Dylan Klebold were still alive.

"If his vision is 20/30, no big deal," said James Rouse, an attorney who represents six families. "If it's 20/300, what's he doing shooting a gun?"

Thank you for verifying my point that a deputy was at Columbine when the shooting occurred. If there was misconduct on the part of the deputy, that is another issue altogether.

Logic boy Logic! Try it some time!

And had there been armed staff the killers would have actually been stopped. Just like they have been in other places with armed citizens....

Prove that with confirmable evidence! You won't because you can't! Why do you continue shooting yourself in the foot. That's damned foolish, lad!

 

[2aguy]

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

If one confines one's thinking to the NRA definitions and the NRA's propaganda about GFZ's that could be considered true given those as the ONLY evidence at hand. But why do students and teachers have to be packing in a school setting? Why do congregants have to be able to defend themselves in a house of worship? Why do Mall shoppers have to have the means to fire a weapon at another person (can we say "collateral damage")? Isn't it smarter and more proper to take the weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired? Others can believe the NRA BS if they wish, but I don't take the word of shills and prostitutes like the NRA!

Why....because there are evil people in the world who want to harm innocent people. And since nothing you morons do will disarm the criminal or the mass shooter, you want to disarm the innocent instead.

Guns save lives. They stop crime. The allow the weak to defeat the strong...especially when the strong are intent on hurting others. No other weapon is as effective for the smaller and weaker to deal with the larger, stronger and more violent criminal.

And that rant has what to do with my post to another? Not a damn thing!

If you need a gun to lengthen your lizard in your tiny mind, go for it Space Ranger.

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

If you need a gun to become strong, you should really take that money and give it to a shrink for your "diminutive issues" and for your bed-wetting problem.

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

Guns can save lives and guns can end lives, but most often the latter is the case. Guns can stop crime or guns can be used to commit crimes, but most often the latter is the case.

Wrong...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...something you are not familiar with.

Your Richard is your problem and your fixation with all this "guns make the weak strong" crap!

You'll have to produce non biased non NRA bullshit from the FBI crime stats to convince me of that pile of dung! But you can't and won't back up your assertion that:

...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them. That is the Truth, and reality...

I'll wait here for your post deflecting from your assertion.

And here you go asswipe.....how guns are the most effective means of stopping rape....

A woman using a gun is less likely to be raped and more likely to not be injured during the attack....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

********************

So, again a woman's best chance for stopping the rape and ultimately surviving the situation is to use a gun.....

***********************