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

[ChrisL]

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......

It is difficult to find an article about the study from any source on the left without the utter hateful spin and trying to denigrate the authors of these studies who were CHOSEN by the CDC. The main one being Dr. Kleck who was an admitted gun banner at one time until he researched into it some more and realized that he was wrong. However, it does not change the fact that he is still a liberal voting democrat. Lol. Some of them will burn one of their own at the stake instead of compromising based upon facts apparently.

 

[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....from Florida...how guns helped stop rape....

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun%20Ownership%20Stops%20Rape/

In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.
When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.

Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life. [It must have been quite a sight! ]


Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4.

Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide.

5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.
In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)
The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers. Rapists, being (somewhat) human, they are
learning engines; they took their business elsewhere--to the detriment
of the defenseless in those other locations.
Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

And for 19.95 you can read Southwick's 2000 study on guns that talk about rape.....

Self-defense with guns: The consequences

This one gives the actual percentages of how rapes are stopped...guns come out on top...

http://medind.nic.in/jal/t07/i4/jalt07i4p99.pdf

 

[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!

.

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....

LOL


I WAS BEING FACETIOUS.


I KNOW THAT YOU CAN NOT USE LOGIC AND FASCIST IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

 

[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....

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!

Do your parent's know you are on the computer, all by yourself?

Oh...and here is the Clinton Justice Department Study...and what they found.....1.5 million defensive gun uses....

Here is Clinton's actual gun study...the number of 1.5 million is on page 9

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

 

[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....

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!

Here you go dipshit.....we have 5 church shootings in the following set of stats......2 of them were Gun Free Zones, the other 3 allowed their people to carry guns......


Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********


Gun free Zones: 15 dead

Non-Gun free Zones: 2 dead

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

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)

 

[2aguy]

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......

It is difficult to find an article about the study from any source on the left without the utter hateful spin and trying to denigrate the authors of these studies who were CHOSEN by the CDC. The main one being Dr. Kleck who was an admitted gun banner at one time until he researched into it some more and realized that he was wrong. However, it does not change the fact that he is still a liberal voting democrat. Lol. Some of them will burn one of their own at the stake instead of compromising based upon facts apparently.

And they always focus on Kleck...even though he is only one of at least 16-19 different studies that show numbers over 764,000 times a year.......and more than a few over 1 million a year.....

 

[ChrisL]

Hey, if a business or a school district or something wants to be a "gun free zone" then that is fine, but they really probably should not advertise that fact. That is like putting up a sign telling the next loon that you are all defenseless. In fact, that is exactly what it is. If some loon comes into your school with the intent on killing kids, the police are not necessarily going to be able to save these kids.

 

[ChrisL]

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

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......

It is difficult to find an article about the study from any source on the left without the utter hateful spin and trying to denigrate the authors of these studies who were CHOSEN by the CDC. The main one being Dr. Kleck who was an admitted gun banner at one time until he researched into it some more and realized that he was wrong. However, it does not change the fact that he is still a liberal voting democrat. Lol. Some of them will burn one of their own at the stake instead of compromising based upon facts apparently.

And they always focus on Kleck...even though he is only one of at least 16-19 different studies that show numbers over 764,000 times a year.......and more than a few over 1 million a year.....

I admire him for acknowledging the facts and changing his opinion. He is at least a reasonable man who takes the facts into consideration and not relying solely upon his ideological thought processes. Of course, he is going to take a beating from those who don't like the results. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

I just don't understand how anyone could possibly think that a "gun free zone" would make you safe from criminals??? I mean, that is really just stupid when you think about it.

 

[Contumacious]

Hey, if a business or a school district or something wants to be a "gun free zone" then that is fine, but they really probably should not advertise that fact. That is like putting up a sign telling the next loon that you are all defenseless. In fact, that is exactly what it is. If some loon comes into your school with the intent on killing kids, the police are not necessarily going to be able to save these kids.

BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.


THEY WILL ADVERTISE THAT IT IS GUN FREE ZONE.

WHEN THE SHIT HITS THE FAN THEY WILL BLAME GUN OWNERS .


.

 

[ChrisL]

Hey, if a business or a school district or something wants to be a "gun free zone" then that is fine, but they really probably should not advertise that fact. That is like putting up a sign telling the next loon that you are all defenseless. In fact, that is exactly what it is. If some loon comes into your school with the intent on killing kids, the police are not necessarily going to be able to save these kids.

BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.


THEY WILL ADVERTISE THAT IT IS GUN FREE ZONE.

WHEN THE SHIT HITS THE FAN THEY WILL BLAME GUN OWNERS .


.

Stop screaming at us!!! Is that obnoxious font size really necessary?

 

[Contumacious]

Hey, if a business or a school district or something wants to be a "gun free zone" then that is fine, but they really probably should not advertise that fact. That is like putting up a sign telling the next loon that you are all defenseless. In fact, that is exactly what it is. If some loon comes into your school with the intent on killing kids, the police are not necessarily going to be able to save these kids.

BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.


THEY WILL ADVERTISE THAT IT IS GUN FREE ZONE.

WHEN THE SHIT HITS THE FAN THEY WILL BLAME GUN OWNERS .


.

Stop screaming at us!!! Is that obnoxious font size really necessary?

YEP, ABSOLUTELY.


THE FONT SIZE IS ONLY A PROBLEM WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THE MESSAGE.


.


.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Stop screaming at us!!! Is that obnoxious font size really necessary?

YEP, ABSOLUTELY. THE FONT SIZE IS ONLY A PROBLEM WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THE MESSAGE.

No, it's rudeness on the net. I join in ChrisL's complaint.

IMHO you only need a giant font if you have an argument that can't pass muster on its own.

Please knock it off, OK?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

Sure you were civil, firing your mouth off from the get go, pissant! If you want respect, give it in return FROM THE START. I don't suffer FOOLS!

WOW, you used the FBI crime tables as noted, I'm impressed, sorta! However, those are the stats for gun homicides and accidental gun deaths...that's a FAIL! You claimed,

"...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them."

Where is the stat for gun crimes committed and gun crimes prevented as you claimed. That is called changing the narrative and that is a FAIL!

And all that other BS from pro gun NRA lobby and their sycophantic relays is biased and bullshit and puts you as a liar because I started to post to it and as I was writing my response to your original of this post to which I'm now responding, portions disappeared as I move around the cyber sphere. You had cited this: GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense? . . . . . GunCite . com is your typical NRA sycophantic junk source for biased, less than objective pro gun indoctrination. Your precise claim, which is another falsehood and FAIL was;

"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..."

To top it all off you close with this kind and civil bit of sophistry all the way around;

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

A FAILED post with falsehoods to boot!

 

[2aguy]

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.

Sure you were civil, firing your mouth off from the get go, pissant! If you want respect, give it in return FROM THE START. I don't suffer FOOLS!

WOW, you used the FBI crime tables as noted, I'm impressed, sorta! However, those are the stats for gun homicides and accidental gun deaths...that's a FAIL! You claimed,

"...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them."

Where is the stat for gun crimes committed and gun crimes prevented as you claimed. That is called changing the narrative and that is a FAIL!

And all that other BS from pro gun NRA lobby and their sycophantic relays is biased and bullshit and puts you as a liar because I started to post to it and as I was writing my response to your original of this post to which I'm now responding, portions disappeared as I move around the cyber sphere. You had cited this: GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense? . . . . . GunCite . com is your typical NRA sycophantic junk source for biased, less than objective pro gun indoctrination. Your precise claim, which is another falsehood and FAIL was;

"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..."

To top it all off you close with this kind and civil bit of sophistry all the way around;

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

A FAILED post with falsehoods to boot!

Moron...gunsite just linked to the research you dumb ass......the link is to actual gun studies by trained economists and criminologists over a period of 40 years. Many of those researchers are anti gun researchers......


You are an idiot.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

Sure you were civil, firing your mouth off from the get go, pissant! If you want respect, give it in return FROM THE START. I don't suffer FOOLS!

WOW, you used the FBI crime tables as noted, I'm impressed, sorta! However, those are the stats for gun homicides and accidental gun deaths...that's a FAIL! You claimed,

"...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them."

Where is the stat for gun crimes committed and gun crimes prevented as you claimed. That is called changing the narrative and that is a FAIL!

And all that other BS from pro gun NRA lobby and their sycophantic relays is biased and bullshit and puts you as a liar because I started to post to it and as I was writing my response to your original of this post to which I'm now responding, portions disappeared as I move around the cyber sphere. You had cited this: GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense? . . . . . GunCite . com is your typical NRA sycophantic junk source for biased, less than objective pro gun indoctrination. Your precise claim, which is another falsehood and FAIL was;

"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..."

To top it all off you close with this kind and civil bit of sophistry all the way around;

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

A FAILED post with falsehoods to boot!

Moron...gunsite just linked to the research you dumb ass......the link is to actual gun studies by trained economists and criminologists over a period of 40 years. Many of those researchers are anti gun researchers......


You are an idiot.

I cited the link you had posted before you edited it out. I pulled it out of my internet history to cite it. Was it from the FBI crime stats as you claimed? NO was it relevant to your claim? NO! Was it dated going back to the early 1990's YES! And even if they were from the FBI, AND it was relevant, AND it was timely, where were your citations to those pertinent parts to support your claim?

We'll never know because you hit edit and whoosh it was gone because you realized I wouldn't buy that bullshit unless it was covered in FBI source material! You FAILED! You could have saved some embarrassment, but instead you went full steam ahead with BS and bombast!

You should have cooled off from the licking you took this morning on that other thread instead engaging your fingers before engaging your brain. Don't start a discussion calling the other person a moron in your first line, then have that epitaph come back and bite you on your ass. That makes YOU out to appear less than credible!

Time to go...The Huskies at Boise State and this I Chris Peterson's 2nd year at Washington. GO MUSTANGS!

 

[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?

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 >

Let's break it down

"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.

Ok those are just plain facts....


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.

Another plain fact.. he's saying above don't the court's opinion to mean something it is not. He's not making an opinion here... he's saying don't take the ruling (court's opinion) to mean something it does not mean.

So that leaves us with the last sentence:

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."

Here Scalia is pointing to the Miller case's opinion that the 2nd amendment protected weapons that were in common use at the time. Scalia points out that the Miller case found support from the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

So in short.. Scalia did not state an opinion in what you provided. He's just stating facts.

 

[2aguy]

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

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.

Sure you were civil, firing your mouth off from the get go, pissant! If you want respect, give it in return FROM THE START. I don't suffer FOOLS!

WOW, you used the FBI crime tables as noted, I'm impressed, sorta! However, those are the stats for gun homicides and accidental gun deaths...that's a FAIL! You claimed,

"...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them."

Where is the stat for gun crimes committed and gun crimes prevented as you claimed. That is called changing the narrative and that is a FAIL!

And all that other BS from pro gun NRA lobby and their sycophantic relays is biased and bullshit and puts you as a liar because I started to post to it and as I was writing my response to your original of this post to which I'm now responding, portions disappeared as I move around the cyber sphere. You had cited this: GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense? . . . . . GunCite . com is your typical NRA sycophantic junk source for biased, less than objective pro gun indoctrination. Your precise claim, which is another falsehood and FAIL was;

"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..."

To top it all off you close with this kind and civil bit of sophistry all the way around;

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

A FAILED post with falsehoods to boot!

Moron...gunsite just linked to the research you dumb ass......the link is to actual gun studies by trained economists and criminologists over a period of 40 years. Many of those researchers are anti gun researchers......


You are an idiot.

I cited the link you had posted before you edited it out. I pulled it out of my internet history to cite it. Was it from the FBI crime stats as you claimed? NO was it relevant to your claim? NO! Was it dated going back to the early 1990's YES! And even if they were from the FBI, AND it was relevant, AND it was timely, where were your citations to those pertinent parts to support your claim?

We'll never know because you hit edit and whoosh it was gone because you realized I wouldn't buy that bullshit unless it was covered in FBI source material! You FAILED! You could have saved some embarrassment, but instead you went full steam ahead with BS and bombast!

You should have cooled off from the licking you took this morning on that other thread instead engaging your fingers before engaging your brain. Don't start a discussion calling the other person a moron in your first line, then have that epitaph come back and bite you on your ass. That makes YOU out to appear less than credible!

Time to go...The Huskies at Boise State and this I Chris Peterson's 2nd year at Washington. GO MUSTANGS!

What do you mean it was edited out?

 

[2aguy]

Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex organs?'

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.

Sure you were civil, firing your mouth off from the get go, pissant! If you want respect, give it in return FROM THE START. I don't suffer FOOLS!

WOW, you used the FBI crime tables as noted, I'm impressed, sorta! However, those are the stats for gun homicides and accidental gun deaths...that's a FAIL! You claimed,

"...guns save lives and stop crime more than they are used to commit them."

Where is the stat for gun crimes committed and gun crimes prevented as you claimed. That is called changing the narrative and that is a FAIL!

And all that other BS from pro gun NRA lobby and their sycophantic relays is biased and bullshit and puts you as a liar because I started to post to it and as I was writing my response to your original of this post to which I'm now responding, portions disappeared as I move around the cyber sphere. You had cited this: GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense? . . . . . GunCite . com is your typical NRA sycophantic junk source for biased, less than objective pro gun indoctrination. Your precise claim, which is another falsehood and FAIL was;

"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..."

To top it all off you close with this kind and civil bit of sophistry all the way around;

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

A FAILED post with falsehoods to boot!

Moron...gunsite just linked to the research you dumb ass......the link is to actual gun studies by trained economists and criminologists over a period of 40 years. Many of those researchers are anti gun researchers......


You are an idiot.

I cited the link you had posted before you edited it out. I pulled it out of my internet history to cite it. Was it from the FBI crime stats as you claimed? NO was it relevant to your claim? NO! Was it dated going back to the early 1990's YES! And even if they were from the FBI, AND it was relevant, AND it was timely, where were your citations to those pertinent parts to support your claim?

We'll never know because you hit edit and whoosh it was gone because you realized I wouldn't buy that bullshit unless it was covered in FBI source material! You FAILED! You could have saved some embarrassment, but instead you went full steam ahead with BS and bombast!

You should have cooled off from the licking you took this morning on that other thread instead engaging your fingers before engaging your brain. Don't start a discussion calling the other person a moron in your first line, then have that epitaph come back and bite you on your ass. That makes YOU out to appear less than credible!

Time to go...The Huskies at Boise State and this I Chris Peterson's 2nd year at Washington. GO MUSTANGS!

Look dipshit.....I posted three posts in succession....the first the gun self defense studies, next the studies on guns as the best defense against rape and the last the article on how guns and a gun self defense course stopped rapes in Florida.....I broke those down to reduce the size of each post.

Dipshit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

None of the regulations considered in Heller were upheld. Not one.

For God's sake, Scalia went through what the govt could do. Heller won cause the city went too far.

You clearly do not understand how the court works.
No regulation of firearms was upheld by Heller; all of the regulations under scrutiny were struck.
None off the other regulations anyone speaks of were considered by the court, and so it is impossible to soundly argue that the court upheld other regulations.