WEATHER »

Santa Barbara Bigwigs Talk Gun Control

Electeds, Advocates, Cops Weigh In on Issues


Sunday, October 20, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

A collection of Santa Barbara dignitaries weighed in on mental-health issues, recent gun-control legislation, and gun buybacks on Thursday night for a town-hall forum sponsored by the Coalition Against Gun Violence (CAGV).

Mayor Helene Schneider, State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, District Attorney Joyce Dudley, Superintendent Dave Cash, Councilmember Cathy Murillo, SBSO Sergeant Mark Williams, SBPD Sergeant Riley Harwood, and several other panelists presented facts and updates about how to keep homes, streets, and schools safe.

Jackson kicked off the event with an update from Sacramento: Governor Jerry Brown recently signed 13 gun-control bills and vetoed five. Brown — a gun owner himself — axed a bill that would have prohibited some DUI offenders from purchasing a gun for 10 years. Current law bans felons — which includes three DUI or “wet reckless” convictions within a 10-year period — from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

Jackson also said the 1999 Columbine High School massacre occurred near the beginning of her tenure. California took immediate steps to end gun shows, change legal language to limit access to firearms, and ensure guns are locked when they’re in homes with kids. “This is common sense to me,” she said, “but that is apparently another person’s violation of their fundamental freedoms. Somewhere in between we have to come up with an answer to this problem.”

“Make no mistake; the NRA is the gun lobby,” she added. “Whenever there is a shooting, the sale of firearms goes up geometrically.” As a founding member of Coalition Against Gun Violence, Jackson explained the organization used to be called Women Against Gun Violence. “We recognized this really isn’t just women against gun violence; it’s sane people against gun violence. But we couldn’t say sane people against gun violence … because then, I guess, insane people would be for gun violence,” Jackson said, eliciting a chuckle from the crowd.

Schneider spoke about websites like armslist.com, a firearms marketplace that saw the number of ads bought for the site increase from 12,000 to 83,000 in roughly two and a half years.

Toni Wellen, chair of CAGV, said 100,000 people are shot each year, and 30,000 people die. “That is a public-health epidemic,” she said. If that many people died from the flu, she said, people would be on high alert. She added that 35 percent of families have guns, and 25 percent of those families with children do not properly lock their firearms. Wellen noted another major problem has to do with the country’s lack of resources to aid the mentally ill but that Obamacare should better help patients with mental-health issues.

Elsa Granados, a representative from Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center, gave her two cents about the nexus of sexual violence and weapons. She explained that although the center encourages women to fight off predators, they do not believe giving women firearms would necessarily increase their safety. For instance, Granados explained, 85 percent of sexual assaults occur between people who know each other, and studies indicates a person is much less likely to use a firearm against someone he or she knows.

Several panelists mentioned the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as a reminder to continue enacting preventative measures against gun violence.

Cash spoke about the implementation of restorative justice, which abandons age-old discipline models like suspension and detention and creates a new consequence model that emphasizes personal responsibility and seeks to strengthen relationships between students and faculty. Old punishment methods often took kids out of class, which, Cash explained, is counterintuitive to the overall goal of education. Cash also cited partnerships with the police department and the Sheriff’s Office as essential in keeping streets and schools safe.

Murillo spoke about a program titled Las Abuelas, which pairs grandmothers with teenagers to strengthen youth’s confidence, and the making of a program called “Neighbor Watch,” which will encourage relationships between neighbors to make communities safer.

Harwood shared that gun incidents have generally decreased in the past few years. In 2009, there were 56 gun incidents in Santa Barbara; 49 incidents in 2010; 29 incidents in 2011; 38 incidents in 2012; and 29 incidents up until October 1 of this year.

Dos Pueblos High School junior Ethan Brier — a member of the Santa Barbara Youth Council — talked a bit about efforts at the teenage level, including ones to make the word “retard” unacceptable language to describe the mentally ill, and others to counteract bullying in schools and on the Internet.

Dudley spoke about recent preventative measures her office has taken to return truants back to school in the county. Research indicates reducing truancy diminishes high school dropouts and decreases crime in the long run. She also said she’s currently prosecuting about 20 cases in which convicted felons — or others prohibited from buying a gun — illegally tried to purchase a firearm.

Wellen also suggested the idea of having a gun “buyback” event where gun owners could exchange their shotgun or rifle for a cash “reward.” Harwood pointed out there are “pros and cons” of such an event and highlighted raising sufficient funds, cost of enforcement to staff the event, and storing collected guns as obstacles.

Several other counties do hold these events, Wellen said in response, and getting rid of even a small number of guns would make the event worthwhile. An anonymous couple has donated $1,000 to a start a gun “buyback” fund, she said.

The night concluded with a bit of inspiration about personal safety from Dudley, who told the crowd, “Many of us may not have guns, but we have guts. … Trust your gut.”

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Can we use the word "retard" to talk about politicians?

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Santa Barbabra? I guess the editor took the day off?

DennisP (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That wasn't half as bad as the article they had about the funk zone. You guessed it. In the headline, they replaced the "n" with a "c".

Botany (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hannah-Beth Jackson:
“Make no mistake; the NRA is the gun lobby. Whenever there is a shooting, the sale of firearms goes up geometrically.”

Well, duhh: that's because one of the effects of these horrible crimes is that fear-mongering political hacks such as Hannah-Beth Jackson crawl out for their photo ops and begin screeching to the effect that those who must be held responsible are the 100 million law-abiding USA firearms owners who have never fired a gun at anyone and likely never will.

These hacks and ignoramuses will blame an inanimate object for these horrible crimes, rather than the criminal or mentally ill person wielding it, but not a word about the transnational pharmaceutical corporations that many of them are funded by, 80% of which are criminal organizations, despite the fact that almost all, if not all, of these crimes are committed by people addicted to or, even more revealing, withdrawing from, their poisons.

Is anyone surprised that Hannah-Beth Jackson, who repeatedly spreads falsehoods regarding firearms which denigrate eight million law-abiding California firearms owners, now descends to insinuating that those opposed to her fear-mongering nonsense are insane? This from the Dianne Feinstein-wannabe who wasted California public resources on a ludicrous campaign to ban a reproduction of an antique Civil War era hunting rifle:

http://www.independent.com/news/2013/...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

what good is gun legislature in CA if i can walk into any gun show in say, AZ or NV (or any of the other 33 states that allow private party sales) and buy just about any gun i want, including those already outlawed in CA. this is not a problem the states should manage individually. there needs to be a national registry, insurance and regular proof of proficiency bar none.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

StockiestCastle:

Regarding a national registry, my understanding is that never in history has a registry not led to mass confiscations of firearms from law-abiding owners. Even were that not true, in this constitutional republic (what's left of the constitutional part), the government has no business tracking the gun purchases of law-abiding citizens. No one should be placed on a watch list for simply exercising their constitutional rights. Finally, what possible useful and lawful purpose would a registry serve; what criminal or mentally ill person purchases a firearm legally, much less register it? This is another example of going after responsible and law-abiding citizens rather than the criminals (including the criminal transnational pharmaceutical corporations).

Regarding proficiency, the NRA is known and widely-respected for advancing responsible firearm ownership, which includes maintaining proficiency, which requires at least 1000 rounds of ammunition per year, per firearm. But government hacks and know-nothings such as Jackson and Feinstein inhibit responsible ownership by demonizing ammunition purchases by law-abiding and responsible citizens. Who hasn't encountered their fear-mongering nonsense regarding what they consider "large" ammunition purchases; these idiots have no concept of what is involved to maintain proficiency.(or choose to ignore this to advance their fear-mongering in order to advance more intrusive and tyrannical government).

These political hacks have an agenda that has nothing to do with protecting law-abiding citizens. I do not own a firearm, and am not a member of the NRA, so the videos below (the first is only 77 seconds in length) do not represent my world, but they do portray some of the law-abiding Americans, including many veterans, that these government hacks are targeting.

[01:17] 13 Year Old Badass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKw42q...

[08:42] NRA Women's Network Rising Through the Ranks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@John Tieber. "the NRA is known and widely-respected for advancing responsible firearm ownership"
Sorry, the NRA may indeed do that but what it is well known and widely-despised for is - rather - claiming that even reasonable gun restrictions are unconstitutional and invariably lead to misused registries and wholesale confiscations. These assumptions and claims are only worthy of wacko birthers and death panel alarmists, with which I believe in the NRA there are a fair number of crossover subscribers.

rick (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some of you have read my previous nonsensical posts and know they make no sense but some of the comments by these politicians and community leaders destroy my right to claim that I am the most insane person in these blogs.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rick:

Your unsupported claim in your second paragraph (including your use of the subjective and therefore unhelpful term in this context: "reasonable" ***) does not negate what I wrote, that you quote in your first paragraph.

*** though I do (sincerely) commend you for at least not parroting the political hacks' favorite: "common sense"

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gotta go with Hannah-Beth stating 'Make no mistake; the NRA is the gun lobby. Whenever there is a shooting, the sale of firearms goes up geometrically.' Keep at it Hannah-Beth!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

this article said something about ending gun shows? apparently they haven't as I see signs along the highway advertising such shows.

GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Inforce the laws on the books! Clearout deathrow in California, get it down to 100 on deathrow! When number 101 arrives number 1 is put
to death period. We are not short on thugs!

RickSuddes (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tieber:
You miss my real point that people who believe that the NRA is well-known for fostering responsible gun ownership are living in a bubble, perhaps populated largely by NRA members. For most of the general American populace the NRA is bestl known for its creepy-looking executive, LaPierre, espousing boogy-man big brother conspiracy theories. "The next thing 'ya know, they'll be taking ALL our guns!" Think otherwise? You need to get out more often.

rick (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Tieber- Don't burst these people's bubble about Big Brother looking after our best interests, after all they have never done anything that would harm us like spying on us or pass laws that don't represent the people but corporations, and special interests.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends.
According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001[131] (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC[132]).
This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes.[133]

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37]
In D.C. v Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington's D.C.'s handgun ban.

Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.[108]

Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law.
Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower.[119]

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban (1981), the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.[53]

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]
In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56]

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[130]
Justfacts.com
(references on the website)

14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rick wrote:
"For most of the general American populace the NRA is best known for its creepy-looking executive, LaPierre... "The next thing 'ya know, they'll be taking ALL our guns!"

Rick: Setting aside the irrelevance of your puerile remark regarding LaPierre's supposed appearance, perhaps (1) you're unaware that most of the "general American populace" gets its views from establishment media, now owned by five transnational corporations ( infographic here: http://intellihub.com/2013/07/31/grap... ), and (2) that a Harvard analysis documents what those of us who "get out more often" have long known: that these corporations are "thoroughly devoted … to amplifying and serving (rather than checking) government officials" (see Salon story here: http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media... ).

Regarding your third to the last sentence: "The next thing 'ya know, they'll be taking ALL our guns!":

Here's a 38-second video clip featuring the hypocrite Dianne Feinstein, one of the most corrupt members of the US congress (and that's saying a lot), on national television, clearly stating that she would introduce legislation doing just that, if she thought there was any chance she could ram it through:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elsa Granado, meet the 2nd Amendment sisters. I dare you to have a debate with them.
http://www.2asisters.org

Once again, we have utopianist thinking that selectively chooses statistics and Bogeymen to make their case. The fact is, guns have always been around, and as I've repeated ad infinitum, at any point during American history a person could obtain handguns, rifles, or other arms and committed mass murder. The problem is, the people who keep complaining about guns being the problem, and endlessly argue for "sensible" gun laws, fail to connect the dots with regard to how their overall philosophy about life/society/politics has created the mess we're in today where kids walk into schoolyards and start opening fire on their classmates and teachers.

Many of these same people are logical enough to understand the failure of the Drug War, but then their emotions and anger short-circuit their brains when it comes to guns. Should mentally unstable people be owning guns?...no. But should mentally unstable people even be walking among us in unsupervised settings? (I dunno, ask the A.C.L.U.)

Guns to the New Left are like drugs to the Tea Party right, they symbolize cultures and stereotypes that these groups fear so any logical discussion goes out the window. In short, making it harder for people to get guns for self-defense will not stop mass murders. Virgina Tech's self-righteous bragging about how they were a gun free zone prior to the massacre on its campus a few years ago was merely tempting the fate that caused 33 people to get killed, however, doctrinaire idealism doesn't allow itself to be mitigated by these facts. (Not that there is anything wrong with being an idealist--in and of itself)

Sorry Ms. Granado, you live in a fantasy land. The average woman has no chance of physically overcoming a male rapist. However, pepper spray would be a good compromise--something not mentioned in the short-sighted discussion, but TRUE empowerment of women isn't the goal here anyway, it's more about dissing the gun culture.

“Make no mistake; the NRA is the gun lobby,” she (Jackson) added. “Whenever there is a shooting, the sale of firearms goes up geometrically.”

That's right, because when these shootings occur, people are reminded of how the cops can't get there in time to stop the shootings.

As for Sandy Hook, imagine of one teacher had been equipped with a firearm...imagine all the lives that could have been saved, but again, logic flies out the window with these utopian types, and they simply don't think the average person is smart enough to properly defend themselves with a gun--hence their elitist attitudes showing through.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From the article:

"Wellen also suggested the idea of having a gun “buyback” event where gun owners could exchange their shotgun or rifle for a cash “reward.” [SBPD Sergeant] Harwood pointed out there are “pros and cons” of such an event and highlighted raising sufficient funds, cost of enforcement to staff the event, and storing collected guns as obstacles."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Note also how Harwood's providing the statistics — i.e. actual facts — about gun incidents in the 12th paragraph cuts through the fear-mongering falsehoods.)

Regarding Toni Wellen's gun buyback folly, I can be less diplomatic than Sergeant Harwood above:

Research has determined that the people most likely to commit crimes are also the people least likely to turn in their weapons (that's just "common sense" ;-) ). And the highest-risk weapons are the least likely to be traded in at buybacks.

“The theory underlying gun buyback programs is badly flawed,” a 2004 report by the National Research Council found (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor...). The study pointed out that replacement guns can be easily found for guns turned in for cash, and the ones that are turned in are often old or malfunctioning.

A Los Angeles Times op-ed (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/...) called gun buybacks little more than a publicity windfall for the corporate sponsors — and, dare I suggest: a photo op for the local politicians.

The photo op for a recent Los Angeles buyback was particularly amusing. The fear-mongering idiot politicians all grouped around one of them brandishing a spent rocket launcher tube, and the story featured them all congratulating themselves for getting this "fearsome weapon off the streets". The idiots either did not know (or thought their constituents did not know and therefore they could get away with their theatrics) that the rocket launcher in question, as are most, is a single use weapon; i.e. the spent tube could not be rearmed and thus was about as useful as an empty soda can. In fact, once upon a time, before all the fear-mongering by corrupt politicians, one could buy these for $5 at surplus stores — and now apparently anyone who did so can make 20 times his or her investment selling them to the politicians in Los Angeles.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Old punishment methods often took kids out of class, which, Cash explained, is counterintuitive to the overall goal of education."

Could it be that also suspension/no attendance means money lost?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Can we use the word "retard" to talk about politicians?

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2013 at 10:17 a.m.

No you may not!
http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Using-th...

Here are some more nice ones. Some may be more familiar, depending on your background:

ass (This is not offensive! "Don't be such an ass!")

blockhead (I especially like this one! Include all the other -head's: bonehead, meathead, thickhead, etc. "That bloke's a real blockhead!")

buffoon (My brother's favorite! "You're an empty-headed buffoon!")

dolt (I like how heavy and final this sounds.)

dullard (Love this one! "Gosh, Jimi, you're a dullard!")

dumbo

dummy

dunce (This is a nice, friendly term!)

dunderhead (An elderly friend's favorite. It's so funny when she uses it. "Dunderheads!")

fool (Not in my dictionary!)

idiot (I'm in the minority that consider this word slightly offensive and hurtful.)

ignoramus ("Stupid ignoramus of the highest order!")

klutz

moron (Way less offensive in the US but certainly not my favorite for friendly rebuttals.)

nitwit (There's also dimwit)

nincompoop (Got this a couple decades ago and loved it. "Scallywags and nincompoops!")

ninny ("Ninnies and idjits, all of them!")

oaf ("Shut up, you oaf!")

peabrain (Don't forget the other -brain's e.g. lamebrain!)

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 3:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ahh, BC, once again, we have dystopianist [not a word of course] thinking that selectively chooses statistics and Bogeymen to make their case.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 6:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now don't ya'll feel better, Hannah Beth "The Skunk" Jackson is say'in, "I from the gumbermint and I'm here to help!!"

Get off my back you slim bag out of touch idiot of a politician.....

Priceless (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the playbook funded by the Joyce Foundation.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents...

It is a good read if you want to understand the message they are trying foist on the People.

Its like George C. Scott said in Patton, "Rommel you SOB I read your book", as he defeated the Germans at the Battle of El Guettar.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

More power to the sane-people! No matter what side you are on, if you cannot acknowledge there is a gun-violence epidemic in our country, and that something needs to be done to improve safety for ourselves and our children, then you are probably insane.

tammy (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tammy:

You are grossly misinformed, buying the nonsense promulgated by the create-a-nonexistent-problem, wait-for-a-reaction, provide-a-solution (more intrusive and tyrannical government) political hacks.

Regarding your claim of a "gun-violence epidemic" that's exactly what they want you to believe, and you naively do so, because that's what the establishment media, prodded by the government hacks, tell you to believe.

Here's a few simple charts, all from official government sources:

Serious Violent Crimes vs Gun Ownership
http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/u...

Violent Crime Offense 5-Year Trend
http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/u...

Portion of Chicago Murders Committed with Handguns
http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/u...

Murder Rates in Washington, DC and the United States
http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/u...

Murder Rates in Texas and the United States
http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/u...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The gun debate is over. Now, if you want to talk about the symptoms of gun violence, I'm all ears. Mentally ill, Drugs, Gangs (according to a 2009 FBI gang threat assessment, 80% of all violence in the US is by gangs), unemployment and the fallen family unit, just to name a few, are what need to fix.

http://newgunnerjournal.blogspot.com/...
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pres...

HipshotPercussion (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As this is a long comment, I've also provided this short version.

(1) Click the link below.
(2) Photoshop the image so that it's all black in color.
(3) Send it to Hannah-Beth Jackson so she can one-up Dianne Feinstein by creating a campaign to ban this fearsome black weapon, perhaps modeled after her campaign to ban a reproduction of an antique Civil War era hunting rifle.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding the Joyce Foundation PDF posted above by howgreenwasmyvalley:

The nonsense and disinformation regarding "assault weapons" (page 72) appear to be a favorite of the local create a nonexistent problem - wait for the reaction - present a "solution" political hacks such as Hannah-Beth Jackson and Dianne Feinstein.

'Assault rifle' was originally defined as an automatic weapon (of which one of the most popular for home defense, an AR-15, is NOT); such firearms, which cost $15,000 or more, have been banned since 1934, with very few exceptions, usually for law enforcement and similar individuals, who must undergo extensive, expensive, and time-consuming background checks.

So the current use of the term 'assault rifle' or 'assault weapon' by various political hacks is simply a deliberately provocative and pejorative term that does nothing to further classify 'rifle' or 'weapon'; rather, this term is used simply in order to scare nearly witless those not knowledgeable about firearms. Regarding 'military style', a term also wildly tossed around by these tyrants and tyrant wannabes who, despite their oaths, appear to have zero respect for either the US or California constitutions: it requires zero understanding of firearms to understand the absurdity of limiting or banning something because of its 'style.' More on 'style' below.

If one were to click on the link below, and view the bottom two images only: these side-by-side images depict the EXACT SAME FIREARM, the left with a wood stock, the right with a modern plastic composite stock and some additional accessories:

http://www.examiner.com/article/sandy...

It's a simple .22 rifle, the type of rifle that, prior to all the fear-mongering by corrupt political hacks, 12-year olds used to learn marksmanship in summer camp for decades. Yet, if shown a photo of the bottom right version, the hypocrite Senator Feinstein (with her own concealed carry permit as well as armed guards nearly everywhere she goes) would insist it's an 'assault rifle' and none of the 100 million law-abiding American gun-owners who have never fired a gun at anyone should be "allowed" to own it.

...THIS COMMENT COMPLETED IN COMMENT BELOW...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

…COMPLETION OF COMMENT ABOVE...

Setting aside the concept of 'need' often incorrectly claimed to be relevant by these political hacks who apparently, despite their oaths of office, fail to understand the concept of 'right,' an AR-15 (the initials indicate the manufacturer, incidentally, not 'assault rifle') is essentially, then, a modern rifle, semi-automatic, as are, I believe, approximately 80% of rifles in circulation.

Regarding the accessories that have been added to the version illustrated at the bottom right of the link above: none increase the firepower; the utility of the scope, bipod stand, hand grip, and higher capacity magazine for sport shooting enthusiasts should be obvious. The collapsible stock makes it easy for the firearm to be adjusted to be ideal for any body size and, to be shared, for instance, between husband and wife sport shooting enthusiasts.

Despite the political hacks' claims that this particular rifle is "not needed for hunting" (and setting aside the irrelevance of such claims) hunters appreciate modern rifles with plastic composite rather than wood stocks (set up for hunting, rather than sport shooting, as in the photo), as they are much lighter for carrying around in the woods for hours.

So essentially, Feinstein and Feinstein wannabes are demonizing law-abiding US citizens for owning particular firearms because they're black (the firearms, not the citizens!) and, according to them, 'military style.'

Finally, a recent federal purchase order for 7000 AR-15s — by a domestic agency, and thus presumably for potential use against US citizens within the US — describes these firearms as 'personal defense weapons.' So: legitimate defense weapons when possessed by poorly trained, unelected government bureaucrats, but 'assault rifles' when possessed by law-abiding US citizens.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://bcove.me/6o959sfu
enough. don't let this happen here, or anywhere...

tammy (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fear-mongering by corrupt political hacks ... like:

> never in history has a registry not led to mass confiscations

> federal purchase order for 7000 AR-15s — by a domestic agency, and thus presumably for potential use against US citizens

> The average woman has no chance of physically overcoming a male rapist

Gun nuts are teh wurst evar

FightWoo (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HipshotPercussion wrote:
The gun debate is over. Now, if you want to talk about the symptoms of gun violence, I'm all ears. Mentally ill, Drugs, Gangs…

HipshotPercussion:

Sounds good to me.

Regarding legal drugs created and heavily promoted by transnational pharmaceutical corporations, 80% of which, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, are either criminal organizations, or likely are, as they are currently operating under corporate integrity agreements ( http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/... ), here's a start:

31 School shooters/school related violence committed by those under the influence of psychiatric drugs
http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Top 10 Legal Drugs Linked to Violence
http://consciouslifenews.com/top-10-l...

Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds...

CDC to ‘Study’ Gun Violence, Ignore Link to Antidepressants
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/c...

Psychiatric Drugs Linked to Numerous Mass Shootings
http://consciouslifenews.com/psychiat...

No, Mentally Ill People Would NOT Necessarily Have Become Violent Without Anti-Depressants
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/1...

Anti-depressants caused ‘Navy Yard’
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-new...

SSRI Stories Index
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

[video: 18:18] I am Adam Lanza's Doctor…[ < metaphor ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oigP3w...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

> legal drugs created and heavily promoted by transnational pharmaceutical corporations

So, the availability of and easy access to firearms isn't the problem or even part of the problem, and you're a corrupt political hack for even thinking that it's part of the problem. The REAL problem is the multinational drug companies? Oh brother ...

FightWoo (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

FightWoo:

In none of my comments here have I stated or implied that " the availability of and easy access to firearms isn't ... part of the PROBLEM."

Rather, my primary theme, which I would think should be obvious, is that (1) the SOLUTION to these horrible crimes lies elsewhere than demonizing and targeting (a) the US and California constitutions, and (b) the 100 million law-abiding US gun owners and 8 million law-abiding California gun owners who have never fired a gun at anyone and likely never will, and (2) that those political hacks who do so clearly have an agenda that has nothing to do with "protecting the children," most obviously demonstrated by Feinstein's threat to ban all firearms if she could (link to 38-second video above at October 20, 2013 at 7:25 p.m.), and Jackson's apparent aim to ban all Californians from owning firearms more modern than Civil War era (link to previous Santa Barbara Independent article above at October 20, 2013 at 3:06 p.m.).

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tammy wrote:
http://bcove.me/6o959sfu
enough. don't let this happen here, or anywhere...

Tammy:

Regarding your link above: If your disinformation fails, appeal to emotion, because raw emotion is surely the best basis on which to establish public policy.

That's what the allow-no-crisis-to-go-to waste political hacks do, when they crawl out for their photo ops immediately following these horrible crimes, in order to implement #8...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#8: DON’T LET POLICYSPEAK DRAIN THE EMOTION FROM THE MOMENT.

There is often a compelling case to be made for immediate action, pivoting from the emotion of a high-profile incident to calls for legislative action or specific policy changes. Those who seek to make that pivot have to be careful not to drain the emotional power out of the moment.

An emotionally-driven conversation about what can be done to prevent incidents such as the one at hand is engaging....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...from page 48 of their playbook posted by howgreenwasmyvalley above at October 21, 2013 at 9:44 a.m.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People may think because “It’s in the Constitution,” that the 2nd amendment will always be safeguarded. For these people, I suggest they read Senator Barbara Boxer’s autobiography “Strangers in The Senate.” On page 179, Boxer writes “Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced a bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns or handgun ammunition; the only exception would be for law enforcement, military guards, or antique collectors and regulated handgun clubs. Senator Chafee calls his bill the ‘Public Health and Safety Act,’ and that’s an appropriate name.” For the next four pages she quotes Chafee after which Boxer writes “Waiting periods may well help and I support them, but I do believe that Senator Chafee’s approach will lead to a better America.” (funny how she doesn’t mention this on her website)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen wrote:
"People may think because “It’s in the Constitution,” that the 2nd amendment will always be safeguarded…"

Luckily, those who don't get their views of the world from the establishment media are easily seeing through the propaganda. Below is a very small sampling of what has come through my RSS feed in just the past few months.

And incidentally, when I refer to "political hacks" I'm referring to the corrupt, clownish, and often criminal members of both the blue gang and the red gang, both in Washington and Sacramento. Those who still buy into the nonsense from either major party might consider using the Internet more effectively. Should they do so, they might understand that the red/blue, left/right tripe has only one purpose: to divide the people from themselves in order to reduce their effectiveness against the government elites of both major parties whose primary goal is to transfer as much wealth from the people to the corporations as possible (after skimming off as much as they can for themselves, of course).

Apparently the NRA and the ACLU understand this, as they're now collaborating:

NRA, ACLU Lawsuit: NSA Spying Creates ‘Gun Registry’ and Chills Speech
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/n...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Regarding the first two: I must have missed Obama's photo op, with his fake tears and backdrop of children.]

Results of Obama’s own CDC study on guns support other side
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/1...
(the playbook referred to in the second sentence is the PDF posted above by howgreenwasmyvalley at October 21, 2013 at 9:44 a.m.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’
http://xrepublic.tv/node/4511

Americans Fault Mental Health System Most for Gun Violence
http://www.gallup.com/poll/164507/ame...

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell...
(studies: U.S. Department of Justice; Pew Research Center)

Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/2...

Why Gun Owners Are Right to Fight Against Gun Control
http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/18...

Gun control doesn't even reach the top 15 concerns for Americans
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/07...

[INFOGRAPHIC] Picturing The Plunge In Gun Crimes As Gun Sales Surge
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The biggest epidemic of violence comes from our police state, prison industrial complex and our overseas military empire. Ending state sanctioned gun violence should really be a bigger priority than individuals owning firearms for their protection.

Banning guns for law abiding citizens will lead to more state sanctioned violence against innocent people. It will lead to more criminal violence against law abiding citizens.

The biggest reason for gun violence in this country is the war on drugs. If drugs were legalized, the black market would disappear and most of the gun violence on our streets would be gone overnight.

Anybody who pays attention and supports the 2nd amendment is not a fan of the NRA, I will tell you that much. The NRA has done more to erode gun owner rights in this country than anybody.

If you still want guns banned, I probably shouldn't tell you this since I am opposed to the outcome, but donating to the NRA would probably be your most effective tool. That is why some of these posts are so funny to read for me.

If you truly value the 2nd amendment, GOA (Gun Owners of America) is an organization that actually defends the 2nd amendment.

And thanks to JohnTieber for providing some factual information on the topics regarding gun violence, including psychiatric drugs and their relation to gun violence.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@billclausen,

The Social -Fascists want to control each and every dimension of our lives, why I cannot fathom but guess they believe they can achieve a Utopia of some sort. A Government, that we become the Subjects, instead of the Masters.

It is simply amazing to me how far they have strayed from the Democratic Party of the 50-60's. A party that championed the Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, Population Control and Conservation of the Environment along with our place in it.

Without population control we continue to breed ourselves into oblivion, I fail to understand the elitist mind.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@howgreenwasmyvalley: I agree with you 100%. You articulate the issue perfectly and hit on all the points. The only thing I can add to your question about the utopian way of thinking is that it's human nature.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only control freaks are the NRA. Nobody is trying to take away anybody's guns. All they want is better background checks.

- 90% of the country wants background checks
- 87 % of NRA members want background checks
- 55% of gun dealers want background checks

The NRA leadership does not want background checks. Who is being democratic (will of the people) and who is not ???

"A new survey from a University of California-Davis professor shows that even a majority of gun sellers support background checks. Looking at 1,601 federally licensed gun dealers in 2011, Director of UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program Garen Wintemute found that 55 percent support comprehensive background checks, despite the NRA’s position against it. Wintemute found high levels of support for denying guns to people convicted of assault and robbery, as well as those with alcohol abuse and serious mental illnesses.

When the author began his survey in 2011, he says he received a warning from the National Rifle Association urging members not to participate. "

You mean freedom-loving people cannot even take part in a survey ??? Really? NRA is the controller. NRA wants to dictate what people think or say.

Frank Luntz - Republican propagandist - said the following "NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP"

The NRA leadership does not even agree with its own members. Please bury the tin-foil hat stuff - the majority of the US population wants better background checks.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.o...

tabatha (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Nobody is trying to take away anybody's guns. All they want is better background checks" -tabatha (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 7:41 p.m-

Not true.

Read my October 21, 2013 at 3:18 p.m post.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tabatha wrote:
"All they want is better background checks..."

Tabatha:

Welcome to the conversation, but perhaps you might have at least skimmed the first 40 comments.

Even setting aside (1) your nebulous "they" and (2) that you've not defined "better" (just "common sense" perhaps?), your statement above is ludicrous.

I've repeatedly stated here, and provided documentation, that certainly Feinstein and Jackson want far more than "background checks"; I shouldn't need to restate this; just do a page search (command-F) for "Feinstein" and then "Jackson."

You completely ignore all the nonsense and lies regarding so-called "assault rifles." (I covered this above in detail at October 21, 2013 at 10:43 a.m.).

Here's some actual facts to counter your disinformation (and go ahead, diss the second source, if that's all you've got):

Mixed Reactions to Senate Gun Vote
Democrats More Disappointed than Angry
http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/2...

Fact vs. fiction on background checks and the gun control debate
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/0...

...THIS COMMENT COMPLETED IN COMMENT BELOW...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

…COMPLETION OF COMMENT ABOVE...

How about the "Brady Bunch"; are they part of your nebulous "they" who only want "better background checks" (source for all material which follows: third link from bottom from my comment above at October 21, 2013 at 4:49 p.m.):

"Back in 1976, Pete Shields, chairman of what is today the Brady Campaign, candidly laid out the blueprint for The New Yorker:

"'We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest…Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time…The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.'"

As the years passed, it became apparent that this was going nowhere; a different first “slice” would have to be found. In 1990, Violence Policy Center (VPC) announced that it had found it. The debate must be switched from small handguns to large “assault rifles.”

Handguns, VPC explained, had become a media and political nonissue, while calls to outlaw “assault rifles” would benefit from mistaken impressions, i.e., “the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun.” That rifles of all types were involved in about 300 homicides a year was beside the point. The search was for a target of opportunity, not a solution to crime.

The major gun control organizations bought the idea, to the point of changing their names to replace “handgun” with “gun.” Pete Shields’ group, Handgun Control, Inc., became the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns became the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence.

The change underscored a lesson gun owners had already learned. Their opponents would go for any target of opportunity—if handgun restrictions didn’t fly, try to restrict rifles—and use that as a foundation to take more in the future. Any “reasonable compromise” would simply be a first step in a long campaign to make firearm ownership as difficult, expensive, and legally risky as possible.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding the link at the bottom of the comment above at October 21, 2013 at 7:41 p.m., after a few minutes research, I can understand why 'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' needs promoting: apparently there's considerable attrition. ;-)

For anyone pressed for time:

• In the event the names of the first two of three links below don't give it away: each provides a quick dose of humor

• No need to click through to the third; as it's only a short blog post, I've reproduced it in its entirety

Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors
http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/

Meet the Mayors Against Illegal Guns (one-page flyer)
http://www.saf.org/images/maig.pdf

Another One Bites the Dust
http://hogewash.com/tag/mayors-agains...

"Another member of Nanny Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns [or rather] Illegal Mayors Against Guns has been convicted and sentenced. Kwame Kilpatrick, former Detroit mayor and member of MAIG, received 28 years for corruption.

"I wonder why all these corrupt politicians want to keep guns out of the hands of the citizens they are fleecing?"

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't like gun fanatics (NRA) but support the 2nd. That being said , the irony of our leaders convening on gun violence while there is a least a stabbing a week here in S.B. shows the futility of all this arguing.

geeber (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 3:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

geeber wrote:
"I don't like gun fanatics (NRA)…"

I'm neither an NRA member nor a supporter (nor do I own a firearm), as I stated above at October 20, 2013 at 4:57 p.m., but the characterization of the NRA as "gun fanatics" (whatever that means) is a gross distortion by the establishment media, which now consists of six transnational corporations ( infographic here: http://intellihub.com/2013/07/31/grap... ).

These gigantic media conglomerates fool people into believing, as tammy indicates above at October 21, 2013 at 9:55 a.m. that she does, that there is a "gun-violence epidemic in our country," despite an abundance of government statistics to the contrary ( http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/u... ), as well as numerous studies by such well-regarded sources as the US Department of Justice, the Pew Research Center ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell... ), and Harvard University ( http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/2... ).

These five transnational corporations earn many millions in advertising from the primary cause of the horrific mass shootings, legal pharmaceutical drugs produced by other transnational corporations, up to 80% of which are criminal organizations, according to the New England Journal of Medicine ( http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/... ).

Perhaps we all should consider joining…

Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors

http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/

They seem to have identified one aspect of the problem. ;-)

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BAD LINK ABOVE (2nd link from bottom):

New England Journal of Medicine article indicating that up to 80% of transnational pharmaceutical corporations are criminal organizations should be:

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

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Still zero evidence Lanza guilty of anything. Investigative report was due June 6.

redbunz (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh geez, redbunz, you want to go there? ;-)

Not sure I do (even though it touches on one of my favorite subjects: criminal and corrupt politicians), and considering the age of this thread (presumably views are significantly less than the past two days), probably not worthwhile anyway.

But if I DID want to go there, I'd start with these (in the order I've deliberately arranged them, rather than chronological):

Was the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting a False Flag Operation to Ban Guns?
http://consciouslifenews.com/sandy-ho...

Sandy Hook: Aleister Crowley, Interview Freak-Show, Police Audio
http://solari.com/blog/sandy-hook-ale...

10 things the media don’t want to discover about Sandy Hook
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/201...

Sandy Hook massacre: Official story spins out of control
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@tabatha,

"The only control freaks are the NRA. Nobody is trying to take away anybody's guns. All they want is better background checks."

California State Assembly Member Bonta proposed just that. Rifles that were Registered under the 1989 and 2000 bans were "Grandfathered", meaning exempt and legal to possess in California. Bonta tried to remove the Grandfather Clause but even his own party told this Yale Law School Grad to amend his bill.

If this bill had passed as originally written and become law the owners of said rifles would have had to destroy them, turn them in to the government or sell them out of State.

Care to qualify your statement?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/b...

BILL NUMBER: AB 174 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Bonta

JANUARY 24, 2013

An act relating to weapons.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 174, as introduced, Bonta. Weapons: grandfather clauses.
Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under
existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons
that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met,
are authorized.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to
subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all
of those exemptions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Under current law, certain banned weapons are permitted
under various "grandfathering in" clauses. It is the intent of the
Legislature to subsequently amend this measure to include provisions
that would end all of those exemptions.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

redbunz: There is evidence that Lanza wasn't there, though - the school had a security camera at the front door and an interlock to unlock the door. Adam Lanza wasn't on the security recording and there was no record of him being admitted. No one saw him inside - they saw a masked shooter. FEMA/DHS said the window by the door had been broken by him to gain access, but the local cops blew it on them and said there was no broken window and no sign of forced entry. Neighbors of Lanza's mother hadn't seen him since he was a little kid, and neither he nor his mother had any connection to the school. There's also helicopter video showing that network TV aerial video was of a school around 14 miles away - Santa Rita(?), a private school. Lanza's mother is/was a prepper, the relevant factor. No ambulances, no non-fatal injuries, no body bags, no gurneys/stretchers, lots of photoshop and Chroma key.
FEMA's practice drill was the day before the shootings.
Columbine student witnesses have posted statements that they were threatened with disappearance/arrest/forced drugging if they made public statements.

Capitol Police SWAT ordered to stand down during Navy Yard shootings - really incompatible with government concern about gun violence.

John Tieber - thanks for the illegal mayors link!

14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I posted US government data from justfacts.com showing that
the FEDS ARE AWARE that

1) around 80% of criminals convicted of crimes using guns avoided background checks and licensing (& these are the dumb ones who got caught)
2) gun bans increase gun fatalities
3) right to carry laws decrease gun fatalities
& that gun-related accidents are statistically rare, relative to other accidents

These US government stats show that the US government knows that
1) the "vast majority of denials" involve people "who aren't a danger to the public"
2) people on terrorist watchlists have no problem getting permits for guns and explosives

It's important that we know that the US government has been aware of these facts for years.
Our tax dollars have already paid for the feds to do the data analysis to show that
1) gun laws keep law-abiding citizens safe
and that
2) violent criminals aren't affected by gun laws.

The feds have already spent our tax $$ to learn this. Now the feds are spending our tax dollars on FEMA detention/death camps, FEMA detention/gas chamber train cars, guillotines, NSA spying, false flag gun-related propaganda and attempts to totally disarm US civilians. The NRA isn't relevant - DHS is very aware of the effects of gun bans and concealed carry laws. The most recent assault weapons ban in 1994 didn't reduce deaths, it increased the use of extended mags, and the next step would probably be the use of multiple handguns.
We need to recall elected officials who support disarming citizens and impeach Obama to reduce gun violence.

In the 10-year period from November 30, 1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million background checks for gun purchases were processed through the federal background check system. approximately 681,000 or about 1% were denied.

[74] http://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/ops...
[75] On July 30, 2010, Just Facts sent a letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives requesting data on the number of prosecutions and convictions stemming from these 681,000 denials. We are awaiting a reply.

* During 2002 and 2003, out of 17 million background checks resulting in 120,000 denials, the federal government prosecuted 154 people (about one-tenth of 1% of the denials).

[76] Executive Summary: Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System." U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, July 2004. http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/AT...

[77] Report: "Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System." U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, July 2004. http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/AT...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

* Between February 2004 and February 2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives background checks for people on terrorist watch lists were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, 91% of the firearm transactions and 100% of the explosives transactions were allowed.[83]

[78] Executive Summary: "Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System." U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, July 2004.http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm

[79] Report: "Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System." U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, July 2004.http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/results.htm

[82] Summary: "Terrorist Watchlist Screening." Government Accountability Office, May 5, 2010. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-703T
"Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law."

[83] Report: "Terrorist Watchlist Screening." Government Accountability Office, May 5, 2010. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10703t.pdf
Page 5: "In total, individuals on the terrorist watchlist have been involved in firearm and explosives background checks 1,228 times since NICS started conducting these checks in February 2004, of which 1,119 (about 91 percent) of the transactions were allowed to proceed while 109 were denied...."

14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Page 4:
In May 2009, we reported that from February 2004 through February 2009, a total of 963 NICS background checks resulted in matches with individuals on the terrorist watchlist.8 Of these transactions, approximately 90 percent (865 of 963) were allowed to proceed because the checks revealed no prohibiting information, such as felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, or other disqualifying factors. Two of the 865 transactions that were allowed to proceed involved explosives background checks. The FBI does not know how often a firearm was actually transferred or if a firearm or explosives license or permit was granted, because gun dealers and explosives dealers are required to maintain but not report this information to the NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] Section. About 10 percent (98 of 963) of the transactions were denied based on the existence of prohibiting information. No transactions involving explosives background checks were denied.

Pages 4-5:
We obtained updated statistics from the FBI through February 2010. From March 2009 through February 2010, FBI data show that 272 NICS background checks resulted in matches with individuals on the terrorist watchlist.9 One of the 272 transactions involved an explosives background check, which was allowed to proceed because the check revealed no disqualifying factors under the Safe Explosives Act. According to FBI officials, several of the 272 background checks resulted in matches to watchlist records that—in addition to being in the FBI's Known or Suspected Terrorist File—were on the Transportation Security Administration's "No Fly" list. Persons on the No Fly list are deemed to be a threat to civil aviation or national security and therefore should be precluded from boarding an aircraft. According to FBI officials, all of these transactions were allowed to proceed because the background checks revealed no prohibiting information under current law.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2013 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After everything that has been said above I'M STILL BUYING GUNS!!!! LOVE THEM, LOVE THEM, LOVE THEM!!!! My home is SAFE, SOUND and DEFENDED against the lunatics among us... Oh, BTW when the Zombies come I'll take care of them too!!!

Priceless (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

y'all enjoy being holed up there in your home surrounded by your many guns... Likely you are afraid to venture out without your arsenal... a wee bit paranoid, there, eh Priceless? ha

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kudos to you, Dr. Dan:

You always contribute so much to the conversation.

Your second contribution directly above is nearly as intelligent and useful as your first, three days ago at October 20, 2013 at 6:18 p.m.:

"gotta go with Hannah-Beth stating 'Make no mistake; the NRA is the gun lobby. Whenever there is a shooting, the sale of firearms goes up geometrically.' Keep at it Hannah-Beth!"

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why thank you, John, I'm pleased you're beginning to see the light, unlike your priceless pal.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The second amendment was not held by the Supreme Court to provide for an individual right to bear arms until District of Columbia v Heller, 2008. Previous to that a plain reading of the text, "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," was held to secure the right to the states by the newly created federal governments to maintain militias, it being understood that these would be under the control of the people of the state. Our sister nations likewise descended from the English common-law system of laws that form the basis of 49 of the 50 of our own states (the outlier being Louisiana and its Roman-based Civil law) all have the kind of regulation of guns that we used to have - and dramatically lower gun violence. They all, in fact, think our whole nation is crazed with its insistence upon the free and liberal dissemination of guns of all kinds. A free people has the right to determine that we do not want a gun for every person in this nation out on the streets. Guns have become a bizarro creed of a right-wing ideology. If we didn't have unpoliced ghettos where generations are imprisoned by lack of jobs, money, public safety, education, healthy food and health care, we wouldn't need guns to "protect" ourselves. We have two nations - a safe, working, healthy, relatively gun-free one, and a dangerous, sick, hungry, well-armed one. Shame on us.

DeeMack (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DeeMack wrote:
"The second amendment was not held by the Supreme Court to provide for an individual right to bear arms until District of Columbia v Heller, 2008... "

Were there a larger audience viewing this three day old conversation, I would enjoy systematically, with documentation, rebutting your comment, which mostly consists of your unsupported opinions, such as what YOU consider to be "a plain reading" (just "common sense," I suppose) of the Second Amendment, that "plain reading" ignoring not only an abundance of actual facts, but also writings of those who participated in the drafting of that particular amendment.

But, audience or no audience, there's no need to do so.

Because the point of the first 26 words of your comment that I've excerpted above seems to be:

The US Constitution isn't valid if DeeMack disagrees with the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding any part of it.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DeeMack:

On second thought, I can respond at length to your comment with a minimum investment of time:

(1) Go to the 8 February 2013 Santa Barbara Independent article:

'Jackson Introducing Bill to Ban Specific Shotgun'
http://www.independent.com/news/2013/...

(2) Open the discussion by scrolling to the bottom and clicking the '96' within the red 'SEE / ADD COMMENTS'  box.

(3) Press command-F (to launch a page search), then enter "Second" (without the quotes) into the resulting search box.

(4) Press 'return' in succession to scroll through the 18 results.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dee: Regarding the detailed instructions for page search above: I'm not assuming you don't know how to do a page search, but (1) I have no way of knowing that, and (2) other readers might need that much detail.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To conflate my disagreement of the reconstruction of the meaning of the 2nd amendment by an activist Supreme Court with disagreeing with the Constitution is a mite hyperbolic, yes? These debates can go back and forth for generations, and this one is by no means over. I did read your previous arguments that we need to have guns to protect us from our government. Wow. If that's what we need to do to secure our liberty, we are already sunk. What we need to reclaim and preserve the Republic our founders gave us ("if, madam, you can keep it," Franklin) is work towards the establishment of a fair society based upon a functioning economy. The purpose of an economy is to facilitate the production and distribution of goods and services, and the purpose of goods and services is to facilitate the health and exercise of talents and abilities of people. We, the People. Shall we become a nation of hoarders, holed up in gated communities, protected by our guns, or shall we become a nations of citizens, with jobs, food, shelter, education and health care, using all of our united talents and creativity to address that challenges to our survival that the universe does and will hurl at us? We will, to again paraphrase Franklin, either hang together, or hang separately. Guns are a symptom of our societal ills. Again, we are two nations, one of which is jobless, without adequate nutrition, education or public safety, whose children have PTSD from infancy...no wonder it is so easy to sell guns. Do we really want more of the same? Again, other common law nations have chosen to regulate guns in a manner like to aspirin and cars, and they are much safer than we. Most guns deaths are suicides, and most people who attempt suicide, if they fail, later are glad to have done so. Guns do not make us safer, they make us more likely to die by gunshot. True, people pull the trigger - fearful, disturbed and angry people. So if guns are not the problem, they are most certainly not the solution.

DeeMack (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DeeMack wrote:
"To conflate my disagreement of the reconstruction of the meaning of the 2nd amendment by an activist Supreme Court with disagreeing with the Constitution is a mite hyperbolic, yes? "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hyperbolic?: no, absolutely not and, in addition, there was no conflation.

Your entire argument hinges on your disagreement with recent Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment, suggesting that YOU should have that role, because you are capable of doing a "plain reading." You've made this once again evident in your second comment by your adding the pointless pejorative "activist" to describe the US Supreme Court. Is it also "activist" regarding rulings you agree with?

Regarding, incidentally, from your first comment, "our sister nations"(whatever that means), and from your most recent comment, "common law nations": what relevance does that have regarding the US Constitution, most particularly, the Bill of Rights?

Also from your first comment, your remarkably limiting proclamation: "Guns have become a bizarro creed of a right-wing ideology," demonizing 100 million law-abiding US gun owners from all parts of the political spectrum:

It appears you've been bamboozled by the establishment media, which now consists of six transnational corporations ( infographic here: http://intellihub.com/2013/07/31/grap... ) into buying into the left wing vs. right wing, Democrat vs. Republican, Tea Party vs. Occupy tripe that has only one purpose: to divide the people from themselves in order to reduce their effectiveness against the government elites of both major parties whose primary goal is to transfer as much wealth from the people to the corporations as possible.

Are you completely unaware that this is being done, and that the claptrap about guns, like nearly all the nonsense being spewed by establishment media, is primarily for the purpose of distracting from the real criminal gangs in Washington and Sacramento?

You provide further evidence of your ignorance of current events by your remark, in your more recent comment: "….guns to protect us from our government. Wow. If that's what we need to do to secure our liberty, we are already sunk."

Regarding "secure our liberty":

You STILL appear to be completely unaware that one of the primary, if not the primary, purpose of the Second Amendment was to do just that, which you'd know if you read some of the writings of those who wrote it.

...THIS COMMENT COMPLETED IN NEXT COMMENT...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

…COMPLETION OF PREVIOUS COMMENT...

Regarding "guns to protect us from our government":

(1) Are you completely unaware that the federal government is now little more than a criminal gang, no longer "our" government, but rather, controlled by transnational criminal banks and corporations?

(2) Have you no knowledge of history, or even recent events? Are you unaware that (a) the USA federal government is also now the largest terrorist organization on the planet, responsible, just in the past 60 years, for the deaths of 20-30 million people in dozens of countries that did not attack us and were no threat to us ( http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas2... ), and that (b) it is becoming rapidly more vicious by the day, as made particularly evident by its terrorizing of entire communities day and night, while deliberately murdering via flying killer robots thousands of civilians, including hundreds of children, as well as secondary attacks launched to deliberately target medical staff responding to the first attack?

(3) Have you no understanding that not only is the current federal government becoming much more vicious, but is rapidly turning its viciousness to US citizens?

(4) Are you unaware that the current president has already assassinated at least three US citizens that we are aware of, or of rapidly accelerating abuse and criminal activities of federal executive branch agencies directed at US citizens (including but not limited to: CIA, DEA, DOJ, EPA, FBI, FDA and, most particularly: IRS, NSA, TSA)?

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DeeMack, I disagree that if we need guns to protect ourselves from our government we are already sunk.

Our military can't take over Afghanistan, which is about the same size and population as the state of Texas. And the military personnel they send over to fight generally consider the Taliban the enemy. Imagine a scenario where we were fighting a civil war against the U.S. Military, and the majority of U.S. Military personnel decided they didn't want to fight against and then decided to side and join with the citizens?

The truth is there is only a very, very tiny small minority of very wealthy and influential people controlling things behind the scenes, running the international banking cartel and controlling our political processes to help ensure that they stay enormously wealthy and in power. It would be very easy to overtake that without any violence, but with some very basic education. That would certainly be my preference.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5k...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi John. Well, let's back up a bit. I am aware of the details you cite, probably having read many of the same sources you have. I think we are in the Wild, Wild West of the digital age, and it will take us quite a while, and maybe even real physical conflict as we integrate our new capacity into society in a way that is healthy rather than constricting and self-destructive. But all of that is aside from whether or not it makes sense to fight against the regulation of guns. Surely guns do not enhance any kind of societal struggle. They are a very primitive form of defense against exploitation or control on a governmental level. What we need to do, I believe, is truly understand what we are (as physical organisms in a physical world) and how to enhance our long term health and survival. Guns simply are not a part of that, they are a distraction, one of the prime distractions of the Right, by which I mean the .01% that owns the assets and the government. We can still work the Constitutional apparatus towards health, but it takes lots of grassroots work and self-educating. We don't want to alienate the millions of gun owners, nor do we need to. Gun owners the world over are happy to comply with reasonable regulation, and if you don't frame the argument in terms of freedom and fear, so will we be.

DeeMack (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's too bad we can't abide by the intent of the founding fathers. They believed that a well regulated millitia had the right to own firearms. What kind of firearms? Single shot muzzle loaders!

buckwheat (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DeeMack wrote:
"Surely guns do not enhance any kind of societal struggle. They are a very primitive form of defense against exploitation or control on a governmental level. ...Guns simply are not a part of that, they are a distraction."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dee:

Not that I didn't enjoy composing my response, but (1) you took our conversation into the realm of guns as a defense against a tyrannical government by your use of one word - "Wow" - in the sixth line of your comment above at October 23, 2013 at 3:48 p.m., and (2) your remarks I've excerpted above leave it there.

Your remarks above do not consider (1) that three of four of the legitimate purposes for owning a firearm have nothing to do with defense against a tyrannical government:

(1) sport and target shooting
(2) hunting ***
(3) personal and home defense

Eight million law-abiding Californians and 80-100 million law-abiding US citizens own firearms for legitimate purposes, and most of them have never fired a gun at anyone and never will.

These are the people the political hacks in Washington and Sacramento are targeting with their lies and nonsense regarding guns, particularly their latest fear-mongering propaganda regarding so-called "assault rifles."

They're targeting not just adults, including veterans and even current military, these sorts of people...

[08:42] NRA Women's Network Rising Through the Ranks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...

...but even children:

[01:17] 13 Year Old Badass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKw42q...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*** I'm almost exclusively vegetarian, but regarding hunting: trophy hunting is repugnant to me, but taking a wild animal of a non-endangered species for food, done with (1) respect and gratitude, and (2) sufficient proficiency with firearm use to minimize suffering, is far more humane than supporting criminal industrial operations by consuming shrink-wrapped and putrid flesh of animals whose entire lives have been hell.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CORRECTED LINKS FOR COMMENT ABOVE:

[08:42] NRA Women's Network Rising Through the Ranks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=...

[01:17] 13 Year Old Badass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKw42q...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

buckwheat wrote:
"It's too bad we can't abide by the intent of the founding fathers. They believed that a well regulated millitia had the right to own firearms. What kind of firearms? Single shot muzzle loaders!"

Buckwheat:

Hopefully you are being sarcastic. If not:

Lucky for us, the founding fathers were far more intelligent than the aptly named buckwheat, producing founding documents that are respected throughout the world and widely referred to as timeless, and thus also fully-capable of understanding that firearm technology would advance, as any technology does.

And so, setting aside buckwheat's apparent misconception that muzzle loaders were the most advanced technology of the time, if the founding fathers wanted to make idiots of themselves specifying (1) the right for law-abiding citizens to own firearms, but (2) only a very particular type of obsolete firearm — they would have.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DeeMack wrote:
"... reasonable regulation..."

Again, you appear to have no respect for the US Constitution, and fail to understand the realities of the current political situation.

Setting aside your failure to explain how "regulation" can coexist with "shall not be infringed," are you actually suggesting that hypocritical fear-mongering politicians, a rapidly-increasing number of which are corrupt and even criminal, bought and paid for by transnational corporations and banks, many of which are also criminal, should be entrusted to be "reasonable," and, if so, is your meaning of reasonable the same as their favorite — and completely useless — term, "common sense"?

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 23, 2013 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

very thoughtful comment DeeMack, thanks for contributing a moderate voice here.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 24, 2013 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan:

I commend you (sincerely) on not resorting to name-calling and ad hominem attacks in lieu of nothing more substantial to contribute, but really: "moderate"?

I'll add that to the list of adjectives that, due to their nebulous nature and the fact that they have no objective meaning, don't usually advance any discussion:

(1) "common sense"
(2) "reasonable"
(3) "moderate"

On another positive note, there were far fewer instances of name-calling and ad hominem attacks (even proportional to the total comments, 96 and 73), during this discussion than during the discussion eight months ago on this site that was prompted by Hannah-Beth Jackson's ludicrous campaign to ban the reproduction of an antique Civil War era hunting rifle:

Jackson Introducing Bill to Ban Specific Shotgun
http://www.independent.com/news/2013/...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 24, 2013 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The bottom line is that gun control is at its core violence against peaceful law abiding gun owners. I don't know why anybody would want to be responsible for committing violence against peaceful individuals. How that can be labeled a moderate voice is beyond me.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 24, 2013 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

POLICE AR-15 goes off in school, injures children:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?sec...

If we are going to control guns, we should control how many guns the military and police have, not peaceful citizens.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 24, 2013 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt:

I particularly enjoy the stories regarding needlessly gun-phobic ignoramuses, apparently with no interest in informing themselves of local laws, calling local law enforcement to report law-abiding gun owners open carrying in states where this is legal.

A law-abiding citizen carrying a properly secured legal gun is oh so scary, but police doing the same are not, despite the fact that one is eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 24, 2013 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CLARIFICATION: COMMENT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE

I cited the statistic above, not to suggest that the vast majority of local law enforcement (particularly sheriffs), unlike politicians, are public servants deserving of our respect (at least those who haven't been heavily militarized by the federal government and trained by mercenary groups such as Blackwater — whatever their most current name is — to treat US citizens as Israel treats Palestinians), but rather, to point out the absurdity of the terrorist-behind-every-tree and bomb-in-every-backpack nonsense promulgated by the feds and the transnational corporate media beholden to them, in order to scare the citizenry nearly witless in order to promote an agenda that very clearly has nothing to do with "protecting the children."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 24, 2013 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hannah-Beth Jackson's ludicrous campaign to ban the reproduction of an antique Civil War era hunting rifle:

Jackson Introducing Bill to Ban Specific Shotgun
http://www.independent.com/news/2013/...

That is ironic since her whole life campaign is supposedly about reproductive rights.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
October 24, 2013 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Tieber: as much as you seem to dislike the intent of the founding fathers regarding the firearms of that era, I noticed that you didn't disagree with me about firearm ownership being limited to a well regulated millitia.

buckwheat (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

buckwheat:

Regarding "as much as you seem to dislike the intent of the founding fathers regarding the firearms of that era...":

There appears to be a reading comprehension issue at your end: you've stated the exact opposite of my views, clearly and repeatedly expressed here.

Regarding "I noticed that you didn't disagree with me..."

It may not have occurred to you, but I'm not obligated to respond to every statement I disagree with.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

buckwheat, you need to learn English.

Let's pretend the 2nd amendment says:

"A nice silver colored fork, being necessary to enjoy the consumption of a well cooked meal, the right of the people to keep and bear forks shall not be infringed."

Tyrannical dictator says, "You can only have silver colored forks, and they must remain put away at all times unless you are about to eat a cooked meal!!"

Tyrannical dictator doesn't understand English, either.

The law says the right to keep and bear forks cannot be infringed, PERIOD. The beginning is a justification of why the govt. CANNOT INFRINGE ON PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR FORKS.

If somebody has a pink fork and they are eating a meal that wasn't cooked, you still cannot infringe on their right to keep and bear forks!! PERIOD! That is exactly what the sentence says, in English.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know how many of you have been paying attention, but the future of prosperity for mankind is going to be in open source 3d robot printers that can build items that we all need, including components to build more robots.

So you could buy a robot that builds components to build a house, or a car, but can also build components to build another robot, all out of the same material.

Well one of the first things this technology is being used for is to manufacture components for firearms. So for example you could build an AR-15 receiver along with some of the other components, then you just attach a few steel pieces like the barrel which are just standard threaded metal pipes that can easily be machined.

That means that in the future, anybody who is for "gun control" is going to be just as insane as anybody who is still for the war on drugs today. It will be impossible to enforce and it will be so easy to manufacture weapons that you will really need a Stasi style police state to even try and enforce the gun control laws.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

buckwheat:

loonpt's impactful Second Amendment analogy above somehow prompted me to realize that I may have wrongly assumed that your most recent comment directed to me was insincere, based, in part, by the exclamation point in your earlier comment (see below), which prompted me to wonder whether that comment was serious or sarcastic. Thus the tone of my response to your most recent comment directed to me.

And so, if your most recent comment to me was NOT insincere, I apologize for the tone of my response.

And then, going back to my response at October 23, 2013 at 7:34 p.m., reproduced below, and ignoring "…the aptly named buckwheat…" which I regret including in that response, what part of my response — and loonpt's directly above — do you dispute?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

buckwheat wrote:
"It's too bad we can't abide by the intent of the founding fathers. They believed that a well regulated millitia had the right to own firearms. What kind of firearms? Single shot muzzle loaders!"

Buckwheat:

Hopefully you are being sarcastic. If not:

Lucky for us, the founding fathers were far more intelligent than the aptly named buckwheat, producing founding documents that are respected throughout the world and widely referred to as timeless, and thus also fully-capable of understanding that firearm technology would advance, as any technology does.

And so, setting aside buckwheat's apparent misconception that muzzle loaders were the most advanced technology of the time, if the founding fathers wanted to make idiots of themselves specifying (1) the right for law-abiding citizens to own firearms, but (2) only a very particular type of obsolete firearm — they would have.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt (at October 25, 2013 at 2:17 p.m.):

This related article just came through my RSS feed just an hour ago:

So how can they ban AR-15s when there are programs to teach people how to build them from scratch?
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/10...

Regarding your point that "you will really need a Stasi style police state...":

Considering what's being revealed on nearly a daily basis regarding the massive federal surveillance apparatus directed specifically against law-abiding US citizens, and the NDAA authorizing not only any US president, but anyone he or she designates, to assassinate any US citizen essentially on a whim, which has already resulted in the assassination of four law-abiding US citizens that we're aware of (and who knows what's being done quietly) — that's clearly already in place, just not yet being used sufficiently to alarm those not paying attention

How ironic that reports today indicate that Germany (together with Brazil) has gone to the UN in an attempt to stop the US Stasi state from spying on their entire populations:

Exclusive: Germany, Brazil Turn to U.N. to Restrain American Spies
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-ger...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@DeeMack,

"Guns have become a bizarro creed of a right-wing ideology."

"The second amendment was not held by the Supreme Court to provide for an individual right to bear arms until District of Columbia v Heller, 2008."

So Governor Brown is a bizarro right-wing nut? He VETOED SB 374.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fac...

SB 374 as first proposed would have banned all semi-automatic firearms, rifle and pistol, centerfire and rimfire in California. Caused all existing to be registered as Assault Weapons, meaning no longer able to be transferred in California but could be sold out of State. So the only legal firearms would be Revolvers and Bolt-Action Rifles. The bill was amended from its daconian form several times and finally VETOED by that Right-Wing Nut Job Gov. Jerry Brown, really.

My LBGTQ friends, that own firearms, will be glad to know you consider them right-wing nuts.

My Democrat friends, that own firearms, will be glad to know that you consider them right-wing nuts.

Pre-Heller only 3 court cases involved the Second Amendment, in you care to read them, you would see, two dealt with a States Right to Discriminate against its Citizens Civil Rights.

United States v. Cruikshank, dealt with the 14th Amendment and a State right to disarm Blacks.

Presser v. Illinois, dealt with a State right to disarm German Socialists.

United States v. Miller, dealt with the National Firearms Act of 1934, a Citizen that possessed a sawed off shotgun, without paying the $200.00 tax to the Government. Miller died before the case was heard and only the Government presented its case before the Supreme Court.

Firearms Laws are seeded in Racism. The first firearms law, in the second session of the California Legislature (January 6-May 1, 1851) passed "An Act to prevent the sale or furnishing of firearms and other implements of war to Indians". Additional Laws concerned non Citizens, both Chinese and Mexicans were barred from owning or carrying firearms in California.

Please do a little research.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Guns have become a bizarro creed of a right-wing ideology."
DeeMack
-October 23, 2013 at 2:10 p.m-

@Dee Mack: The following three groups refute the stereotype of guns owners being testosterone-crazed Rednecks.

jpfo.org/‎ (Jews)

www.2asisters.org/ (Women)

http://www.pinkpistols.org/ (Gays)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loonpt: Your
October 25, 2013 at 12:08 p.m. was spot-on. The problem with those who oppose us on this issue is that they are idealists--not that being an idealist is in-and-of-itself a bad thing, but they are run by emotion, not logic.

These are people who obfuscate the issue by trying to get us off topic with long drawn-out explanations about how complicated the issue is, when it's very simple. They laugh at people who claim to have a direct line to God yet they claim to have clairvoyance by telling us they know more about what the Founding Fathers *intended*, than the simple message so well articulated that they wrote in the Bill Of Rights.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Now don't ya'll feel better, Hannah Beth "The Skunk" Jackson is say'in, "I from the gumbermint and I'm here to help!!"

Priceless (anonymous profile)
October 21, 2013 at 7:54 a.m.

She USED to have a sort of mephitidae classification, but now her hair has blended into a more pleasant shade of grey-white.

Before: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_h0PzJ_pVJyc...

After: (New and improved) http://magazine.scrippscollege.edu/fi...

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Today --

Law-abiding California homeowner defends himself, with just one shot killing one armed home invader and sending the second to prison for 27 years for felony murder.

(Story doesn't indicate whether the gun he used was one of those that Hannah-Beth Jackson or Dianne Feinstein tried to ban.)

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/10...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 25, 2013 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

careful Tieber, higher above you wrote about how you "particularly enjoy the stories regarding needlessly gun-phobic ignoramuses" but here you ref a "gun-friendly story" about some guy successfully defending his home... good for this fellow, but such anecdotal incidents are meaningless, as I think you tried to say higher up. Try to be consistent in your screed for gun rights. At least DeeMack is writing, and moderately, about gun safety.
And don't worry, your sacred 2nd Amendment is fine, try to relax.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 26, 2013 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan:

I can't begin to imagine how it was not readily apparent to you that by "needlessly gun-phobic ignoramuses" in the comment you cite, I was referring to citizens in right to carry states who are needlessly scared about legal firearms properly secured in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and that I deemed them "ignoramuses" because they're not just ignorant of the laws of their locality, but willfully ignorant, considering that a few clicks at a computer would assure them that not only no crime is being committed, but that there's no grounds to be suspicious in those localities of a citizen walking down the street with a legal weapon properly secured in full view.

I can't even begin to imagine how you manage to connect that to my comment at October 25, 2013 at 11:03 p.m.

Regarding anecdotal situations, and setting aside your incorrect claim that they are "meaningless" which, incidentally, I've never written: nothing in my comment regarding that event states that the event is NOT anecdotal; in addition, perhaps you failed to notice that I was not suggesting that political hacks immediately crawl out for a photo op, with which they attempt to develop public policy on the basis of that one emotional event.

A more careful reading of that comment might — possibly — reveal to you that the primary purpose of that comment (perhaps too subtle for you) was to point out that, had that law-abiding California gun owner who chose to take responsibility for his own safety within his own home owned a firearm that fear-mongering political hacks such as Hannah-Beth Jackson or Dianne Feinstein had been successful in banning, the law-abiding and responsible citizen might be dead, rather than one violent armed criminal dead and one off the streets for up to 27 years.

I'll add "screed" to the list I"m maintaining for you (because, interestingly enough, you're responsible for introducing at least two of the four into this discussion) of words that do not normally contribute usefully to any discussion:

(1) "common sense"
(2) "reasonable"
(3) "moderate"
(4) "screed"

Note that the first three are modifiers, but the most recent is a noun, which might indicate that you are escalating.

...THIS COMMENT CONCLUDED IN NEXT COMMENT...

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 26, 2013 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

...CONCLUSION OF COMMENT ABOVE...

The bulk of your comment at October 26, 2013 at 9:04 a.m. above constitutes what is most commonly referred to as a "straw man" argument. You can read about that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_ma...

Your incorrectly capitalized salutation ("careful Tieber" ), and your final sentence, at least in the aggregate, appear to constitute an ad hominem fallacy, though some may argue that they do not, which is fine with me. You can read about ad hominem fallacies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You'll also find Paul Graham's colorful 'Hierarchy of Disagreement' pyramid at the link above.

You can read more about Paul Graham, and find a larger version of his 'Hierarchy of Disagreement' pyramid, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gra...)

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 26, 2013 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thanks for your condescension and arrogant attitude, JohnTieber, my you're such the pedagogue!... Your tendentious screed utilizes nasty terms like "fear-mongering political hacks" in referring to elected officials so...who is in the gutter here? Try cleaning up your act a bit there, John.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 26, 2013 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan:

You might be conflating remarks directed at public figures with remarks responding to specific participants in this discussion. Even if not, you seem to have somehow misunderstood the primary purpose of my two-part comment beginning at October 26, 2013 at 12:10 p.m., which was, simply, to:

(1) correct your misreadings of two of my comments plainly evident in your comment at October 26, 2013 at 9:04 a.m.

and

(2) inform you that the bulk of that comment, regardless of whether you are cognizant of that or not, clearly constitutes a straw man argument, and that the salutation, "careful Tieber," as well as the final sentence, most particularly the phrase "try to relax", at least in the aggregate seem to constitute an ad hominem fallacy.

As a courtesy to you, I even invested additional time finding and posting links regarding these terms, in the event you were not familiar with them.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 26, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NOTE TO ANY OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THIS DISCUSSION:

In deference to other participants, normally I would not engage in an extended off-topic discussion that is likely of interest to only two people; I'm doing so now only because I strongly suspect, considering the discussion as a whole is six days old, that virtually no one else is currently participating.

I'm willing to further engage DrDan positively, at least one more time, should he or she (most probably he, but there is "Dan" as a shortened form of "Danielle") feel it worthwhile, but I'd much prefer discussing the substance of what I actually wrote at October 25, 2013 at 11:03 p.m. or, even better, any recent comments from others prior to that.

So if anyone wants to do that, please don't feel inhibited by these most recent five comments between myself and DrDan, or any that follow.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 26, 2013 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://jpfo.org/

I had first posted the wrong link.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 26, 2013 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill:

Clicking through "Learn about the underlying data" at your link directly above, I found:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Principal among the facts that Wolfgang was disappointed to learn, is that Guns are used for self-defense between 2.1 Million and 2.5 Million times every year. The following facts from the Kleck/Gertz study, relate directly to this fact.

• In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.

• In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.

• Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.

• As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.

• Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.

• This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life.

• At an estimated 263 million US population, in 1995, when the study was released, it also means that an average of 1 out of every 105 to 125 people that you know will use a gun for self-defense every year.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note particularly, two bullet points up from the bottom:

"This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life. "

That actually seems very high to me. It's not at all difficult to criticize any particular study, and many have disputed Kleck/Gertz. So one can quibble about the numbers, but at an absolute minimum, it cannot be denied that firearms protect far more lives than they destroy — even without factoring out gangs killing each other, etc.

Note also the second point; again, one could quibble about the exact numbers, but I doubt it can be refuted that, most often, in a self-defense scenario, a law-abiding citizen is able to protect his or her own life without firing a shot.

Even Joe Biden promoted a shotgun as a home defense firearm (though it was in the context of his silly attempt to suggest that no one "needed" a far better lightweight modern rifle for that purpose, such as an AR-15 or similar, much easier for small statured people, such as many women, to handle, and much less recoil, therefore easier to aim and thus safer to use than a shotgun in close quarters).

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 26, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan wrote, at October 26, 2013 at 9:04 a.m.:

"careful Tieber…Try to be consistent…At least DeeMack is writing, and moderately, about gun safety.
And don't worry...try to relax."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The term, "gun safety," as DrDan apparently is unaware, refers to the proficient handling, maintenance, use, and storage of firearms. DeeMack, commendably, did not focus on that very narrow issue at the expense of the broader issues being discussed here.

DeeMack's views and misinformation (the latter perhaps unintentional), as well as his or her inflammatory rhetoric ("Guns have become a bizarro creed of a right-wing ideology.") demonizing 80-100 law-abiding US citizens, has been more than adequately refuted by five participants here, and without, incidentally and commendably, resorting to puerile and silly nanny-like commands ("[be] careful," "try to be consistent," "don't worry," and "try to relax"), as DrDan defaulted to, in his comment I reproduce excerpts from above.

With nearly 100 comments in this discussion at this writing, the DeeMack material can be most easily accessed, of course, by doing a page search (command-F) for "DeeMack" (without the quotes), and pressing "return" to scroll through the 14 results.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Using the term "nanny" above brought to mind Billionaire New York Mayor Michael "Bloomie" Bloomberg.

For any who may have missed it previously in this discussion:

A new group, 'Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors', suggests that, due to the surprising number of criminally convicted mayors that are members, Bloomberg's group, 'Mayors Against Illegal Guns,' would be more aptly named: 'Illegal Mayors Against Guns.'

You can access rap sheets for eleven members of Bloomberg's group, as well as a one-page flyer featuring eighteen, by doing a page search as detailed above, searching for "Bloomberg."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 27, 2013 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CORRECTION
(probably not needed by most, but perhaps still some ;-) ):

...demonizing 80-100 law-abiding US citizens...

should have been:

demonizing 80-100 MILLION law-abiding US citizens

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 27, 2013 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

More proof that people who believe in the use of guns aren't crazy Rednecks:
https://www.google.com/#q=dalai+lama+...

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 27, 2013 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

localized gun bans don't work, obviously. what good is a banned gun in chicago if you can drive out of the city limits and buy them unrestricted? look at the number of chicago handgun murders by guns purchased in the state of alabama. that will paint a more clear picture of the problem for ya.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
October 29, 2013 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

StockiestCastle:

It's not clear to me from your comment directly above whether you are for or against unconstitutional firearm bans, though I suspect the latter, based on your comment here nine days ago.

If that is the case, then your "more clear" picture claimed above was refuted eight days ago, with:

(1) six charts posted at October 21, 2013 at 10:22 a.m. (especially the first, from the US Department of Justice)

(2) one infographic posted at October 21, 2013 at 4:49 p.m.

(3) seven articles also posted at October 21, 2013 at 4:49 p.m.

Regarding (3) above, four of those seven articles describe studies by:

• US Department of Justice
• US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
• Pew Research Center
• Harvard University

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 29, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The much bigger picture related to attempts to disarm American citizens.

Obama may have been purposely chosen to be placed in the White House as an unconstitutional president, possibly to usher in a new era of global Marxism. Beginning in 2003, members of Congress, primarily Democrats, made eight attempts in 22 months to either remove the clause in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, of the US Constitution, requiring that all presidential candidates be natural-born citizens of the United States, or to redefine natural-born citizen, eliminating the requirement that the president be born to 2 legitimate American citizens. The failure of these 8 attempts required that the DNC remove the following language from the 2008 Obama/Biden certification;

"and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution"

http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/#Lb...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR...

US Army Major General Paul Valelly
“Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,”
wnd.com/2013/10/obama-gutting-military-by-purging-generals/#Bu4r0DvYu9Gmm2As.99

14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 29, 2013 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

N.Y. Mayor Bloomberg becomes first 'Jewish Nobel Prize' winner
Genesis Prize aims to recognize people 'whose values and achievements will inspire the next generations of Jews,' New York Times reports.http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.553594

96-97% of the ownership of US media, the corporations mentioned in previous posts, are controlled by Zionists.

Mysterious Deaths of Key 9 11 Witnesses Full Documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikRmje...

Check out dual US/Israel citizenship among members of Bush and Obama administrations.
The 2nd amendment is extremely important. The entire US Constitution is more important.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 29, 2013 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

" Beginning in 2003, members of Congress, primarily Democrats, made eight attempts in 22 months to either remove the clause in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, of the US Constitution, requiring that all presidential candidates be natural-born citizens of the United States, or to redefine natural-born citizen, eliminating the requirement that the president be born to 2 legitimate American citizens. "

Please could you a post a link to a report of this complete and utter nonsense (coming from WND, no wonder it is nonsense.) If this was true, it would have been all over the news.

There is no requirement that the president be born to 2 legitimate American citizens.

Otherwise, why would Ted Cruz be trying to run for President?

"Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta,[1][10] where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson Darragh[10][11][12][13][14][15] and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz,[13][14] were working in the oil business.[16][17] Cruz's father, who was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba,[13][14] . Cruz's mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware,[14] in a family of Irish and Italian descent.[12][17]"

tabatha (anonymous profile)
October 29, 2013 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama is not cutting military spending; in fact he increased the military budget before sequester was passed by Republicans and Democrats in Congress. You do know that Congress holds the purse strings, and that the House is controlled by Republicans, and only Congress can gut any military spending.

Please, before you post stuff from the deranged (WND) go to Factcheck, Snopes and Politifact.

This is from Factcheck.

"The threat of deep defense cuts is real. It dates to the summer of 2011, when the federal government was approaching its borrowing limit. Congress needed to act or the government would run out of money and the ability to borrow more money. Republicans insisted on spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

The result of the bipartisan negotiations was the Budget Control Act of 2011 — which the Republican-controlled House passed 269-161 on Aug. 1 and the Democratic-controlled Senate easily passed the next day, 74-26. President Obama signed the law Aug. 2.

The law imposed spending caps on discretionary spending through 2021 that are supposed to save $917 billion over 10 years, including $21 billion this year and $42 billion next year, according to an August 2011 analysis (Table 3) by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The law also created a special bipartisan congressional committee charged with finding at least $1.5 trillion in additional savings over 10 years. If, however, the so-called super committee could not agree on a deficit-reduction plan, then the law required $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts, beginning in January. The automatic cuts would be roughly evenly divided between defense and domestic spending.
No agreement was reached, and now $492 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending authority over the next 10 years are looming, beginning with $55 billion in January.

The White House and the Congress hope to negotiate a new agreement to prevent the automatic cuts from taking place, although such an agreement may still result in some defense cuts."

NOTE - "Republicans insisted on spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling."

tabatha (anonymous profile)
October 29, 2013 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thanks for some sanity in this string of crazed posts, tabatha.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 4:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sure how this thread got on Obama's citizenship but I'll take on the issue.

It was always my understanding--and according to what I have read recently my understanding is correct--that if ONE parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of one's birth, that person is automatically a U.S. citizen even if they are born on the moon therefore Barack Obama was eligable to run for president. (Since nobody has disputed that his mother was an American)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 5:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, agreed. Just one US citizen parent requirement.

And Obama has one better than Cruz.

Cruz was born in Canada; Obama in Hawaii, US.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill wrote:
"I'm not sure how this thread got on Obama's citizenship..."

Likewise, and though I'm no fan of Obama (or, for that matter, any US president at least since Eisenhower, all of whom have been war criminals to at least some extent), I'm in agreement here with Tabatha, Bill, and DrDan, assuming by "string of crazed posts", DrDan was referring to the two most recent posts by 14noscams.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
October 30, 2013 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

john, i'm not for "disarming" law abiding citizens. As a former student member of WCGC and a responsible gun owner i personally have no problem registering, insuring and proving my proficiency on a regular basis. there's a disconnect between the NRA rhetoric and the reality of the detriment to society that is gun ownership. i drive a car and i understand that i do not operate in a vacuum while driving my vehicle, therefore i pay my insurance, registration and keep my vehicle in satisfactory condition for operating on shared roadways. i pay into a system because i am self aware and cognizant that my actions affect the lives of others. guns are no different, millions of lives are destroyed, think about the ripple effect of 100k people being wounded or killed by firearms annually, and hundreds of millions of dollars are sunk into gunshot trauma centers and emergency rooms alone. i am just asking that firearm owners, myself included, think about the big picture and what in reality their cost to society at large and non-gun owners might be. one, especially someone with rudimentary critical thinking abilities, cannot tell me their "hobby" comes at no cost.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
November 3, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JT, StCstle made it clear with his comment -- "i am just asking that firearm owners, myself included, think about the big picture and what in reality their cost to society at large and non-gun owners might be. one, especially someone with rudimentary critical thinking abilities, cannot tell me their "hobby" comes at no cost" -- that a more consistent gun control set of laws is needed, NOT disarming everyone as so many fiercely assert time and again. This is what Wellen et al. are discussing. It is healthy debate, and after all we now number 310 million Americans strong.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
November 3, 2013 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

glad someone is open to intelligent conversation, DrDan. i don't know why this conversation is so difficult to have with some people. it's a cost benefit issue at the most simple of levels but any reference to regulation sets of the "dey wants to take our gunzzzzzzzz" whining.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2013 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stockies, maybe I can help explain because there are a lot of reasons why many people are opposed to what many others refer to as "common sense gun regulation". I am highly opposed to any type of gun regulations.

Let's begin with the future. The future is now.

People have built 3D printers that can print out all of the parts needed for a gun, or another 3D printer. But the 3D printers can also print out an assortment of legal and useful tools and other items. That means people are going to be able to manufacture their own guns in their own home soon. The amount of invasiveness that will be required to enforce gun laws when people can make them at home is going to be unacceptable from a civil liberties standpoint.

Enforcing gun regulations requires a few things:

1. Enforcement, which requires violence

2. Government lists of persons

3. Breaches of privacy

Let's talk about natural rights. Everybody has the natural right to defend themselves and their property against aggressors. Guns do a good job of this because guns are an equalizer. A 5'1" 100 lb. woman can defend herself against a 6'4" 250 lb. man with a gun. Crime is lower in areas where there is less gun control because criminals know that their victims may have a gun. The most amount of gun violence occurs in areas with very strict gun control and NO GUN zones. This is because perpetrators know that victims will not be armed.

Which brings me to a major point - criminals don't follow the law, criminals will always have guns. Gun control does a horrible job at taking away guns from criminals, it does a much better job at taking away guns from peaceful non-violent citizens.

Let's get back to natural rights. I should have the right to defend myself and I don't think that I should have to put my name on a government list to do so. I believe our government has the infrastructure setup to store millions and millions of people in FEMA camps like in the Holocaust. I believe our government has become very dangerous. I want to be able to defend myself and I don't want to be on a government list where they may come and place me in a FEMA camp because of my political beliefs or because I own a gun.

Lastly, you should tell all of your government regulation mumbo jumbo to this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LwR0...

What a hero.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2013 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to reference the following article in relation to the topic of government maintaining lists in order to later inflict tyranny from my above posting:

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/a...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: