17 Jan

Obama’s anti-gun sideshow

                                       

So Obama trotted out some kids yesterday to tell the world that he “respects” the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution but doesn’t really believe in it.

Rick Perry encapsulated this sideshow perfectly:

“In fact, the piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The second amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.”

Obama hiding behind those kids was utterly despicable, and a tactic used by others in history. Equally disgusting was when then this “Constitutional scholar” described the 2nd Amendment:

Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection.

I’ll show you why the 2nd Amendment was written:

YouTube Preview Image

Most of his executive orders are in the order of strengthen this, strengthen that, but in the end it will do nothing to prevent a criminal or a nutcase from obtaining any weapon they want. The black market of stolen/smuggled guns is alive and well and getting a large capacity magazine or “assault weapon” will be as hard as getting rock cocaine from your local friendly drug pusher.

Ace:

Obama is now calling for 10 round limit on magazines. No word if he’s calling for outlawing “reloading”.

And of course he wants to go after “assault weapons” even though he has no idea what an “assault weapon” is.

Larry Correia broke this kind of ban down the best:

We need to ban automatic weapons.

Okay. Done. In fact, we pretty much did that in 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it so that you had to pay a $200 tax on a machinegun and register it with the government. In 1986 that registry was closed and there have been no new legal machineguns for civilians to own since then.
Automatic means that when you hold down the trigger the gun keeps on shooting until you let go or run out of ammo. Actual automatic weapons cost a lot of money. The cheapest one you can get right now is around $5,000 as they are all collector’s items and you need to jump through a lot of legal hoops to get one. To the best of my knowledge, there has only ever been one crime committed with an NFA weapon in my lifetime, and in that case the perp was a cop.

Now are machineguns still used in crimes? Why, yes they are. For every legally registered one, there are conservatively dozens of illegal ones in the hands of criminals. They either make their own (which is not hard to do) or they are smuggled in (usually by the same people that are able to smuggle in thousands of tons of drugs). Because really serious criminals simply don’t care, they are able to get ahold of military weapons, and they use them simply because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. So even an item which has been basically banned since my grandparents were kids, and which there has been no new ones allowed manufactured since I was in elementary school, still ends up in the hands of criminals who really want one. This will go to show how effective government bans are.

When you say “automatic” you mean full auto, as in a machinegun. What I think most of these people mean is semi-auto.

Okay. We need to ban semi-automatic weapons!

Semi-automatic means that each time you pull the trigger the action cycles and loads another round. This is the single most common type of gun, not just in America, but in the whole world. Almost all handguns are semi-automatic. The vast majority of weapons used for self-defense are semi-automatic, as are almost all the weapons used by police officers. It is the most common because it is normally the most effective.

Semi-automatic is usually best choice for defensive use. It is easier to use because you can do so one handed if necessary, and you are forced to manipulate your weapon less. If you believe that using a gun for self-defense is necessary, then you pretty much have to say that semi-auto is okay.

They cannot ban semi-auto weapons unless they violate our Constitution. They can try to ban weapons based on flash-suppressors and threaded barrels or how scary they look but this will do NOTHING to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals. And trying to ban these weapons on the federal level is questionable.

Constitutional law expert Adam Freedman:

The president on Wednesday announced his push for a new assault weapons ban. A bill from Sen. Dianne Feinstein would basically outlaw semiautomatic guns with magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Asked if this would infringe upon the Second Amendment as gun proponents say, Freedman tells Newsmax: “It’s not clear from the White House’s statement that what they’re doing is going to back the Feinstein bill. But if that’s what the president means, because he says he wants to reenact and strengthen the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, if he means the Feinstein bill, then yes, I think we probably do have a Second Amendment problem here.

“The Second Amendment really prohibits in practice government at state or federal level prohibiting entire classes of weapons. Most weapons today are semiautomatic, which means that you don’t have to reload or re-cock the trigger in between each squeeze of the trigger. So the Feinstein bill gets closer and closer to a bill that really defines assault weapons in terms of virtually all semiautomatic weapons. They simply have to be capable of having the attachable clip and have just one other characteristic which Congress deems to be military in style.

“When you get to that point you’re really sweeping in the vast majority of weapons that law-abiding citizens use for their own self-protection.”

New York State on Tuesday passed sweeping limits on guns that include a ban on assault weapons.

“We can expect legal challenges” to parts of the law, says Freedman.

“There’s an obvious challenge to the way that the New York Assembly drafted the ammunition clip prohibition, because they set a maximum size of ammunition clips at seven rounds. The fact is such clips are almost unheard of. Ten rounds is the standard sort of minimum size for detachable clips, according to what I read.

“Even Sen. Feinstein’s proposed legislation, as I understand it, would preserve the ability to have 10-round clips. But New York by mandating a seven-round clip, which is a creature that basically doesn’t exist, is arguably just trying to outlaw semiautomatic weapons and there they’re on really shaky Second Amendment grounds.”

As for the rest of his executive orders it’s all window dressing. Strengthen background checks? Sure…but the Newtown shooter was already blocked from buying weapons. But surprise surprise, he got them anyway. “Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime”….okay, I guess we should start with Eric Holder.

Hire school resource officers?

Hmmmmm….I seem to recall the NRA calling for that.

This was all a sideshow, and he used kids to do it

Exit quote:

Now, the 23 executive orders Barack Obama signed that are aimed at “reducing gun violence” could be considered, at worst, cynically political or, at best, completely useless. But the way Obama treats the process, children, the debate, the Constitution and the American people is another story. Sen. Rand Paul recently remarked that “someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress — that’s someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.” That may be a bit hyperbolic, but it is also a bit true.

“There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America,” lectured Obama, “who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection.” (Or — as it must have slipped the president’s mind — the right to put a gun in a case labeled “open in case of tyranny.”) The president went on to profess that he believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. If this were true for Obama, who was once a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, why would he attempt to restrict a right that is explicitly laid out in the Bill of Rights (even if it were eminently sensible) without putting it through the republican wringer — the deliberation, the checks and balances, all of it?

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, Congress, Constitution, Dumb Laws, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, POWER GRAB!. Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, January 17th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
| 865 views

54 Responses to Obama’s anti-gun sideshow

  1. Nan G says: 1

    Has the alternate media on the web figured out who those 4 kids were yet?
    Who their parents are?
    Donors to Obama?
    Members of the teachers union?
    SEIU members?

    ReplyReply
  2. Hard Right says: 2

    Hey Publisher wouldn’t play nice so I posted this here as it seemed to fit.

    In my time on this planet, I have watched many attempts to ban large numbers of firearms thru the use of trojan horse legislation. On the surface the proposals sound reasonable, yet are anything but. The following will be what I have witnessesd in that time, an explanation of “the catch”, and what the result would have been. I won’t pretend this is the gospel as much of what happened back in the 80’s with gun control has fallen into the Google memory hole. What you see is based off of memory.

    SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS- Saturday Night Specials are handguns that were accused of being “cheap junk”. The left claimed they were disproportionally used in crime. (sound familiar?) It was even claimed they were almost as deadly to the user as intended victim. It was a bogus claim as injury attorneys would have had an orgasm and many huge paydays over such items being mass produced. As many of the alleged “junk guns” were made of zinc that would melt at lowere temps, they proposed a melt test ban. Firearms that melted at a certain temp would be considered to have failed a temperature melt test and be banned.

    THE CATCH: At the time of this proposal, many firearms were made up of alloys. Some of these firearms cost as much as $1000.

    THE RESULT: Many handguns would have been banned. Even high quality handguns would have fallen victim. Also, it would have driven prices of the remaining handguns up as there would be fewer of them available and/or as the manufactuerers passed the cost of using more steel along.

    HANDGUNDS INVISIBLE TO X-RAYS/METAL DETECTORS- When the Glocks first came to prominence, the gun banners and media went insane. I remember watching the evening news claim Qadaffi’s henchmen were trying to obtain Glocks since they would be invisble to airport x-ray machines and metal detectors. The left proposed to ban all fierearms that were not made of a certain percentage of steel.

    THE CATCH: Again, many firearms, including high end ones were made up of metal alloys.

    THE RESULT: A large number of handguns would have been banned, and the cost of the remaining firearms would have gone up as the manufactuerers used materials that would pass the test. FYI, Glocks contain over a pound of metal and even the polymer frame stripped of all metal, shows up in an x-ray. I know because I have seen it with my own eyes.

    ARMOR PIERCING BULLETS- When “KTW” armor piercing bullets were created, the left saw another opportunity to attack the Second Amendment. They wanted to ban all cartridges capable of piercing a bullet resistant vest.

    THE CATCH: There are different types of vests with different levels of protection and they did not distinguish between them and the various cartridges. There are vests that are rated only to stop handgun bullets of a certain caliber, weight, and velocity. There are others designed to stop rifle bullets.

    THE RESULT: Because various rifle bullets popularly used in hunting deer, elk, and moose were capable of piercing a bullet resistant vest meant only to stop handgun bullets, said cartridges would have been banned. That means goodbye, 30-30, .308, .270, .30-06, etc. It would also have banned ammo for many handguns. BTW, those “KTW” bullets were not made available to the public for sale – ever.

    ASSAULT RIFLES- A true assault rifle is used by the military, and can be fired on semi-automatic and full automatic. The left likes to pretend military style semi-autos are machine guns and that they are more powerful than non-military style rifles. They want them banned due to pistol grips, bayonet lugs, claims they are meant only to kill large numbers of people, magazine capacity, and no good for hunting.

    THE CATCH: They are not machine guns, pistol grips do not make them more accurate or deadly, they are usually less powerful than comparable bolt action rifles, are used for hunting, magazine capacity is irrelevent, and are not designed to kill, let alone kill large numbers of people. They are designed to wound.

    THE RESULT: Many rifles used in hunting, target shooting, and self defense would be banned primarily due to cosmetic features and blatant dishonesty.

    The first military style semi-auto I ever bought was a Chinese SKS. At the time they were hitting the American market in large numbers at low prices $79-$99. I went to a the largest gun store in AZ at the time and it was like watching a shark feeding frenzy with all the buyers. What surprised me was how many of those buyers were planning to use them to go deer hunting. About least half of those buying. All you had to do was switch out the 10 round magazine for a 5 round and you were good to go. As I later learned the 7.62×39 cartridge was considered a midrange cartridge as far as power was concerned (not high power). In fact, one load is equivalent to the popular 30-30 cartridge, which has seen it’s fair share of deer taken.
    The AR-15 is used in NRA sanctioned shooting matches, as is the M-14 (M1A). The AR is also a popular “varmint” rifle. That means animals like rabbit, prarie dog, etc. are hunted with it. Then there are the self defense loads for the afformentioned rifles. They meet every definition of sporting uses etc.

    FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT MEAN MACHINE GUNS/SEMI-AUTOS- The left likes to claim that the founding fathers could never have imagined semi-autos, or even machine guns and therefore they should be banned from civilain ownership.

    THE CATCH: I would like to start off by saying, buwhahahahahahaha! A “skilled” soldier could fire 3 shots in a minute. That meant a very practiced individual could fire one shot every 20 seconds. So you have just shot a grizzly and succeeded only in wounding it. IT IS NOW CHARGING YOU. Considering they can cover 50 yards faster than a horse (3.5 seconds), you had better have another loaded rifle handy. We are to believe that the founding fathers and other humans could not imagine a rifle where they had the ability to simply pull the trigger again and fire another shot? Or that they couldn’t imagine a stream of bullets with one pul of the trigger?

    THE RESULT: Anything other than a muzzle loading rifle/handgun would be banned. On top of that, other rights in the Constitution would be drastically rolled back due to the fallacy that the writers of the Constitution couldn’t imagine some of the technology we have today and therefore is not protected.

    So when some libtard tells me I’m being paranoid about firearms being banned, I know they are either lying, or ignorant.

    ReplyReply
  3. Smorgasbord says: 3

    The only way a gun becomes dangerous, is when the wrong person is holding it.

    ReplyReply
  4. Tom says: 4

    Obama hiding behind those kids was utterly despicable, and a tactic used by others in history (gratuitous picture of Stalin!).

    Hilarious. A President signing something with children standing around, a nice little photo-op, this is somehow rare, you say? “Stalinist”, perhaps? Paranoid and hysterical much, are we? Come back to reality. Or at least weigh in on the NRA featuring Obama’s daughters in a reprehensible, shrill, illogical attack ad. Just the tiniest bit of self awareness, the slightest apprehension of irony, could go a long way toward appearing within ten light years of rational.

    As for the rest of his executive orders it’s all window dressing. Strengthen background checks? Sure…but the Newtown shooter was already blocked from buying weapons. But surprise surprise, he got them anyway.

    Background checks aren’t an executive order. The guy who’s exactly like Stalin is asking Congress to do that. (Was Stalin big on asking, I wonder?) And if you’re going to cherry pick one of Obama’s suggestions and argue it wouldn’t have stopped that killer with the AR-15 and extended clip in Newtown, I notice that you forgot to mention his suggestions for an an assault weapons ban and 10 round limits on magazines.

    Clearly some people will never go for an assault weapons ban, but what is the argument against universal background checks? Let’s see, the idea is overwhelmingly popular. 9 in 10 Americans, including gun households, support the idea. It would clearly be a crime deterrent, considering “nearly 80 percent of guns used in crimes are obtained on this secondary market.” And what is the price of universal background checks to law abiding citizens? Simple inconvenience, the same we’re all used to facing at the DMV. The fact that the NRA cannot get behind a popular and potentially beneficial strategy that causes only minimal inconvenience speaks volumes to how little that organization cares about public safety, or anything really other than driving gun sales (I wonder why?$?$?$).

    ReplyReply
  5. Nan G says: 5

    @Tom:
    Hillary campaigned for HillaryCare when her husband was president.
    As you might recall she kept a little girl close by.
    The little girl had some unspecified ailment that had defied diagnosis.
    The little girl gave Hillary a ”lucky silver dollar,” to help get HillaryCare passed.

    Turned out that little girl’s mom was lying to doctors and forcing all sorts of unecessary tests and operations on her daughter.
    Mom also used the little girl’s notareity to get cash which mom used to buy herself VERY NICE stuff!
    Mom got sentenced to 5 years.

    There was another little girl Hillary used.
    She claimed she needed asylum in order to avoid forced genital mutilation.
    She claimed to be of a leading family in northern Africa where Islam was making great inroads.
    Turned out she was really a maid who had overstayed her visa.

    Children are USED both by the politicians and by their own parents.

    ReplyReply
  6. Tom says: 6

    @Nan G:

    And are they used by the NRA?

    ReplyReply
  7. Nan G says: 7

    Tom,
    ANY school Obama might send their kids to would be bucked up by armed SS.
    However, Sidwell Friends Quaker school carries 11 people on the payroll for armed security whether of not a president’s kid in enrolled.
    The NRA simply pointed out the vacuousness of Obama’s 23 gun control sideshow ideas by making it clear all 23 wouldn’t save one child’s life in a ”gun free” school.
    The whole hypocrisy of limosine liberals and their ”laws are for thee but not for me,” philosophy rang true in pointing that out.

    Obama likes to put a finger to the wind before doing anything (see the dead hostages?) so he waited and gun control heat died……
    Most Americans are fine with armed guards in schools – and most find it more effective than new gun laws:

    …a majority of Americans (54%-45%) favor armed guards in every school in the country although that proposal does not restrict guns in any way, and why a plurality (47%-40%) say that armed guards would do more to reduce gun violence in schools than stricter gun control laws would.

    ReplyReply
  8. Hard Right says: 8

    Tom knows all about shrill, hysterical, and illogical attacks since that’s all he’s done since he came here.

    ReplyReply
  9. Smorgasbord says: 9

    Let’s leave the using the kids this way: There are people on both sides who will do things that the general public don’t like. I think I can safely say that we all have done or said things we thought was the right thing to do or say in THAT situation, only to find out that most people didn’t like it. The difference, in my opinion, is that liberals tend to go too far. For example, how many times have conservatives compared a liberal to a communist figure, compared to how many times liberals have compared a conservative to a communist figures? How many times have you heard a conservative threaten a liberal, or wish them harm, or use gutter language, compared to how many times the liberals do?

    This is one reason I don’t want anything to do with any of the politicians. Few politicians in congress are there for WE THE PEOPLE, whether their democrat, republican, or independent. Let’s quit quibbling over stuff that doesn’t matter, as far as WE THE PEOPLE are concerned, and start quibbling about:

    (1) Your Social Security going to other people. It was meant for retirees. Has YOUR politician introduced a bill that would put it back in an interest-drawing account, like it used to be, and have it go out only to those who pay into it? NO! I have contacted all of my federal reps, who are all republican, and none of them feel OUR money should be set aside for OUR RETIREMENT.

    (2) Requiring a balanced budget. Has YOUR politician introduced legislation to REQUIRE a balanced budget? The democrats haven’t had a budget since obama was elected. For you democrats, is that OK with you?

    (3) Reducing spending. Congress spends the money, not the president. The majority of politicians have to pass the spending bills for them to become law. Did YOUR politician vote for more spending?

    (4) Borrowing all of the money we are borrowing. Why aren’t we making payments on loans we have? If we never borrow another penny, the national debt will keep increasing, because YOUR politicians aren’t even paying on the interest. Are you OK with that? Most of the federal budget is now going to the different kinds of welfare. Are you OK with YOUR politician borrowing more money so more people can go on welfare?

    There are a lot of GOOD things to quibble about. Let’s pick things that are WORTH quibbling about.

    ReplyReply
  10. retire05 says: 10

    @Tom:

    Hilarious. A President signing something with children standing around, a nice little photo-op, this is somehow rare, you say?

    Actually, it is not rare. Every tin pot dictator in the history of the world has surrounded themselves with children. Why?

    “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

    Nevermind that Obama used his own children in campaign emails, putting them front and center. If his children have no place in the political arena, he should not be using them as props for his campaign.

    Let us not forget that this is not the first time that Obama has claimed elitist status for his children. He refused to support the charter school program in D.C. that allowed mostly black children from the ghettos to attend private schools and gain an excellent education. He felt that the D.C. public schools were perfectly fine for those kids, yet, he sends his kids to a tony private school. The NRA ad was right on the mark (had it not been, you wouldn’t see progressives whining about it) that while Obama demands special priviledges for his own children, including the assignment of eleven Secret Service agents to Sidley, he will deny those same priviledges for your children. Are we to assume that the lives of his children are move valuable than the lives of your children simply because of the accident of their birth?

    And what is the price of universal background checks to law abiding citizens? Simple inconvenience, the same we’re all used to facing at the DMV.

    Are you trying to throw that b/s out that in order to get a driver’s license, the DMV does a criminal background check on you and if you have a felony, or any record of mental illness, you are incapable of getting a driver’s license? You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. But let’s look at the absurdity of the article you linked:

    2) Giving federal law enforcement more power to trace guns could also matter a lot. At the moment, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has a limited ability to share its data on where guns actually come fron — and it can’t keep computerized records. ”

    Well, golly gee, perhaps that is a good rule, and the Congress can use it to trace the guns that the ATF forced legitimate gun dealers to sell to straw purchasers that supplied those weapons to the Mexican drug cartels. You know, the over 2,000 guns that the AFT and DoJ seems to be having trouble locating? Oh, that’s right; the DoJ did find one of them. The one used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

    Not one thing Obama proposed in his 23 bullet point feel good talking points addressed the criminal aspect of guns. No stronger laws to punish those who commit crimes with the use of a firearm. No plan to get guns out of the hands of the gangbangers in L.A. or Chicago. No stronger punishment for those who steal guns from private, law abiding, legal gun owners. His “solutions” are nothing more than more restrictions on those of us who legally own weapons, just like the problem of uninsured motorists was dumped on the insured motorist by causing us to carry “uninsured” motorist insurance cover in case one of Obama’s beloved illegals slam into our vehicles.

    You see, Tom, the point that seems to elude you is that those who commit crimes with guns, are not going to pay attention to any new laws any more than they pay attention to current laws. That is why they are called “criminals.” How did that gun “free” zone law work out at Columbine and Newtown? So someone hell bent on destruction is going to stop and say to themselves “Oh, wait, I can’t take my gun into that school. It’s gun “free.”” Obviously, that is the mindset of the progressive whose actual goal is to take the guns out of the hands of those of us who DO abide by the laws already on the books.

    If Obama wants to use his children as props for money raising, he has to be ready to understand that it is he who is putting them out in the public realm, not the NRA, and with that action comes a reaction. His children are no more valuable that yours, or mine, just because they are his. He damn sure did not seem to bothered when his party went after Sarah Palin’s children.

    But there are those of you who will gladly forfeit your Second Amendment guaranteed rights for the “chil-rens.”

    ReplyReply
  11. Tom says: 11

    @Nan G:

    You didn’t answer my question, Nan. You’re just making excuses for the NRA and their idiotic and dishonest ad campaign. The security of the First Family is a national security issue, not a gun control issue.

    The NRA simply pointed out the vacuousness of Obama’s 23 gun control sideshow ideas by making it clear all 23 wouldn’t save one child’s life in a ”gun free” school.

    No, that’s not what they’re doing, Nan. They’re trying to leverage the personal hatred and animosity on the Right that already exists against Obama and (they’re gambling) his wife and children. They obviously feel that people such as yourself are consumed with jealousy towards “elites” like Obama. That’s how little the NRA thinks of you. They can’t even advance a sophisticated and honest gun control argument. It’s just easier for them to stoke the irrational hatred that already exists.

    So tell me, Nan, since you’ve dismissed all of Obama’s executive orders, what is it exactly that you have against the CDC doing research on gun violence? We’ve all been using their figures for weeks now to debate the impact of guns, so in what world does less information on an important topic help us to make rational decisions? Of course we all know the NRA has been been very successfully fighting this type of research for years. You’re a smart person. Tell me, Nan, since the NRA’s position is that guns are not dangerous, that they should be treated the same as fluffy pillows, why would they fight research that, if they are correct, should validate their argument?

    ReplyReply
  12. Hard Right says: 12

    “nearly 80 percent of guns used in crimes are obtained on this secondary market.”

    Per LA Times article citing Ludwig’s study:
    “…80% or more bought their weapons in ways that bypassed background checks”
    So the assumption made in the article and by Tom is that they were bought in legal, private sales. So that means if they bought the gun from someone who burglarized a house, THAT would have bypassed backround checks.
    BTW, Ludwig is known to be an anti-gun crusader so I wouldn’t place too much stock in his “studies”.
    Oh, and that 40% quote about sales and gun shows is bogus.

    http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-guns-analysis-20130117,0,6724821.story

    ReplyReply
  13. kevino says: 13

    Gov. Chris Christie blasted the NRA ad: ” “They’ve got real issues to debate on this topic. Get to the real issues. Don’t be dragging peoples’ children into this. It’s wrong.”

    Hey, Governor, take a look at President Obama’s human shields, and then let’s talk.

    I think that the NRA ad is fair because it points out the obvious hypocrisy of not supporting more armed guards in schools while relying on armed guards for their own kids. And it goes beyond that. Look at the celebrities that have armed guards or own guns themselves, who tell the public, “No one needs a gun to protect themselves”. For example, notice that we haven’t heard much from Rosie O’Donnell in this debate, even though she lives in CT (or used to). For years she used to scream against gun owners — until the day it was revealed that her body guards had CT pistol permits. That shut her up pretty fast.

    What’s really sad about this is how pathetic the statist ideas of the modern Liberals really are. They can’t come up with a good argument to re-instate the AW ban, because it didn’t work. So they rely on an emotional response to a tragedy.

    Pathetic.

    ReplyReply
  14. Tom says: 14

    @kevino:

    I think that the NRA ad is fair because it points out the obvious hypocrisy of not supporting more armed guards in schools while relying on armed guards for their own kids.

    One of the executive orders is to create incentives for schools to hire resource officers. It’s interesting that the Right seems to favor instead the NRA’s suggestion that Congress mandate armed guards in every school. What is the more “Stalinist” approach, I wonder, creating incentives for school districts to locally decide to do something on their own, or Federally mandating armed guards in every town in America? Apparently many on the Right are willing to happily fly in the face of their most cherished principles as long as the NRA is leading the charge.

    ReplyReply
  15. kevino says: 15

    @Tom:

    I’m not Nan G, but I’ll adress of couple of your “issues”:

    RE: “The security of the First Family is a national security issue, not a gun control issue.”
    The fact that the First Family is protected by armed Secret Service is hardly news. Get a grip. Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy is a valid point. You’re reaction is irrational and isn’t supported by any facts.

    RE: “What is it exactly that you have against the CDC doing research on gun violence?”
    Because the CDC needs to focus on diseases and not on pseudo-science. Because recent events shows that the CDC needs to focus on public health issues that are driven by actual diseases. Because they used to do it, and they did a lousy job, cooking up silly studies they didn’t help.

    RE: “Since the NRA’s position is that guns are not dangerous, that they should be treated the same as fluffy pillows, why would they fight research that, if they are correct, should validate their argument?”
    Strawman.

    ——–

    Here is what President Obama failed to do: he failed to instruct the Attorney General to prosecute existing law. He issued an Executive Order to ask the AG to ask the AAGs what they’d suggest, but that so lame it’s on crutches.

    More research is not needed. The way to reduce gun violence dramatically is to get guns out of the hands of criminals, and you can’t do that by controlling gun sales as they can be stolen, sold through strawmen, or imported. The way to do it is to increase the risks associated with criminals carrying and using guns so that it doesn’t make sense to have them or to lock up those who do. This was proven in New York and Boston, where they broke the backs of gangs. This was how they used to keep gun violence under control in the UK: cops went to greater lengths to find criminals who used firearms, and the criminals got longer sentences. And yet the overwhelming majority of murders with firearms are done by felons.

    In 2009, the last year we have statistics, the number of people prosecuted for lying on the background check form when buying a gun was, I think, 77. That’s it.

    The penalty for a felon in possession of a firearm is ten years. They are easy cases to win. All you need is probable cause for a search, an identification, and that’s it. A politician from Chicago said the other day that they confiscate 7200 guns a year. The streets of Chicago have a terrible murder rate, and yet I can’t even find the number of federal prosecutions for the state. The number for the entire country is only a few thousand.

    Putting away felons with firearms for ten years or more is a great idea. It doesn’t tread on the rights of citizens, doesn’t require new laws, and is very effective.

    ReplyReply
  16. retire05 says: 16

    @Tom:

    You didn’t answer my question, Nan. You’re just making excuses for the NRA and their idiotic and dishonest ad campaign.

    While you make excuses for Obama using not only his children, but the children of others, for political gain. Ah, but you’re different, right, because you are liberal minded?

    The security of the First Family is a national security issue, not a gun control issue.

    So you are saying that the children of Obama hold more value than the kid that lives in the Chicago ghetto because of the accident of their birth? I think millions of parents would argue that point with you.

    They’re trying to leverage the personal hatred and animosity on the Right that already exists against Obama and (they’re gambling) his wife and children. They obviously feel that people such as yourself are consumed with jealousy towards “elites” like Obama.

    Wow! This coming from someone who supports a party that excels in jealousy toward “elites”. Remember those evil one percenters that your party is always railing on? Nah, no jealously there, right? Nevermind that you seem to fail to even understand why the NRA was started to begin with. Can’t let them darkies have weapons to protect themselves, right?

    Now, perhaps others have been using the CDC as a reference, but for myself, I have used the FBI stats which are based in fact, not liberal feel good opinions. And where did the CDC get their “facts?” Gee, perhaps from the FBI?

    since the NRA’s position is that guns are not dangerous, that they should be treated the same as fluffy pillows,

    Actually, unless put into action by human activity, a gun is no more dangerous than a fluffy pillow, which can be used to smother someone to death. It is not the gun, but the actions of a person, that can be dangerous. Timothy McVeigh murdered lots of people without the use of a gun. But who got punished because of his actions? Ordinary citizens, farmers and ranchers, who now have to sign for common fertilizers , purchased in the amounts that it takes to fertilize a normal hay field, because of the actions of a criminal mind. Progress, as implemented by progressives like yourself, punish the law abiding while doing nothing to address the criminals.

    ReplyReply
  17. Tom says: 17

    @kevino:

    The fact that the First Family is protected by armed Secret Service is hardly news. Get a grip. Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy is a valid point. You’re reaction is irrational and isn’t supported by any facts.

    You’re missing the point. The security Obama and his family receive isn’t by personal choice, it comes with the job. It has nothing to do with gun control or his views on that topic. Is he supposed to refuse the protection to satisfy your illogical application of his gun contr0l views to the protocols of his position? Furthermore, please point out one instance where Obama said he didn’t want a person to own a gun to protect his family. Good luck with that.

    Because the CDC needs to focus on diseases and not on pseudo-science.

    Statistical analysis isn’t pseudo-science, and the CDC reports and does research on many causes of death that are not disease-related. You’re advocating for ignorance as a shield to protect your personal interests. If you have valid arguments, what is the fear regarding the facts surrounding gun injuries and deaths?

    The way to reduce gun violence dramatically is to get guns out of the hands of criminals, and you can’t do that by controlling gun sales as they can be stolen, sold through strawmen, or imported.

    Talk about a strawman. Stating that a law cannot be 100% effective is not a valid argument against a law. If it was, there would be no laws left to speak of. Should we not outlaw assault because the law itself cannot stop some assaults from occurring? Ridiculous. It’s absolutely nonsense to say that background checks would not create a significant barrier for criminals and the mentally unfit to acquire guns, and that’s the point.

    ReplyReply
  18. johngalt says: 18

    @Tom:

    Furthermore, please point out one instance where Obama said he didn’t want a person to own a gun to protect his family. Good luck with that.

    One needs to go no further back than Obama’s time in the Illinois State Senate to find such a case, Tom.

    In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar’s case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession.

    The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20.

    Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

    The case came about because of a man, living in Chicago, where owning and keeping a handgun in your home was banned by Chicago law, used his “illegal” handgun to protect his family, in his home. The man was arrested on illegal weapons charges, for protecting his family, in his home.

    But that wasn’t the end of Obama’s “statement” on owning a gun to protect your family;

    After passing the Illinois House by an overwhelming majority of 86-25, the measure went to the desk of the now-imprisoned Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who vetoed it.

    On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich’s veto.

    Again, Obama acted against the bill, voting with the 18 that wanted to sustain the governor’s veto.

    On Nov. 17, 2004, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor’s veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.

    Twice Obama voted against the idea that a gun owner has the right to protect him/her self and their family, in their home. Twice Obama stated, by his vote, that you do not have the right to protect yourself or your family, in your home.

    ReplyReply
  19. Hard Right says: 19

    They’re trying to leverage the personal hatred and animosity on the Right that already exists against Obama and (they’re gambling) his wife and children.

    This from someone who has shown outright bigotry towards firearms owners.
    As for the CDC, the studies were advocacy junk science at it’s worst which was being used to push for more gun control. So I guess you’d be ok with the government doing such a thing to justify abortion restrictions then.

    ReplyReply
  20. johngalt says: 20

    @Tom:

    The security Obama and his family receive isn’t by personal choice, it comes with the job.

    Sure, just like NY Governor Cuomo’s protection “comes with the job”, or numerous Cabinet officials, or Governor’s of other States, etc.

    The point being made is that while Obama and others are “enjoying” personal protection, whether it comes with the job or not, liberal/progressives are basically telling the common citizens that they have no right, or limited rights, to even a portion of that kind of protection for them and their families. That is what the NRA is trying to say in their ad, Tom.

    I’d suggest that if you are angry about the NRA using children in their ad to advance their ideas, that you should be, at the very least, angry with Obama for using children to advance his ideas. You cannot excuse the actions of one group while condemning the actions of another group, just because the first group happens to think along the same lines as you, yourself, do.

    ReplyReply
  21. Hard Right says: 21

    It should also be pointed out obama persued the job and knew what he was getting into security wise.

    ReplyReply
  22. Nan G says: 22

    Tom,
    One thing.
    In Utah, where I am in process of moving, anyone who has a concealed carry permit (5% of Utah’s adult population, btw) has the RIGHT to be on ANY school campus with his loaded weapon.
    Anyone.
    So, their school children are as safe as the Sidwell Friends School school children WHETHER OR NOT a president has his kids in there.

    MY point is that SIDWELL has ITS OWN 11 people armed on staff.
    All schools should be as safe.

    ReplyReply
  23. Smorgasbord says: 23

    @johngalt: #18
    He doesn’t want us to protect ourselves against his planned civilian security force.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

    ReplyReply
  24. kevino says: 24

    RE: “You’re missing the point. The security Obama and his family receive isn’t by personal choice, it comes with the job.”
    Totally irrelevant to your idea that calling attention to it was a “national security matter”. That it “came with the job” wasn’t a point you made at all.

    The hypocrisy is in plain sight, and is a good parallel to other examples I gave.

    RE: “Statistical analysis isn’t pseudo-science, and the CDC reports and does research on many causes of death that are not disease-related.”
    Sure it is, because many “researchers” can’t seem to get over treating correlation with cause-and-effect.

    History is on my side: the CDC used to do this, and they embarrassed themselves.

    RE: “Stating that a law cannot be 100% effective…”
    I didn’t say that. The biggest bang for buck is to attack the real problem: criminals. And I explained how. And I can’t help but notice that you didn’t even begin to counter what I would propose as an alternative. Clearly, anyone with common sense knows what works.

    Laws without law enforcement are useless.

    As to my statement, “you can’t do that by controlling gun sales as they can be stolen, sold through strawmen, or imported.”
    Number of thefts each year involving one or more firearms is about 150,000.
    Sales through stawman purchases is huge, and involves several notorious crimes including Columbine and the recent shooting of firemen in NY. Number of lies we know about on form 4473 in 2012 (i.e. applications denied): 72,600
    If we wave a magic wand and make all the firearms disappear, we’ll create a new black market.
    How many weapons will be smuggled into the country? How many tons of heroin are smuggled every year?

    And what good is adding to the background check system when the people caught committing a crime aren’t prosecuted?
    Number of background check denials in 2010: 76,142
    Number of ATF cases from those denials: 4,732
    Number of times the firearm was retrieved: 1,164
    Number of prosecutions: 62

    Why, it’s almost as if this administration is trying to create an environment where criminals are free to do whatever they want while citizens bear the burden.

    Sort of like “Gun Free” zones that aren’t enforced or defended. It’s a restriction on honest people. Criminals see it as a good supply of helpless victims.

    ReplyReply
  25. kevino says: 25

    By the way, Matt Welch, editor for Reason magazine, has a good article out today: “White House Gun Policy: Like Ignorant Emotional Appeals From 8-Year-Olds”

    URL: http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/18/white-house-gun-policy-like-ignorant-emo

    It really has come to this: The president and vice president of the United States are trotting out the emotional appeals of ill-informed elementary school children in order to sell the administration’s emotional, ill-informed policy response to the Sandy Hook school shooting. Is there a word that combines embarrassing, grotesque, unseemly, and kind of cute? Well, that would describe this campaign.

    . . .

    It is bad enough to make hasty and inappropriate legislation in the name of dead kids. It is bad enough to constantly formulate and sell policy via individual anecdote. It’s bad enough to draft pre-Tween children for the purposes of political propaganda. But all three at once? The word that comes to mind is infantile.

    ReplyReply
  26. Nan G says: 26

    @kevino: It is bad enough to make hasty and inappropriate legislation in the name of dead kids. It is bad enough to constantly formulate and sell policy via individual anecdote. It’s bad enough to draft pre-Tween children for the purposes of political propaganda. But all three at once? The word that comes to mind is infantile.

    You remember who Obama’s MAIN speechwriter is, don’t you?
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2008/12/06/favreaujonwashpost44.jpg
    Yup, that’s Obama’s chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau, groping a cardboard cutout of the administration’s secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
    A drunken lout.
    So, what can you expect?

    ReplyReply
  27. Tom says: 27

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-a-slashing-nra-ad-on-security-at-sidwell-friends-school/2013/01/16/95b2127a-6032-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html

    Note that Obama said he was skeptical that armed guards were the “only answer,” not that he was skeptical of the idea. Indeed, in the package of gun-control proposals he unveiled on Wednesday, he called on Congress to help schools hire more guards or other school resource officers.
    “Each school is different and should have the flexibility to address its most pressing needs,” the White House said. “Some schools will want trained and armed police; others may prefer increased counseling services.”
    So the frame of hypocrisy is already a bit misshapen. But what about the claim that Sidwell Friends has 11 armed guards, which some Web sites have depicted with images of armed police with binoculars?
    This is based on the fact that the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department. Five are listed as “special police officer,” while two are listed as “on call special police officer,” which presumably means they do not work full-time. The directory also lists two weekend shift supervisors, one security officer and the chief of security.
    Under the District of Columbia General Order 308.7, a special police officer is a private commissioned police officer with arrest powers in the area that he or she protects. They may also be authorized to bear firearms — but it is not required. Security officers, by contrast, cannot carry firearms and in effect are watchmen. So five to seven security personnel in theory could be licensed to carry firearms.
    But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.” (Note: this includes those listed as special police officers.)

    ReplyReply
  28. retire05 says: 28

    @Tom:

    This is based on the fact that the online directory for Sidwell Friends lists 11 people as working in the Security Department.

    Obviously, both you and the Washington [Com]post think people are stupid. Any Secret Service Agents assigned to Sidwell would a) not be listed on Sidwell’s list of school employees including security personnel because b) they are not paid for by the school, but rather the American taxpayer and c) because they are considered FEDERAL employees, not Sidwell employees. The names of Secret Service agents assigned to either the President, or his family, are never, NEVER released to the general public.

    Major fail, Tom.

    But thanks to the Washingon [Com]post’s desire to try to play patty cake with this administration, and smear the NRA at the same time, now any kook who thinks he can kidnap the President’s kids knows how many security personnel Sidwell employs.

    ReplyReply
  29. Hard Right says: 29

    tom, you are a hysterical POS bigot when it comes to firearms ownership.
    Your arguments are weak and hypocritical.
    Maybe someday you’ll realize that. I doubt it tho. You’re too in love with yourself like all other leftists.
    You justify your fascism by saying it’s the right thing to do. It’s for the children. It’s to save lives. Bullsh*t. I know a psychologist that would call you a “selfless narcissist.-Dr.Sanity. She’s right too.

    So tell us tom, why are we and our children less deserving of the protections obama and his children have?
    Why do you want a system where some people have special privileges over others? THAT is what you are pushing for.

    ReplyReply
  30. oil guy from Alberta says: 30

    Look at the actions of your snotty nose red haired little brother up north. Canada had severe gun control for about 20 years. Violent crimes increased and minority suburbs, in Toronto for example, were becoming a Chicago or Detroit. Its very easy to obtain hand guns from the States. Harper used the garbage can on most ineffective gun laws and ended up thinning out useless bureaucrats. Politicians trying to justify their positions cost the taxpayer some 8 to 9 billion dollars. What did I do? My two sons own a 50 cal sniper rifle and I helped them in their proficiency. Neighbors know this, and there is no tresspassing, vandalism or thefts in our neighboring area. We have the right to protect ourselves.

    ReplyReply
  31. Tom says: 31

    @johngalt:

    You cannot excuse the actions of one group while condemning the actions of another group, just because the first group happens to think along the same lines as you, yourself, do.

    Fair point. The lack of one condemnation of the NRA commercial on this board is telling indeed.

    However, I would suggest there is simply no comparison between the two. The worst thing that can be said about Obama inviting children to his executive order signing is that it’s crass, or politically manipulative (not of the children, of the national audience). The flip side is that it’s an apt symbolic gesture. There’s simply no getting around the fact that massacre of those children at Newtown is the catalyst for this current national debate on gun control.

    What good spin can you put on the NRA ad using Obama’s children to attack the President and stir up resentment against his family? Is there no line that won’t be crossed? It’s a disgusting ad period, and I think the NRA leadership are clearly vile and delusional people to even think for a moment a normal person wouldn’t react to it in disgust. I don’t personally know one person who hasn’t, but then again I don’t know a lot of Far-Right anti-government militia members either.

    ReplyReply
  32. Tom says: 32

    @kevino:

    You seem to be under the impression that I don’t think laws should be enforced. Where did that come from? Again, you are conflating two different things, law enforcement and legislation. We don’t decide not to legislate because existing laws are, in your personal estimation, not well enforced.

    While you’ve brought up some fair related points, you’ve failed to directly address why a law enforcing universal background checks is a bad idea. This is because there really is no way to attack the idea other than to simply state you are in favor of criminals or the mentally disturbed buying guns as easily as possible. This is the NRA’s position, so you have plenty of company, but like the NRA, you apparently can’t just state what you believe. You have to redirect the conversation to other issues. The NRA’s mission is to facilitate the sales of as many weapons as possible, thereby serving their main source of funding, the gun industry. That is crystal clear. Look at their stance on every issue and the underlying impetus or result is gun sales. Everything they say in service of that goal is just marketing, and they are great marketers. They’ve got nearly half the country believing they need an arsenal to protect themselves when there’s simply no data to support that. They’ve got nearly half the country hating and fearing their own government when there’s simply no data to support any of the militia black helicopter fantasies. Meanwhile mountains of evidence relating to gun violence are conveniently ignored. More Americans have been killed by guns than by all our wars and terrorism combined, yet people think background checks intended to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people are a bad idea. It’s baffling really.

    ReplyReply
  33. retire05 says: 33

    @Tom:

    However, I would suggest there is simply no comparison between the two. The worst thing that can be said about Obama inviting children to his executive order signing is that it’s crass, or politically manipulative (not of the children, of the national audience).

    And has been done by every dictator in the history of mankind. Ignore that Hilter established the “It’s for the children” rule in abolishing freedom, but it is still applicable no matter how much you want to excuse Obama’s actions.

    The flip side is that it’s an apt symbolic gesture.

    How so? How is the use of children, all under the age of 10, an apt gesture to push what is clearly a political agenda? Would you be so cavalier about a Republican lining up little kids to push fewer gun laws?

    There’s simply no getting around the fact that massacre of those children at Newtown is the catalyst for this current national debate on gun control.

    Yet, for more than one year, the Obama administration has refused to even discuss the number of children murdered in his own home town of Chicago. What is the difference now that so many children were killed in just one day compared to the number of children murdered in Chicago in just one month? Does that make the murder of those Chicago children less of a “crisis” for Obama to exploit?

    The NRA message was clear; Obama supports security for his children, but not yours, just as he supports private school educations for his children, but not the ghetto children of D.C.

    How hypocritical of you to be part of a party that rails on the one percenters, while supporting the most hypocritical one percenter in the nation. But then, that is the Democrat Party guideline, isn’t it?

    ReplyReply
  34. retire05 says: 34

    @Tom:

    Tom, it is clear you are a hypocrite. Now why go ahead and display that you are also painfully uninformed, especially about the NRA, with your blathering?

    ReplyReply
  35. Tom says: 35

    @Tom:
    (cont.)

    I find it fascinating that members of the NRA are supporting a lobbying group who in many respects, particularly safety, lobby directly against their members personal interests. For every child who died in Newtown, how many children of NRA members have died in preventable gun accidents? Hundreds? Thousands? (The reason that question cannot be definitively answered is, of course, the NRA’s fight against scientific research related to guns.) When has the NRA ever pushed manufactures to make their products more safe on behalf of NRA members who buy guns? Can anyone provide a single example of the NRA siding with its individual members against its corporate interests? The technology is out there to make guns safer, and to make accidents less likely to happen, but the NRA has no interest in that, because it isn’t in the financial interests of their true masters, gun manufactures. You cannot compare the safety of cars now with the safety of cars 25 years ago, and that’s because car manufactures have been pressured to improve safety regardless of the cost involved. Guns, on the other hand, have not been made safer, regardless of the means to do so.

    ReplyReply
  36. retire05 says: 36

    @Tom:

    So, according to you, if we just up the technology to make guns safer, the criminals won’t figure that technology out?

    And you’re right, we can’t compare the safety of cars today to those of 25 years ago. Twenty-five years ago, cars were heavier, not the Reynold’s Wrap rice burners they are now, and people stood a better chance of surviving an auto accident.

    More idiot thinking from a left winger.

    ReplyReply
  37. Tom says: 37

    @Tom:
    (cont.)

    How should we view the reaction on the Right to the very idea of sensible gun control measures within the context of the “dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self-identify with the far-right of American politics”, as the extremely troubling new West Point report “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right” describes it? Is it not legitimate to wonder for what exact purposes many on the Right need assault rifles?

    There are three major ideological movements within the American violent far right: a
    racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.
    ….
    Violence derived from the modern anti-federalist movement appeared in full force only
    in the early to mid-1990s and is interested in undermining the influence, legitimacy and effective sovereignty of the federal government and its proxy organizations. The antifederalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a
    natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights.
    Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the antifederalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.

    (sound familiar anyone?)
    ….
    As can be seen, while there are variations over the years, the overall trend is very clear:
    from the early 1990s until 2008 there has been a clear increase in the number of attacks.

    Fourteen of the 21 years covered in this analysis witnessed more attacks than the
    previous year. Although in the 1990s the average number of attacks per year was 70.1,
    the average number of attacks per year in the first 11 years of the twenty-first century
    was 307.5, a rise of more than 400%.
    Other initial insights can be extracted from the data. To begin with, presidential election
    years and the preceding year are characterized by an increase of far-right violence.

    ….
    These findings suggest that, in general, far-right groups and individuals are more
    inclined to engage in violence in a contentious political climate.

    ….
    Table 1 provides several insights into the dynamic of far-right violence. First, three
    clusters of events facilitated its rise: the Supreme Court decisions against segregation in
    the education system; the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the anti-gun legislation of
    1993—1994.

    ….
    The Militias and the Christian Identity groups are also more prominent in terms of their
    use of firearms and explosives.
    Whereas this is understandable in the case of the
    Militias as they are striving to employ paramilitary characteristics, it is not initially clear
    why this is the case with the Identity groups. Two explanations may be suggested. First,
    as posited by some scholars, the stronger the group’s agenda is framed in religious and
    totalistic ideas, the more it will be willing or determined to use exceptionally lethal
    tactics. The growing literature on the new terrorism is particularly supportive of the
    notion that the last three decades have witnessed not just the rise of religious terrorism,
    but of more spectacular tactics which aim to maximize the number of casualties, and
    that these two trends are causally linked.

    ReplyReply
  38. retire05 says: 38

    @Tom:

    Well, since you want to abdicate the guarantees of the Second Amendment, let’s go after all the Amendments, shall we? Take that First Amendment, which guarantees your right to stand on a soap box in front of City Hall, and spout any radical, left wing crap you want. Let’s limit your right to do that. After all, people may be harmed by what you say. You might rail on Catholics, your neighbor believes what you say, and he finds a couple of Catholics to poison. And let’s limit fools like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who hire armed guards, but say things that are detrimental to conservatives. People should be able to press charges against any left wing kook like Piers Morgan, that publically humiliates someone else. Yeah, that’s it; limit Morgan’s First Amendment rights because, after all, the things he says are harmful to someone else. Never mind that he’s as big a hypocrite as you are, Tom.

    How about that Fourth Amendment. With all the auto accidents in this country, you should have to get permission to be able to start the engine of your car from a police officer. No exceptions. We want to make sure you are not having a bad day, had maybe a beer or two, yeah, blood testing you for EVERYTHING before you can drive the vehicle you purchased, and own, just might (might, I say) save a life. Let’s make sure that a police officer can stop you for any reason, and ask for your I.D. After all, you just might be up to no good. No reason to take a chance, is there? The police should be able to pat you down, just to make sure you are not in possession of anything illegal. After all, that Fourth Amendment is sooooooo outdated, isn’t it?

    They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a
    natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights.

    Well, golly gee, we should all be shaking in our boots over those American citizens who think our government is corrupt. Hello? Solyndra? Tryannical? Ask religious organizations like the Catholic Church that is being forced to go against their religious tenets because of a Marxist president and his hencewoman, Kathleen Sebelius. Invade your civil rights? You mean like how the TSA agents stick their hands down your underwear because some idiot leftwinger believes it keeps you safe?

    BTW, your link locked up my computer. If I show up with a virus, I know exactly who to blame.

    So Tommy Boy, I want you to put your money where your mouth is; you want to abdicate the Second Amendment, then abdicate your First Amendment rights and STFU.

    One other thing; it chaps my ass royally that the American taxpayer is forced to pay for crap like this study by Arie Perlinger. Not to mention that it comes from the Counter Terrorism department at West Point. Remind me again who it was that murdered, MURDERED, almost three thousand Americans in just a couple of hours and this idiot wants to worry about those of us who thinks our government is more corrupt as it ever has been in the entire history of our nation?

    But hey, Purlinger made sure that everyone understood that he supports the “liberal” approach to goverment, because after all, they are more genteel.

    ReplyReply
  39. Tom says: 39

    @Tom:

    (cont.)

    More than one thousand Americans have been killed by guns since the Newtown massacre. That’s 1/3 the number of people killed on 9/11. We invaded two countries, fought two wars over 9/11, yet the idea of universal background checks seems too extreme to many Americans as a reaction to the continuing carnage of guns in America. Amazing.

    ReplyReply
  40. retire05 says: 40

    @Tom:

    Just keep posting your left wing sites and your clap trap. Nevermind that your link refers to those as “killed.” How many of those were gangbanger murders that Obama doesn’t seem too damn concerned about (especially in his own home town) or suicides?

    Tommy Boy, you’re beyond help. Move to Cuba.

    ReplyReply
  41. retire05 says: 41

    Hey, Tommy Boy, how many lives were saved with the use of a firearm?

    Or do you only intend to present your distorted stats about gun use?

    You don’t want a logical debate. Your sole purpose is to sling sh!t. But guess what? Your side of the aisle is going to push and push and push until Americans start pushing back.

    ReplyReply
  42. Tom says: 42

    @Tom:
    (cont.)

    Hypothetical: An irrational and ignorant (not to mention desperate) response to my posts might be to describe West Point as “left wing”.

    ReplyReply
  43. retire05 says: 43

    @Tom:

    Why don’t you discuss the woman that saved her life, and the lives of her twins, when she shot a burglar with her .38 just recently? Or the pharmacist that saved his life, and the life of his mother who was shot in the leg, when he shot the robbers that had shot his mother?

    You want to talk about only the bad. And you refuse to answer any questions. That is why I know you are insincere about wanting any logical/rational discussion about firearms.

    Hypothetical: An irrational and ignorant (not to mention desperate) response to my posts might be to describe West Point as “left wing”.

    God, you’re pathetic. You can’t even be honest about what I said. I never said West Point was “left wing.” And you know it. Dishonesty, that is all you can deal in, just like the rest of your Marxist party members. I mean, you gotta love the hypocracy of Dianne Feinstein who said “Mr. and Mrs. America; turn them (guns) all in.” while she personally holds a concealed carry permit. But you will continue to back liars and frauds like Feinstein because you are nothing more than a programmable sheep.

    ReplyReply
  44. retire05 says: 44

    Tom, thanks for the fun of yanking your chain like the trained monkey you are, but let’s see if you can support your anti-Second Amendment agenda by answering a couple of reasonable questions.

    If we assume that everyone of Obama’s 23 executive orders withstand the legal challenges that will certainly be brought against them, how do they facilitate a reduction in crime and murders committed with the use of a firearm? How will any of those 23 executive orders ever prevent another Columbine/Aurora theater/Sandy Hook massacre?

    Are you willing to forfeit your right of privacy via interaction with your personal physician, giving the government the right to know all your most private medical history?

    ReplyReply
  45. Tom says: 45

    @Tom:
    (cont.)

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/how-many-people-got-shot-gun-appreciation-day-rallies/61192/

    You would think a national “Gun Appreciation Day” would go off without a hitch and no one would get shot, right? Wrong.

    There were three different shootings at different rallies that took place all across the country today. Organizers were trying to get people out to show their support for the second amendment in the face of the President’s new gun control initiatives.

    In Raleigh, North Carolina a 12-gauge shotgun went off while the owner was unzipping it from its case to show a security officer at a safety checkpoint. Two people were injured, but their injuries are not life-threatening, WTVD TV reports. Tally: two people shot.

    In Indianapolis, Indiana a man was walking back to his car after attending a Gun Appreciation Day rally and loading his semi-automatic pistol when he shot himself in the hand, WISH TV reports. Tally: three people shot.

    In Medina, Ohio the details are a bit sketchier. We only know that a vendor at one of the rally booths was handling a loaded gun when he accidentally shot himself, according to ABC 5. The extent of his injuries are currently unknown. Final tally: four people were shot during Gun Appreciation Day.

    Rallies in locales like West Virginia and Florida went off without a hitch. Great job, guys.

    ReplyReply
  46. Tom says: 46

    http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/01/lets-get-the-facts-to-defeat-gun-violence.html

    Gun control is no exception. Unfortunately, though, the entire subject is plagued by misinformation and ignorance. It isn’t just a matter of gun nuts denying the obvious: countries with lots of guns, such as the U.S., have lots of gun violence. It goes well beyond that. To the enormous benefit of gun lobbyists and armaments manufacturers, and to the great detriment of the public interest, many basic facts about the proliferation of firearms, and its effects on American society, remain obscured or unavailable.

    How many guns are there in the United States? Nobody knows for sure. (Estimates vary from two hundred and fifty million to more than three hundred million.) Who owns all these weapons? Nobody can say. Unlike in many other advanced countries, there is no national registry of gun owners. Outside of states like New York and Connecticut, which require handgun permits, there aren’t even any local records. Does owning a gun really make you safer? Hard to know. A study done twenty years ago suggested it didn’t. Since then, though, the federal government has largely stopped sponsoring such research. What types of guns are used in violent crimes? Again, our answers are partly guesswork. While many local police forces record the weapons used in individual crimes, and some states, such as California, collate the figures, there isn’t a proper national database.

    ….

    One important step that Obama took was lifting an effective freeze on federally financed research into the causes and effects of gun violence. During the eighties and early nineties, numerous studies of this nature were carried out under the auspices of the Centers for Disease Control —and they generated some fascinating facts, such as the finding that households with guns were three times more likely to have homicides and five times more likely to have suicides than homes without guns. Not surprisingly, the gun lobby didn’t like this research agenda, and, through its agents in Congress, it put pressure on C.D.C. officials to withdraw its funding. “Basically, they’ve been terrorized by the N.R.A.,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who headed the C.D.C.’s Center for Injury Prevention and Control from 1994 to 1999, told NBC News

    ReplyReply
  47. retire05 says: 47

    @Tom:

    In Raleigh, North Carolina Tally: two people shot.
    In Indianapolis, Indiana Tally: three people shot.
    In Medina, Ohio the details are a bit sketchier. We only know that a vendor at one of the rally booths was handling a loaded gun when he accidentally shot himself,

    Final tally: four people were shot during Gun Appreciation Day.

    Let’s see; two, three and one. And that comes to “four” people who were shot during Gun Appreciation Day? Ummm, perhaps you should start reading articles where the author can at least count just by taking one shoe off, or has a better understand of writing composition.

    And your point is? No one died, yet four, or maybe six, people were shot. And how many died yesterday because of cars? Actually DIED? How many people were murdered by illegal aliens yesterday? How did they die? Were they bludgened to death with a hammer, fists, feet, baseball bat, or other weapon that seems acceptable to you left wing nutcases?

    ReplyReply
  48. FAITH7 says: 48

    These kids look mighty ‘clean cut’ – nice touch – just sayin’ Who did they say they represent again ??? My, My… the Hypocrisy!!! It is SOOO Rich!! [sarc]

    Wasn’t there citizens in [what became] communist countries who thought before, during, and after “that tyranny and totalitarianism could never happen in their country”… During and After people of same countries were in DENIAL atrocities were even happening because their heads were stuck so far up their arses???

    The same DENIERS are living in the US of A….They even write comments DEFENDING the Government for abusing the CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS….

    If these people are DEFENDING the Anti-Gun Crowd and truly believe the Straw Man Oooh scary word “Assault” Weapons are the “Problem” and if we just get rid of, or decrease the amount of rounds a “so Called Assault Weapon” can fire then everything is going to be honky dory…. NOT!!

    And I would seriously have to label these same people Socialists, Communists and traitors….

    BTW – Any “object” used which can cause great bodily harm against a human being is an “Assault Weapon” a Pitch Fork can be considered an ‘Assault Weapon’…But pitch forks were not useful against Stalin and his regime in the Ukraine when the Ukrainians were forced to give up their guns and the business of plunder, slave labor, murder, starvation, torture became a fixture in his regime… Millions upon Millions of innocent people [Including CHILDREN] died…

    So don’t be pissing on me and tell me its raining…Plenty of us are paying attention I know the Government [via Liberal Education] is working on it but we are not all brainwashed….there are actually plenty of us who actually know our History [the good and the bad]….and many have seen up front and personal the Effects European/Russian/Middle East/Germany and other Countries when tyranny – totalitarianism – communism and dictatorships takes hold… ESPECIALLY AGAINST AN UNARMED POPULATION unable to DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST SUCH A GOVERNMENT…!!

    …This is not the Coat Tails the United States should be riding on…as I see bull shit comparisons [to Europe +++ ..as if...] all the time…

    We are the United States of America for a dam good reason….!!!

    Does anyone believe the people of the Ukraine Ever Thought That Would Happen To Them??

    ReplyReply
  49. kevino says: 49

    @Tom:

    RE: “You seem to be under the impression that I don’t think laws should be enforced. Where did that come from? Again, you are conflating two different things, law enforcement and legislation. We don’t decide not to legislate because existing laws are, in your personal estimation, not well enforced.”

    I’m pointing out that the administration that you blindly support is not enforcing existing law. It is their choice. President Obama is responsible for the actions of the Attorney General. If tens of thousands of

    Hopefully you realize how incredibly silly the argument is that starts with: “We must take action, right now, to stem the tide of blood flowing in our streets, but the action that we must take is to write new laws, even if enforcing existing laws as proven very effective it reducing violent crime, and even if one of the laws being proposed is a repeat of a law we had for ten years that didn’t do any good. If thousands of felons can be prosecuted, but only a few dozen actually are, then that’s stupidity on a massive scale or part of a conscientious decision. Similarly, if the path to safer streets and far fewer violent crimes come from prosecuting felons in possession of firearms — before they commit murder — then why not do it? Again, either the Administration is stupid or they believe that it is in their best interests to continue to allow the mayhem to continue.

    RE: “While you’ve brought up some fair related points, you’ve failed to directly address why a law enforcing universal background checks is a bad idea. This is because there really is no way to attack the idea other than to simply state you are in favor of criminals or the mentally disturbed buying guns as easily as possible.”

    I never said anything anything about “universal background checks”. I went after the other silly things you said.

    My objections include:
    1. If liberals won’t enforce the laws we have, the new law will be another control on honest people while ignoring violent criminals.
    2. The overwhelming majority of the violence involves handguns. (There are were more people killed by hammers than assault weapons in prior years.)
    3. Criminals get almost none of their guns through normal purchase-and-sale agreements. Therefore, even if this was taken away, they clearly have over means. From Snyder’s “A Nation of Cowards”: ” According to Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) statistics, fully 90 percent of violent crimes are committed without a handgun, and 93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through the lawful purchase and sale transactions that are the object of most gun control legislation.”

    What, exactly, is meant by “universal background checks”? If it means that firearms manufacturers cannot sell rifles and shotguns to anyone but an FFL, and if FFLs are ordered to get a NICS check before allowing a purchase of a rifle or shotgun, then that’s legal.

    But that isn’t what’s meant here, is it? Liberals want a world where I have to go through an FFL to sell a shotgun to my neighbor. I don’t see that the Federal government has the authority to write such a law.

    RE: Anti-NRA screed, including this: “The NRA’s mission is to facilitate the sales of as many weapons as possible, thereby serving their main source of funding, the gun industry.”

    Prove it. During the Clinton Administration, the NRA survived a couple of intense audits by the IRS, and somehow the NYTimes got detailed information on their finances. The idea that the NRA doesn’t represent people but is a lobbying organization for firearms manufacturers is a favorite liberal pipe-dream. Their finances tell a different story. And, by the way, look at the some total of the firearms manufacturing industry and the amount of money the civilian market represents. It’s small potatoes.

    RE: And this gem: “They’ve got half the country hating and fearing their own government when there’s simply no data to support any of the militia black helicopter fantasies.”

    Well, if our government would learn the limits imposed by our Constitution (e.g. what is interstate commerce), they would have a tougher time, wouldn’t they? But gun control is one of those areas that liberals just can’t help themselves. It’s a basic issue where human rights takes a backseat to the Liberals view of the world. As Snyder said in “A Nation of Cowards”:

    Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality, the NRA.
    . . .
    Conservatives must understand that the antipathy many liberals have for gun owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism. This habit of mind has nowhere been better explored than in The Republic. There, Plato argues that the perfectly just society is one in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by minding their own business in the performance of their assigned functions, while the government of philosopher-kings, above the law and protected by armed guardians unquestioning in their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements, and fine-tunes the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths that both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation.
    . . .
    The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable — and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.

    Or, as a wise man once said, “It’s not about guns; it’s about control.”

    ReplyReply
  50. Alvin says: 50

    @Tom:

    So Tom, you agree with my opinion that he was using the children as human political shields. His opponents would be hesitant to attack his failing policy if he surrounded himself with children or puppies?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>